HEBREWS

In the Greek New Testament

Kenneth S Wuest

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No

Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

Dedicated to
William H. Marbach, D.D., my Sunday School teacher when I was a boy—whose Christian life and
testimony exerted a powerful influence over me at that time—for which I shall ever be grateful.

PREFACE
This is not a book simply to be read. It must be studied. It is a detailed exposition of the Greek text of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, making available to the Bible student who does not know Greek the added light
and richness of the original text, resulting in a clearer and more accurate understanding of that book than
he is able to obtain from a study of the standard translation which he is using. Approximately 430 Greek
words are treated in an individual way and, in addition to this, the student is given the benefit of the
author’s study of the Greek text in many places where specific Greek word studies are not presented. For
the most part, these studies are non-technical in their nature. The Greek words studied are given in their
transliterated form for the benefit of those who are conversant with the Greek New Testament. However,
this book does not claim to be a finished treatise on the Greek text of Hebrews, written for the Greek
scholar. It is intended for the Bible student who has little or no knowledge of Greek. Should accomplished
students of Greek happen to dip into its pages, the author asks that they take these facts into consideration
when they form an opinion of this book.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is unique among the New Testament books in that the entire book is
concerned with a situation that obtained in the first century which does not exist today. From this fact
there emerge two necessary requirements having to do with the correct exegesis of this book. The first is
that the exegete must adhere closely to the guidance offered by the historical background and analysis of
the letter. The second is that the basic interpretation of this book must rest upon this historical background
and analysis, and that the application of this basic interpretation must apply only to the first century
conditions. In this case there can be no secondary application for today, since the conditions which existed
then do not obtain today.

However, while the book in its basic interpretation and application is confined to the conditions existent
in the first century, yet it has an important application for the times in which we are living. In days like
these, when Modernism has left its tents and has come out in the open to do battle against the
time-honored orthodox, evangelical school of interpretation, the Book of Hebrews enters the lists,
emphasizing the great fundamental truths of the deity, humanity, and blood atonement of the Lord Jesus.
The Book is crimson with the precious Blood of God’s dear Lamb. It exalts the Lord Jesus in a day when
Modernism seeks to place Him among the prophets of the false religions. The Book of Hebrews offers
another service to the believer today. It makes clear the relationship between the Levitical sacrifices and
their fulfilment in the Lord Jesus and His substitutionary atonement for sin. While the Gospels give the
details of the fulfilment of the Levitical sacrifices in the death of our Lord on the Cross, yet it is left for
the Book of Hebrews to present Him as the High Priest of the believer, in all the glory and richness of the
imagery of the Old Testament. One cannot become familiar with this Book without entering into a new
and deeper appreciation of the Lord Jesus as his Saviour from sin.
Finally, just a suggestion as to how the Bible student should use this book. With his English Bible open,
he should work slowly through the Book of Hebrews, verse by verse, using this book as his guide. He
should first master the contents of the historical background, and become familiar with the analysis of the
book before entering upon the exegetical study of its contents; this, in order that he may follow more
easily along the exegetical path that winds through the mazes of interpretation. He has the help, not only
of the Greek word studies, but also of the expanded translation which bring out details in the original text
that cannot be included in a translation which is held down to a minimum of words. The student is
cautioned not to use this translation as a substitute for the standard version which he is using, but as a
companion translation which will help to make clearer the one which he has before him.
K.S.W.

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LETTER

Any attempt to deal in an adequate way with the Epistle to the Hebrews must be based, not only upon a
careful exegesis of its text in the Greek, but also upon a study of the historical background and an analysis
of the book. All correct exegesis is based upon and checked up by analysis. Analysis is to the exegete
what a compass is to a mariner, or a radio beam to an aviator. The two individuals named cannot hope to
arrive at their destination without the aid of their instruments. Similarily, no expositor of Hebrews can
hope to arrive at a correct exegesis of that book without constantly checking his position by its historical
background and analysis. Therefore, before attempting the interpretation, we must lay a comprehensive
groundwork consisting of the historical background and analysis of the book. The reader can then check
the interpretation of any particular detail by consulting this analysis. That interpretation which agrees with
the analysis is correct, and that which is not in such agreement is not correct. The matter of correct
interpretation, therefore, is reduced to a science. This eliminates all discussion as to one’s theological
background or personal views.

The working out of the problems of exegesis upon the basis of the laws of analysis and the rules of Greek
grammar becomes almost as sure a scientific procedure as the working out of a problem in mathematics or
an experiment in chemistry. The writers of the Bible, led by the Holy Spirit, wrote within the limits
imposed by their context. No Scripture statement is unrelated to the context in which it is found. We
therefore approach the study of this portion of God’s Word with the confidence that we are, to change the
figure, playing the game according to the rules, not offering the reader an interpretation colored by
whatever theological background or personal opinions the writer may have. It is just the scientific way of
obeying the laws governing the experiment and tabulating the facts as one finds them.

The book was written before a.d. 70, but after the ascension of our Lord (Heb. 10:11, 12). The temple in
Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70, but at the time of the writing of Hebrews, priests were still offering
sacrifices, this fact showing that it was still standing. Our Lord is seen, seated in heaven after His
ascension. Thus the date is somewhere between a.d. 33 and a.d. 70.

The book was written to prove that a certain proposition is true. The writer states the proposition in the
following words: “He (Christ) is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises” (8:6). “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament” (7:22). “For if that first
covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with
them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah” (8:7, 8). “He taketh away the first (covenant), that he may establish the
second” (10:9). The proposition is, therefore: “The New Testament in Jesus’ blood is superior to and
supplants the First Testament in animal blood.”
We must be careful to note that the book is not an argument to prove that Christianity is superior to and
takes the place of Judaism. The New Testament is the reality of which the First Testament was the type.
The type consisted of a blood sacrifice which symbolically gave the offerer salvation, while in reality his
salvation came from the New Testament which necessarily is a sacrifice, even the Lord Jesus at Calvary.
Christianity is not a sacrifice nor a means of salvation. Christianity is a result of what happened at the
Cross, namely, the Christian church made up of all believers from Pentecost to the Rapture, together with
the doctrines and duties of the members of that Church. Furthermore, the New Testament is a covenant
made with the Jewish nation. The latter must be distinguished from the Church. It is not a matter of a
choice between Judaism and Christianity with which the writer is dealing, but between the type and the
reality, between the Levitical sacrifices and the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus.

Since the argument of the book has to do with the abrogation of the Levitical system of sacrifices at the
Cross, called in this book the First Testament (9:18), and the supplanting of the same by the sacrifice of
our Lord, called in this book the New Testament (9:15), the concern of the writer must therefore be with
reference to the unsaved Jew, for the proposition which the writer wishes to prove has already been
accepted as true by the believing Jew of the first century, for when putting his faith in Christ as High
Priest, it became necessary for him to forsake any dependence he may have had upon the typical
sacrifices, and recognize in Him their fulfilment.

To prove to him on the basis of his own Old Testament Scriptures that the New Testament has superseded
the First, would result in that Jew going on to faith in Christ, if he is really sincere in wanting to be saved.
The author proves the proposition he advances twice, and from two different standpoints. First, he
compares the relative merits of the founders of the testaments, arguing that a superior workman turns out a
superior product. This he does in 1:1–8:6 where he proves that Christ, the Founder of the New Testament
is superior to the founders, under God, of the First Testament, who are the prophets (1:1–3), the angels
(1:4–2:18), Moses (3:1–6), Joshua (3:7–4:13), and Aaron (4:14–8:6). After stating in 8:6 the proposition
he has just shown to be true, he proves it again by comparing the relative merits of the testaments
themselves in 8:7–10:39; first, the New Testament was prophesied to be better (8:7–13); second, it is
actual, the First Testament typical (9:1–15); third, it is made effective with better blood (9:16–10:39).
Then he proves in 11:1–12:2 that faith, not works, is the way of salvation, and closes his letter with
admonitions (12:3–13:25).

In addition to proving that the New Testament in Jesus’ blood is superior to and takes the place of the
First Testament in animal blood, the writer warns those of his unsaved readers who have made a
profession of Christ, against the act of renouncing their profession and returning to the temple sacrifices
which they had left, and urges them to go on to faith in the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah.
He warns them against letting the New Testament truth slip away (2:1–4), against hardening the heart
against the Holy Spirit (3:7–19), against falling away (5:11–6:12), against committing the wilful sin of
treading underfoot the Son of God, counting His blood as common blood, and doing insult to the Holy
Spirit (10:26–29), all this being involved in his act of renouncing his professed faith in Christ and
returning to the Levitical sacrifices. These are not separate and distinct sins, but one sin described in
various ways, the sin of this first century Jew renouncing his professed faith in Messiah as High Priest and
of returning to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament.
He urges them to put their faith in Messiah as High Priest. He is apprehensive lest there may be among his
Jewish readers some who have an unbelieving heart and who are standing aloof (Greek for “departing”)
from the living God (3:12). He fears lest some should come short of rest in Christ and die in their sins as
the generation that came out of Egypt came short of rest in Canaan and died a physical death in the
wilderness because they did not appropriate the land by faith (4:1, 2).

Therefore he appeals to them to go on to faith in Messiah. He appeals to them to be followers of those

who through faith and patience inherit the promises (6:12). When one exhorts someone to do something,
it is clear evidence that the latter is not doing that which is exhorted. These Jews, while making a
profession, had no faith, and under the pressure of persecution, were in danger of renouncing the
intellectual assent which they gave to the New Testament and returning to the First Testament (10:23,
32–34). The writer urges them to place their faith in the New Testament High Priest (10:19, 20), using
First Testament typology. Under the First Testament system, the Israelite would enter the tabernacle in the
person of the priest who would procure salvation for him through a blood sacrifice. The writer exhorts the
first century Jew to enter, not the Holy of Holies of the temple on earth, but the Holy of Holies of heaven,
and in the same way, in the Person of the new High Priest, by a freshly slain (new) and living way, and to
do so in the faith which brings full assurance of salvation, a faith they did not have. He warns them
against drawing back from their profession of faith in Christ to perdition, and urges them on to faith in this
same Christ, with the result that their souls will be saved (10:38, 39). Finally, he devotes chapter eleven to
an argument based upon Old Testament Scripture, that faith is the way of salvation, urging them to look
off and away to Jesus in faith, a thing they were not doing (12:1, 2).

Thus, the purpose of the writer was to reach the professing Jews of that date who outwardly had left the
temple sacrifices, and had identified themselves with those groups of people who were gathering around
an unseen Messiah, the High Priest of the New Testament system who had at the Cross fulfilled the First
Testament system of typical sacrifices. These unsaved Jews were under the stress of persecution, and in
danger of renouncing their profession and returning to the abrogated sacrifices of the Levitical system
(10:32–34).

II. ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER

I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the
Messiah, is better than (1:1–8:6).

1. The prophets (1:1–3), since Messiah is—

a. God the Son, heir of all things, and creator of the universe
b. the outshining of God’s glory, the expression of the nature or essence of Deity, the sustainer of the
universe He created, and the Sacrifice that paid for sin (v. 3)

2. The angels (1:4–2:18), since He—

a. Has a better name, Son (1:4, 5)
b. Is worshipped by angels (v. 6)
c. Is Creator and Master of angels (v. 7)
d. Has an eternal throne and is anointed with the Holy Spirit (vv. 8, 9)
e. Is unchangeable (vv. 10–12)
f. Is seated at God’s right hand (v. 13)
g. Has ushered in a Testament which displaces theirs (2:1–4)
(1) Warning against letting New Testament truth slip away (v. 1)
(2) If rejection of First Testament truth was punished (v. 2), how much more will rejection of New
Testament truth be punished (v. 3), which truth was spoken by the Lord, confirmed by those who heard
Him, and attested by miracles (vv. 2–4)
h. Is to be Ruler over the Messianic Kingdom (vv. 5–9)
(1) Angels, being servants, cannot rule (v. 5)
(2) Adam, placed over earth, lost his dominion through sin (vv. 6–8)
(3) Our Lord has regained this dominion for man, who will be associated with Him in His rule (v. 9)

i. Is the High Priest who has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (vv. 10–18)
(1) He becomes Saviour through His death on the cross (v. 10)
(2) This death made possible through His incarnation (vv. 11–16)
(3) As High Priest for human beings, it was necessary that He become incarnate (vv. 17, 18)

3. Moses (3:1–6), because

a. He is Creator of Israel, Moses only a member of that house (vv. 1, 4)
b. He is Son of God over Israel, Moses a servant (vv. 5, 6)

4. Joshua (3:7–4:13), because He leads into a spiritual rest which is better than the temporal rest into
which Joshua led Israel.
a. Warning against hardening their hearts toward the Holy Spirit as the wilderness wanderers hardened
their hearts against God (3:7–9)
b. That generation did not enter Canaan rest (vv. 10, 11)
c. The evidence of the fact that the recipient is saved, is that he retains his profession of faith in Messiah
under the stress of persecution, not going back to the First Testament sacrifices (vv. 12, 14)
d. The recipient will die in his sins if he fails to put his faith in Messiah as High Priest, just as the
wilderness wanderers died a physical death because of unbelief (3:15–4:8)
e. Exhortation to enter rest in Messiah, and warning against continued unbelief (vv. 9–13)

5. Aaron (4:14–8:6), since He

a. Ascended through the heavens into the actual Holy of Holies (4:14–16)
b. Was taken, not from among men, but from the Godhead (5:1)
c. Is sinless (vv. 2, 5)
d. Is an eternal High Priest (v. 6)
e. Becomes actual High Priest through His death and resurrection (vv. 7–10)
f. Is the reality as High Priest, which does away with the types of the First Testament (5:11–6:12)
(1) The recipients hard to teach and dull as to spiritual perception (5:11)
(2) They had been instructed in New Testament truth (5:12)
(3) They were babes, that is, immature in their spiritual thinking (vv. 13,14)
(4) They are exhorted to put away “the beginning word of the Christ,” namely, the Levitical ritual, and
be borne along to New Testament truth, and are warned against laying down again a foundation of First
Testament doctrines (6:1–3)
(5) They had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to New Testament truth, and they had tasted of that
which constitutes salvation, and had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (v. 4)
(6) They had tasted the Word and had seen the attesting miracles (v. 5)
(7) They had been led into repentance. Now should they fall away from their profession of faith in
Messiah and back to the sacrifices, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance (vv. 6–8)
(8) The saved among the recipients would not apostatize. The unsaved exhorted to follow in the steps
of faith of the saved (vv. 9–12)
g. Is a High Priest who actually brings the believer into an eternal standing in grace (vv. 13–20)
(1) Abraham, the man of faith who was rewarded, a precedent (vv. 13–15)
(2) God’s oath and God’s promise guarantee the believer’s eternal retention of salvation (vv. 16–18)
(3) This salvation made possible by the presence of the High Priest in the heavenly Holy of Holies (vv.
19, 20)
h. A High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (7:1–3)
(1) Melchisedec, a sinner saved by grace, had no recorded parents, no recorded date of birth or of death
(2) A type, therefore, of Messiah in His eternal priesthood
i. A High Priest in a superior order of priesthood (7:4–10)
(1) The Aaronic priests received tithes (vv. 4, 5)
(2) Melchisedec received tithes from Abraham, therefore, was better than he (vv. 6, 7)
(3) Melchisedec in type still receiving tithes, whereas Aaronic priests died (v. 8)
(4) Aaron in Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, therefore, the latter is superior; therefore, Messiah is
better than Aaron, being a priest in the order of Melchisedec (vv. 10)
j. Is High Priest of a Testament that offered a sacrifice that put away sin (vv. 11–22)
(1) The First Testament neither offered nor made anything complete (v.11)
(2) First Testament priest came from tribe of Levi, the New Testament priest from the tribe of Judah
(vv. 12–17)
(3) First Testament set aside in favor of a better Testament (vv. 18–22)
k. Messiah lives forever: the Aaronic priests died (vv. 23–28)
(1) Because mortal, there were many Aaronic priests (v.23)
(2) Our Lord, because eternal, has a non-transferable priesthood thus able to save the believer forever
(vv. 24, 25)
(3) A better High Priest, because sinless (vv. 26–28)
l. Officiates in a better tabernacle (8:1–6)
(1) His tabernacle the heavenly one; Aaron’s merely the type (vv. 1–5)
(2) His Testament therefore better than the one Aaron served under (v. 6)

II The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament (8:7–10:39), because

1. It was prophesied to be better (8:7–13)

a. The First Testament faulty in that it did not put away sin (v. 7)
b. New Testament made with Israel and Judah (v. 8)
c. First Testament dealt with Israel as with a minor (v. 9)
d. New Testament through indwelling Spirit brings believers to adult sonship (v. 10)
e. Under the New Testament, all individuals in Israel will know the Lord (v. 11)
f. Under New Testament, sins put away (v. 12)
g. New Testament displaces First Testament (v. 13)

2. It is actual; the First Testament only typical (9:1–15)

a. First Testament typical (vv. 1–10)
(1) Its sanctuary on earth (v. 1)
(2) Its appointments typical (vv. 2–5)
(3) Its priesthood temporary (vv. 6–10)
b. New Testament actual (vv. 11–15)
(1) The reality better than the type (v. 11)
(2) The sacrificial blood better (vv. 12–15)
(a) It was His own blood (v. 12)
(b) Animal blood cleanses from ceremonial defilement (v. 13)
(c) Jesus’ blood cleanses from actual sin (v. 14)
(d) Therefore, He is the Priest of a better Testament (v. 15)

3. It is made effective with better blood (9:16–10:39)

a. The heavenly Testator Himself dies (9:16–22)
(1) A last will or testament operative at testator’s death (vv. 16, 17)
(2) First Testament made operative by death of animal (vv. 18–22)
b. The better tabernacle purified with better blood (vv. 23, 24)
(1) Earthly tabernacle cleansed with animal blood (v. 23)
(2) Heavenly tabernacle cleansed with blood of Messiah (v. 24)
c. The once for all sacrifice of Messiah better than all the sacrifices of the First Testament (9:25–10:39)
(1) He suffered once on the cross (vv. 25, 26); He appears in heaven as High Priest now (v. 24): He
will come in His second Advent to Israel (vv. 27, 28). Notice, if you will, the three appearings of the
Messiah here. These correspond to and are the fulfillment of the three appearings of the High Priest on the
Day of Atonement in Israel.
(2) Blood of animals cannot take away sin (10:1–4)
(3) In view of that fact, Messiah volunteers to become the sacrifice. In so doing, He sets aside the First
and establishes the Second Testament (vv. 5–10)
(4) Notwithstanding the fact that the First Testament had been set aside by God, and the New
Testament had been brought in, the Aaronic priests still offered animal sacrifices (v. 11)
(5) The New Testament Priest procured a finished salvation (vv. 12–14)
(6) The Holy Spirit through Jeremiah bears witness to the New Testament (vv. 15–18)
(7) The unsaved professing Hebrew exhorted to place his faith in the High Priest of the New Testament
(vv. 19–22)
(8) He is exhorted to hold fast his profession and not waver between the desire to go on to faith in
Messiah or to go back to the sacrifices (v. 23)
(9) Exhorted to continue attendance upon the New Testament assembly (v. 24, 25)
(10) Warned not to sin wilfully in renouncing his professed faith in Messiah and going back to the
sacrifices (v. 26)
(11) For the one who would go back, there remains only judgment (v. 27)
(12) The one who rejected the First Testament was punished (v. 28)
(13) The one committing the threefold sin against the three Persons of the Triune God would be
punished more severely (vv. 29–31)
(14) The recipients are urged to remember the persecutions they endured for their testimony to
Messiah, and not let them go for naught by returning to the sacrifices (vv. 32–37)
(15) They are urged to obtain justification through placing their faith in Messiah, and not draw back to
perdition (vv. 38, 39)

III. Faith, not works, the way of salvation, as proved by instances of First Testament saints (11:1–12:2)

1. Faith defined (11:1–3)

2. Faith illustrated (11:4–40)
3. Faith exhorted (12:1, 2)
IV. Final Warnings and Exhortations (12:3–13:25)

1. If these Jews remain under the chastening hand of God, and do not seek to escape persecution by
renouncing their professed faith in Messiah, that is an evidence that they are saved. But if they do the
opposite, that shows they have never been saved (12:3–17)

2. When they come to New Testament truth, they come, not to the thunders of Sinai, but to the grace of
Calvary (vv. 18–24)

3. They are warned not to refuse the Lord Jesus, for those who refused Moses were punished (vv.
25–29)

4. General exhortations (13:1–17)

5. Closing words (vv. 18–25)

Chapter I

I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the
Messiah, is better than (1:1–8:6)

1. The prophets, since Messiah is

a. God the Son, heir of all things, and creator of the universe (vv. 1–2).

(1:1) In the Greek text, the order of the words is, “At sundry times and in divers manners God spake.” The
Greek places his words at the beginning of a sentence for emphasis. Therefore, the main idea in the
writer’s mind here is not that God spake, but that it was at sundry times and in divers manners that He
spake. He is not combating the denial of a revelation, but is preparing the reader for the truth that God has
now, after the preliminary revelations, given a final word in the revelation of His Son.

The revelations of First Testament truth were given “at sundry times” (polumeros (ðïëõìåñïò)). The word
is made up of polus (ðïëõò) “many,” and meros (ìåñïò) “parts,” the total meaning being “by many
portions.” It was given also “in divers manners” (polutropos (ðïëõôñïðïò)). The word is made up of polus
(ðïëõò) “many,” and tropos (ôñïðïò) “manner” or “fashion,” thus, “different manners,” or “many ways.”
In the giving of the First Testament truth, God did not speak once for all, but in separate revelations, each
of which set forth only a part of His will. One writer was given one, and another, another element of truth.
God spoke in different ways. This does not refer to different ways in which He imparted His revelations to
the writers, but to the difference of the various revelations in contents and form. He spoke to Israel in one
way through Moses, in another, through Isaiah, etc. At the beginning of the revelation, the presentation
was elementary. Later it appealed to a more developed spiritual sense. Again, the revelation differed
according to the faithfulness or the unfaithfulness of Israel. Clement of Alexandria associates this passage
with Ephesians 3:10, “the many-tinted (polupoikilos (ðïëõðïéêéëïò)) wisdom of God.”

The First Testament revelation was progressive. All could not be revealed at once, and because all could
not be understood at once. Thus the revelation was given in many parts. In addition to this, it was given in
different modes. It was given in the form of law, prophecy, history, psalm, sign, type, parable. Expositor’s
1
says that the people of Israel “were like men listening to a clock striking the hour, always getting nearer
the truth but obliged to wait till the whole is heard.”

The words “in times past” are the translation of palai (ðáëáé). The Greek has two words meaning “old,”
archaios (•ñ÷áéïò), meaning “old in point of time,” and palaios (ðáëáéïò), meaning “old in point of use,
worn out, ready to be displaced by something new.” The close association of our word palai (ðáëáé) to
palaios (ðáëáéïò) suggests that the writer had in mind by its use, the fact that while the First Testament
revelation was not to be cast aside, yet it was time for a new one to be given, one that would be God’s
final word, one that would complete and round out the first one.

The translation so far reads “In many parts and in different ways of old.” Now comes the word “God.” It is
preceded by the definite article which has several functions here. First of all, it serves notice on the reader,
that the God of whom the writer speaks, is the same God whom the Hebrew addressees of the epistle
profess to worship. Thus does the writer seek to place himself on common ground with his readers in the
very beginning of a treatise which is highly argumentative in character. It is the debater’s technique which
concedes all it safely can to an opponent. The other function of the article here is to indicate the particular
Person of the Godhead spoken of, God the Father.
The next word “spake,” is a participle in the Greek text, and is associated with the word “spoken” of verse
two, which is a finite verb. That is, “God, having spoken, spoke.” Thus, we have the two revelations, that
of the First Testament and that of the New, joined together.

He spoke to Israel “by the prophets.” The preposition is en (¦í). Used here in the locative case, we would
have the locative of sphere. That is, the writers of the First Testament constituted the sphere within which
God spoke. He spoke exclusively through them and through no other men, so far as the written revelation
is concerned. This preposition is used also in the instrumental case. Then the writers would be looked
upon as the instruments in God’s hands by which the First Testament Scriptures were written down.

Archbishop Trench has this to say about the correct meaning of the word “prophet”; “It is almost needless
at this day to warn against what was once a very common error, one in which many of the Fathers
(Christian) shared,… namely a taking of the pro (ðñï) in propheteuo (ðñïöåôåõï) (to prophecy), and
prophetes (ðñïöåôåò) (prophet) as temporal, which it is not any more than in prophasis (ðñïöáóéò) (a
pretext), and finding as the primary meaning of the word, he who declares things before they come to
pass. This foretelling or foreannouncing may be, and often is, of the office of the prophet, but is not the
essence of that office; and this is as little in sacred as in classical Greek. The prophetes (ðñïöåôåò)
(prophet) is the outspeaker; he who speaks out the counsel of God with the clearness, energy, and
authority which spring from the consciousness of speaking in God’s name and having received a direct
message from Him to deliver.” Thus, the prophets were the mouthpieces of God.

John the Baptist said, “I am a voice of One who is crying out in the wilderness” (John 1:23). John did not
use the definite article before the word “voice.” He was merely one among many voices which God used
in the Old Testament dispensation. But note: the One crying out, giving the message, was God. John was
His articulate voice, a mere instrument in His hands.

Translation. In many parts and in different ways of old, God having spoken to the fathers by means of
the prophets.

(1:2) The expression “in these last days” is in the Greek text, “in the last of these days.” The word “last” is
eschatos (¦ó÷áôïò) which means, “the outermost, the extreme, last in time or in place.” The writer had just
been speaking of the times in which God spoke through the prophets. Now, at the very termination of the
times in which He is speaking to man, He speaks, not through the prophets, but IN SON.

The definite article appearing before “prophets,” sets these individuals off by themselves as a class. The
fact that the article is absent before the word “Son,” emphasizes character, nature. It speaks of the
Son-relationship of the Messiah to God the Father. It speaks of the distinction that exists between the
prophets as God’s creatures used as instruments in His hands and the Son who by nature is Deity. The Son
belongs to a different category. God spoke through One who is in character a son.

The revelation God gave in His Son, consisted not merely in what was said, as in the case of the prophets,
but in what the Son was, not merely in what He (the Son) said. In other words, it was not primarily, nor
finally, a revelation given through words, but through a Personality. It was a revelation made by One who
in all that He is and all that He does and says, reveals the Father. He is the Logos, the total concept of
Deity, Deity told out, the Word of God, not in the sense of a spoken or a written word, but in the sense of
a Person who in Himself expresses all that God the Father is.
He said on one occasion, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). And so John could
write, “In the beginning was the Logos (Ëïãïò) (the Word), and the Word (Logos (Ëïãïò)) was in
fellowship with God (the Father), and the Logos (Ëïãïò) was as to His nature Deity” (John 1:1). This is
the Person in whom God gave His final revelation to the human race.

But now, after the exegesis of this wonderful portion of God’s Word, we must pay attention to the
argument of the writer. He wrote the book to prove just one proposition to be true; “The New Testament is
superior to and takes the place of the First Testament.” His first major argument (1:1–8:6) shows that the
Founder of the New Testament is superior to the founders of the First Testament, which makes the former
Testament superior to the latter. The first class of individuals he selects among the founders of the First
Testament are the prophets. He has now shown that the Founder of the New Testament is superior to the
prophets in that the latter were merely created beings used as instruments by God, whereas the former is
the Son, God the Son, thus very God of very God. But not only is the Son superior in His Being, but the
mode of revealing God’s Word to the human race was superior in His case. When the prophets spoke, it
was merely as mouthpieces. When the Son spoke, it was God Himself who spoke. Thus, by two counts
already, has the writer shown that the One who gave the truth of the New Testament to man is superior to
those who gave the truth of the First Testament.

But not satisfied with that, the writer goes on to point out more of the superiorities of the Son over the
prophets. He says that God appointed Him heir of all things. The dominion promised to Adam, the latter
lost through his fall into sin. This dominion the Son of God regained as the Last Adam through His
incarnation, vicarious death, and victorious, bodily resurrection. In the future Messianic Kingdom, the
Lord Jesus as Messiah will reign over a perfect earth and a glorified humanity, heir of all things. And this
makes Him better than the prophets.

But the writer, not content with these superiorities, says, “by whom also he made the worlds.”

The word “by” is dia (äéá) in the Greek text, a preposition commonly expressing secondary agency, but
sometimes used of God’s direct agency. The Son of God is here seen as the mediate agency in creation,
but is not here represented as a mere instrument, a passive tool, but as a cooperating agent. In Colossians
1:16, Paul says that all things were created in Him (en (¦í)) and through Him (dia (äéá)). The expression
“in Him” enlarges and makes complete the expression “through Him.” “Through Him” speaks of the Son
as the mediate instrument. “In Him” indicates that “all the laws and purposes which guide the creation and
government of the universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point” (Lightfoot).

The word “worlds” is the translation of aionas (áÆïíáò). The word here includes according to Alford,
“God’s revelation of Himself in a sphere whose conditions are Time and Space, and so all things existing
under these conditions, plus these conditions themselves which exist not independently of the Creator, but
are His work, His appointed conditions of all created existence, so that the universe, as well in its great
primeval conditions,—the reaches of Space, and the ages of Time, as in all material objects and all
successive events, which furnish out and people Space and Time, God made by Christ.” The idea in the
word aionas (áÆïíáò) is not merely that of the vastness and magnificence of the physical universe, but the
thought of the times and ages through which the purpose and plan of God are gradually unfolding. Thus,
the Son is the Divine Agent not only in the original creation of the physical universe, but also in the
operation and management of that universe and all its creatures all down the ages of time. And that makes
Him better than the prophets.
Translation. In the last of these days spoke to us in One who in character is (His) Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made 2 the ages.

b. The outshining of God’s glory, the expression of the nature or essence of Deity, the sustainer of the
universe He created, and the Sacrifice that paid for sin (v. 3).

(1:3) The Son is superior to the prophets because He is the brightness of God’s glory. “Brightness” is the
translation of apaugasma (•ðáõãáóìá), in the classics, “a radiance, effulgence,” used of light beaming
from a luminous body. Its verbal form means “to flash forth.” Expositor’s has a valuable note on
“effulgence;” The word “seems to mean, not rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with
that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body,
but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves …
So in India, Chaitanya taught that the human soul was like a ray from the Divine Being; God like a blazing
fire and the souls like sparks that spring out of it. In the Arian controversy this designation of the Son was
appealed to as proving that He is eternally generated and exists not by an act of the Father’s will but
essentially … As the sun cannot exist or a lamp burn without radiating light, so God is essentially Father
and Son.”

Vincent 3 translates the Greek word by “effulgence,” or “out-raying.” He says that the meaning is that
“the Son is the out-raying of the divine glory, exhibiting in Himself the glory and majesty of the divine
Being.” He quotes Weiss as saying that “God lets His glory issue from Himself, so that there arises
thereby a light-being like Himself.” Alford 4 says that “the Son of God is, in this His essential majesty,
the expression and the sole expression of divine light, not as in His incarnation, its reflection.” The word
apaugasma (•ðáõãáóìá) is not preceded by the definite article, which fact makes the term highly
descriptive of character or nature, all of which bears out the correctness of the above teaching.

The glory spoken of here refers to the expression of the divine attributes collectively. Vincent says that it
is the unfolded fulness of the divine perfections. He makes a difference between the “form of God” (Phil.
2:6) and the effulgence of God’s glory in that the form (morphe (ìïñöå)) is the immediate, proper,
personal investiture of the divine essence, and is identified with the inmost being of Deity, whereas the
glory spoken of here is attached to Deity. The word doxa (äïîá) (glory) is used of various visible displays
of divine light and splendor, such as Moses’ vision of the divine glory (Ex. 33:18–23, 34:5, 7).

But the writer, not content with speaking of the transcendant glory of the Son from the standpoint of the
out-raying of the glory of God, brings to the attention of the reader, the fact that the Son is also “the
express image of His person.” The words “express image” are the translation of charakter (÷áñáêôåñ).
This word was used in classical Greek of an engraver, one who mints coins, a graving tool, a die, a stamp,
a branding iron, a mark engraved, an impress, a stamp on coins and seals. Metaphorically it meant “a
distinctive mark or token impressed on a person or thing, by which it is known from others, a
characteristic, the character of.” It was a Greek idiom for a person’s features. It was used of the type or
character regarded as shared with others. It meant also an impress or an image. The classical usage of this
word should throw some light upon its use in the New Testament.

Moulton and Milligan 5 say that it was used to denote the tool for engraving; then it came to be used of
the mark or impress made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity. Hence it referred to an
exact reproduction. They quote Deissmann in the sentence from the papyri, “He made a successful voyage
to the August Persons (Augustus and Livia), the word “persons” being the translation of charakter
(÷áñáêôåñ).
The word “substance” is the translation of hupostasis (ßðïóôáóéò). The word is a compound of hupo (ßðï)
meaning “under” and histemi (Êóôåìé), meaning “to stand.” The total literal meaning of the word therefore
is “that which stands under.” The word was used in the following senses: “something which stands
underneath, foundation, ground of hope or confidence, assurance.” Vincent, commenting upon the entire
expression says, “Here the essential being of God is conceived as setting its distinctive stamp upon Christ,
coming into definite and characteristic expression in His Person, so that the Son bears the exact impress of
the divine nature and character.” Expositor’s suggests that the words “nature” or “essence” better convey
the meaning of hupostasis (ßðïóôáóéò). Thus it is the impress of the divine essence possessed by absolute
Deity which is an exact reproduction of that essence. And that impress is the Son of God.

But the writer brings another of the superiorities of the Son to the attention of the recipients of this letter.
The Son “upholds all things by the word of His power.” The word “upholds” is phero (öåñï). The word
“maintaining,” Vincent says, is a better translation than “upholding.” The latter word conveys too much
the idea of the passive support of a burden. Westcott quotes another as saying, “The Son is not an Atlas,
sustaining the dead weight of the world.”

But while the word implies the idea of sustaining, it also includes in itself the idea of movement. It speaks
of the act of sustaining something that is in constant movement. Weiss speaks of the act of sustaining as
dealing “with the all, in all its changes and transformations throughout the aeons.” This act has to do, not
only with sustaining the weight of the universe, but also with maintaining its coherence and carrying on its
development. Paul speaks of this same act of the Son in Colossians 1:17 where he says, “By Him all
things consist.” That is, all things maintain their coherence in Him. The Lord Jesus holds all things
together and in their proper relationship to each other by His own power. The oceans are held in their
beds. The rivers run down into the sea. The heavenly bodies are held in their orbits. Philo calls the Logos
(Ëïãïò) the bond (desmos (äåóìïò)) of the universe. This act of maintaining this coherence, implies the
guidance and propulsion of all the parts of the universe to a definite end. An illustration of this use of
phero (öåñï) is found in the LXX, 6 where Moses says, “I am not able to bear (phero (öåñï)) all this
people alone,” where phero (öåñï) has in it the idea of the responsibility of the government and guidance
of Israel.

This sustaining of the universe, this maintaining its coherence in all its parts, the Son accomplishes “by
the word of his power.” The universe was called into being by the Word of God (11:3), and is sustained by
that same Word. God willed it. His power brought into being that which He willed.

But now the inspired writer brings to our attention a greater miracle than the creation and the sustaining of
the universe, when he says, “When he had by himself purged our sins.” The words “by himself” are the
translation of a rejected reading, and so will not be considered in our study, nor included in our
translation. The Greek here is “having made purification of sins.” The words “having made” are the
translation of a participle in the middle voice, which voice represents the person as either acting upon
himself or in his own interest. Thus, when the Son of God made purification of sins, He did so by
Himself, acting upon Himself, offering Himself as the Sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:12), and for Himself,
acting in His own interest. The voice of the participle has given us more truth than the rejected reading di’
heautou (äé ©áõôïõ) (by himself). The word “purged” of the a.v., and our word “purification” which we
have used, are the translation of katharismos (êáèáñéóìïò).
Alford 7 is careful to note the fact that the Greek text does not read “purification” apo (•ðï) (from) sins,
but “purification” of (genitive case) sins. He says, “Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has
effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure.” He makes the point that
katharismos (êáèáñéóìïò) “must be understood by the subsequent argument of the Epistle: for that which
the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant
when he used without explanation a concise term like this. And that we know to have been, the
purifications and sacrifices of the Levitical law, by which man’s natural uncleanness in God’s sight was
typically removed, and access to God laid open to him.” The writer has put this most succinctly in 9:26
where he says; “He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” One could translate, “He has
appeared, resulting in the putting away of sin by His sacrifice.” The words “putting away” are the
translation of thetos (èåôïò) meaning “placed,” or “set,” “having position,” and Alpha privative prefixed
which negates the word, making it mean, “not placed or set,” “not having position.” The verb means “to
do away with something laid down, prescribed, established.” Sin had established itself in the human race
through the disobedience of Adam, a sinful nature and acts of sin.

When God saves a sinner, He breaks the power of the indwelling sinful nature at the moment that sinner
places his faith in the Lord Jesus (Romans 6). When that believer dies, he loses the sinful nature, and in
his glorified body has only the divine nature. God also removes the guilt and penalty of sin and gives the
believer a righteous standing. The Son of God made all this possible when He died on the Cross. His
blood delivers the believer from the power of sin in this present life, and from the presence of sin in the
future life. His blood removes the guilt and penalty of sin and cleanses the believer from its defilement.
That is what is included in the act of our Lord making purification for sins.

The participle is in the aorist tense, which indicates that His act of making purification for sins was a
single definite act, and a once-for-all act. The writer had just been speaking of the fact that the Son was
the creator, sustainer, and motivater of all things from their beginning all down the ages of time. It was
and is His responsibility to see to it that they in the plan of God are brought to a final ultimate and proper
conclusion. Sin interposed itself in the smooth-working perfect universe. In carrying on all things to the
desired end, the Son had to confront and deal with sin which had thrown the world into disorder and out
of God’s order.

When His work on the Cross was finished, the Son “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
The seated posture indicates that His work was finished, in contrast to the Levitical priests who never sat
down so far as their tabernacle work was concerned, and for the reason that their work was never finished,
and this because the blood of bulls and goats could not pay for sin. The verb “sat down” denotes a solemn,
formal act. It speaks of the assumption of a position of dignity and authority. The reference is to the Son’s
glorification and ascension. In His exalted state He is still bearing on all things toward their destined
consummation, and is still dealing with sin as the Great High Priest, saving believing sinners in His
precious blood and cleansing saints from the defilement of sin that at times enters their lives.

With this, the inspired writer closes his argument to the effect that the Son of God is superior to the Old
Testament prophets. He has enumerated seven superiorities. First, the Son is superior to the Old
Testament prophets in that, whereas they were the mouthpieces of God, He was God Himself speaking on
earth. Second, the Son inherits all things, the prophets being part of that inheritance. Third, the Son
created all things and is the One who operates and manages the universe and all its creatures all down the
successive ages of time.
Fourth, the Son is the effulgence, the out-raying of the glory of God, not merely in the sense that He is the
outshining of that glory, but that He Himself is a divine center of the out-raying of God’s glory, co-eternal
and co-existent with the Father, of the same substance as the Father and, while the Son by eternal
generation from the Father, yet also very God of very God, possessing in Himself life and light. For
instance, the sunshine resting upon the earth is of the same essence as the light still in the sun, and is the
outshining of the light in the sun. But the Lord Jesus is more than that illustration includes. He is not
merely the outshining of God’s glory, but the outshining of that glory which in itself becomes a center
from which the glory of God out-rays itself. Fifth, the Son is the exact impression of the Person and the
character of Deity, thus its exact expression. Sixth, the Son carries the weight of the universe, maintains
its coherence, and carries on its development. Seventh, He has by the shedding of His own blood on the
Cross, put away sin.

Is He better than the prophets? Yes, infinitely so. Not one of these superiorities could be ascribed to the
Old Testament prophets, or for that matter, to any ancient or modern so-called prophet of any religious
system. In view of the Son’s superiorities over God’s prophets, what audacity it is for Modernism to place
Socrates alongside of the Son of God. What sacrilege to say that He was only a human being. The Jesus of
the Gospels is the Jesus of the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:9). Again, what a low-estimate first century Israel
had of its Messiah, as shown by the fact that the writer needed to demonstrate that He was superior to its
prophets.

Translation. Who, being the out-raying (effulgence) of His glory and the exact reproduction of His
essence, and sustaining, guiding, propelling all things by the word of His power, having
made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

2. The angels (1:4–2:18) since He

a. Has a better name, Son (1:4, 5).

(1:4) The writer says that the Son was made better than the angels. The informal and abrupt introduction
of angels, shows that the writer was addressing Jews, who were familiar with the important part the angels
played in the Old Testament, particularly in the giving of the law. The word “made” is the translation of
ginomai (ãéíïìáé), a word the meaning of which is in contrast to that of poieo (ðïéåï) which means “to
make.” The latter means “to construct or fashion something out of existing materials.” The former is the
word used of the universe coming into existence. It means “to become.” The Son became better than the
angels, inferring that at one time He was lower than the angels. The writer does not deny that He was, and
is, essentially and eternally better than the angels. He is speaking here of His glorification which was
conditioned upon His fulfilment of the requirements of His human state, which He emphasizes. After He
had passed through the experience described in Philippians 2:6–8, He sat down on the right hand of the
divine Majesty as Messianic sovereign, and thus became and was proved to be that which in reality He
always was, superior to the angels. The superiority here is not that of moral excellence, but of dignity and
power. He became superior to the angels when He resumed His preincarnate dignity at His resurrection.
The writer tells us in 2:7, 9, that for a little time, i.e., during His incarnation previous to His glorification,
He was made lower than the angels.

This Sonship is referred by the writer to the Old Testament, where the Messiah, then future, was spoken of
as Son. The writer, in support of this fact of Sonship, adduces an abundance of evidence, citing no fewer
than seven passages from the Old Testament. The Messianic Sonship rests upon the Eternal Sonship. But
the latter is not in view here, rather the former.
But, the question arises, Why does the inspired writer bring in a comparison between the Son and angels?
The answer is as follows: The entire Old Testament dispensation is related to the New Testament
dispensation as the angels are related to the Son. In the former dispensation, mankind and God are
separated by sin. The angels stand as mediators between God and man. Here there was a chain of two
links, Moses, and the angel of the Lord. In the former, we have a mere man raised above his fellows by
being given a commission to lead Israel, and brought nearer to God. But he is a sinner like his brethren. In
the latter, we have God revealing Himself in angelic form to Israel, but without becoming Man. There was
no real union of the Godhead and Manhood.

How different it is in the New Testament dispensation. God and Man become personally One in the Son
incarnate. God no longer accommodates Himself to the capacities of man in an angelophony or
theophony, but has revealed Himself in the Son become incarnate. The writer’s thesis throughout the letter
is that the New Testament is better than the First Testament. If he can show that the One Mediator
between God and man of the New Testament is superior to the mediators of the First, the angels, then he
has shown that the New Testament takes the place of the First. And this he proceeds to do.

He says. “He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” The words “hath by
inheritance obtained” are in the perfect tense in the Greek text, literally, “He inherited in times past with
the present result that the inheritance is in His permanent possession.” The use of the perfect here shows
that the writer is speaking of a past completed action, and of the present abiding results. The words “more
excellent” are the translation of diaphoroteron (äéáöïñïôåñïí). The Greek comparative for “better” is
kreitton (êñåéôôïí). The former word means literally “more different.” “Than they” is in the Greek text
par’ autous (ðáñ áÛôïõò), literally, “alongside of them.” That is, the Son has a name more different for
good beside, or in comparison to the angels.

Translation. Having become as much superior to the angels as He has inherited a more excellent name
than they.

(1:5) The writer now proceeds with his argument by asking a rhetorical question expressing a denial of the
fact that the angels were ever given the name Son, and he follows that by bringing to the attention of his
Jewish readers seven quotations from their Old Testament Scriptures.

The first quotation is from Psalm 2:7. In the Greek text, the order of the words is, “Son of mine thou art.”
The word “Son” is in the emphatic position. In the Old Testament “son” is applied to the angels
collectively, but never individually (Job 1:6; Ps. 89:6). The word “son” is applied to the chosen nation
(Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm. The word “begotten” here does not refer either to the
Son’s eternal generation from God the Father, or to His generation in time as the incarnate Son of Man,
but as the context shows, to the act of God the Father establishing in an official sonship-relation, His Son
at the resurrection. “The psalm was written to celebrate the accession of a king, Solomon or some other,
but the writer, seeing in his mind’s eye the ideal King, clothes the new monarch in His robes.” 8 The idea
in the words, “I have begotten thee” are “I have begotten thee to kingly dignity.” The reference is not to
entrance into life, but to entrance to an office. The Messianic reference is to the Son’s resurrection (Acts
13:33), and to the declaration of the Father with reference to the character of the Son as Son of God, this
declaration being substantiated by the resurrection of the Son (Rom. 1:4). But the writer reminds his
readers that such statements were never made of angels.
The second quotation is from II Samuel 7:14. While it is conceded that a faint and primary reference to
Solomon is found in verses 12–16, yet the clear and final reference is to the Son. Solomon’s kingdom was
not established but divided, whereas the Son’s kingdom will be eternal. Solomon built a temple for God,
but the Son will build the Millennial Temple. With regard to the words in verse 14, “If he commit
iniquity,” Dr. James M. Gray in his Christian Workers’ Commentary says, “Bishop Horseley’s and Adam
Clarke’s translation … is interesting and significant: ‘When iniquity is laid upon Him, I will chasten Him
with the rod of men’—a parallel to Isaiah 53 concerning the suffering Messiah.” Other Hebrew scholars
reject the above translation, and are in accord with that of the a.v., explaining the statement as generic in
character, namely, that the act of committing sin was true of the Davidic line but not of the Messiah. The
writer to the Hebrews applies the words “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son,” directly
to the Lord Jesus. This was never said of angels. They were sons of God by creation. The Messiah of the
Book of Hebrews is Son of God by eternal generation, Son of God in His incarnation, and Son of God in
an official relationship as Messiah consequent upon His resurrection. The Son is therefore better than
angels. He has inherited a better name than they.

Translation. For to which of the angels did He say at any time, Son of mine thou art, I this day have
begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him for a Father, and He Himself shall be to Me for
a Son?

b. Is worshipped by angels (v. 6).

(1:6) The third quotation is introduced by the words, “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten
into the world, he saith.” It will be observed that the word “again” is used to indicate the addition of a new
quotation to the preceding ones. But Vincent, Expositor’s, and Alford insist that palin (ðáëéí) (again) by
its juxtaposition to the verb “bring in,” is to be understood as being used with that verb. The order of the
words in the Greek text is “Whenever and again He brings in.” When used with a verb in Hebrews, the
word means “a second time” (5:12, 6:1, 2) The meaning therefore is, “When He a second time bringeth in
the first-begotten into the world,” reference being to the second advent of Messiah.

The verb is aorist subjunctive, culminative aorist. The event is viewed as occurring at an indefinite time in
the future, but viewed as complete. It is, “Whenever He shall have brought.” The translation is much like
that of the future perfect, except that the future perfect refers to a future act, but with no qualifications that
are indefinite.

The word “first-begotten” is the translation of prototokos (ðñïôïôïêïò), a term used by Paul in Colossians
1:15 and by the writer to the Hebrews here, of the Son of God. The term speaks of priority to all creation
and sovereignty over all creation. Whereas the term “only-begotten” (monogenes (ìïíïãåíåò)) describes
the unique relationship of the Son to the Father in His divine nature, prototokos (ðñïôïôïêïò)
(first-begotten) describes the relation of the risen Messiah in His glorified humanity to man.

The word “world” is here the translation of oikoumene (ïÆêïõìåíå), “the inhabited earth.” This word was
used at the time this epistle was written, to refer to the entire Roman empire. At the accession of Nero, the
proclamation referred to him in the words, “and the expectation and hope of the world (oikoumene
(ïÆêïõìåíå)) has been declared Emperor, the good genius and source of all good things, Nero, has been
declared Caesar.” 9 It will be into the midst of the Revived Roman Empire headed up by Antichrist, that
God will bring the Messiah, the empire at that future time covering the entire earth.
It is of that future time that God says concerning the Messiah, “And let all the angels of God worship
him.” The quotation is from the LXX (Deut. 32:43) where Moses speaks of the victory of God over His
enemies, and the avenging of His people. The writer probably also had Psalm 96:7 in mind. The return of
the Messiah to this earth will be accompanied by hosts of worshipping angels (II Thess. 1:7, Rev.
19:11–16). The argument of the writer is that if the Son is to be worshipped by angels, surely He must be
superior to them, which fact makes the New Testament He inaugurated better than the First Testament
which they were instrumental in bringing in.

Translation. And whenever He shall have brought again the first-begotten into the inhabited earth, He
saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.

c. Is Creator and Master of angels (v.7).

(1:7) The fourth quotation is from Psalm 104:4 (LXX). The word “spirits” is the translation of pneuma
(ðíåõìá), which means “wind, spirit, messenger.” Here the meaning is “winds.” The emphasis is upon the
variableness of the angelic nature. They are what they are at any time by the decree of God, fitted by their
character to any special service. The point of the writer is that the angels are not merely servants, but of
such a nature that God makes them according to the needs of His service, and being such as they are, they
are changeable, in marked contrast to the Son who is their ruler, and unchangeable. The word “servants” is
the translation of leitourgos (ëåéôïõñãïò), the word used of the sacred and religious ministry of the Old
Testament priests. Since Messiah is the Creator and Master of angels, He is superior to them, which fact
makes the New Testament better than the First which it displaces.

Translation. And with reference to the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels winds, and His servants
a flame of fire.

d. Has an eternal throne and is anointed with the Holy Spirit (vv. 8, 9).

(1:8, 9) The fifth quotation is from Psalm 45:6, 7. The word “righteousness” in the a.v., (v. 8), is not the
translation of dikaiosune (äéêáéïóõíå) but of euthutetos (åÛèõôåôïò) which means more properly
“rectitude, uprightness.” The word “righteousness” in verse 9 is the translation of dikaiosune (äéêáéïóõíå)
which means “that which conforms to a standard or norm which is itself in keeping with what God is in
His holy character.” “Anointed” is the translation of chrio (÷ñéï) which is always used in the New
Testament of the anointing with the Holy Spirit, aleipho (•ëåéöï) being used uniformly of the anointing
with oil. Here the oil of joy refers to the Holy Spirit who bestows joy, and thus the word chrio (÷ñéï) is
used fittingly here. Kings were anointed in Israel with oil when they ascended the throne. Our Lord was
anointed with the Holy Spirit for His three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king, at His baptism in the
Jordan, which was at the time of His entrance into His ministry. The word “fellows” is the translation of
metochos (ìåôï÷ïò), which word refers to one who is a co-participant with someone else in a common
undertaking. Here the angels are viewed as co-participants with Messiah in His work of salvation and
future sovereignty over the redeemed creation. The emphasis of the passage is upon the fact that
Messiah’s future kingdom is an eternal one, and that He as the anointed King will rule in righteousness.
Isaiah XI speaks of His millennial reign and of the fact that He will be the King anointed with the Spirit.
As such, the angels will be associated with Him in that reign, but He will be their sovereign Lord, they His
servants. All of which again means that Messiah is better than angels.
Translation. And with reference to the Son; Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever. And the sceptre
of equality is the sceptre of His kingdom. Thou didst love righteousness and didst hate
lawlessness. On this account there has anointed thee, God, Thy God, with the oil of
exultant joy above thy associates.

e. Is unchangeable (vv. 10–12).

(1:10) In the support of his argument to the effect that the Son is better than the angels, the writer quotes
Psalm 102:25–27. The unchangeable and eternal power and majesty of the Son, spoken of in verses 11,
12, find their basis in the fact that He is the One who laid the foundation of the earth and fashioned the
heavens.

Translation. As for thee, in the beginning, O Lord, thou didst lay the foundation of the earth. And the
works of thy hands are the heavens.

(1:11) The word “they” refers back, not to the earth, but to the heavens. The Greek text makes this clear.
The pronoun is intensive, “they themselves.” The word “remainest” is from diameno (äéáìåíï). The
simple verb meno (ìåíï) means “to remain.” The prefixed preposition dia (äéá) is intensive in force,
making the compound word mean “to remain permanently.” The verb is in the present. It is not “shalt
remain.” “Permanency is the characteristic of God in the absolute and eternal” (Vincent). The words
“shall wax old,” are the translation of palaioo (ðáëáéïï) which means “to make ancient or old, to be worn
out.” The idea here is not that the heavens will become old so far as lapse of time is concerned, but old in
the sense of wearing out. The Greeks had a word for “old in point of lapsed time” namely, archaios
(•ñ÷áéïò).

Translation. They themselves shall perish, but as for thee, thou dost remain permanently. And all these
shall become old and worn out as a garment.

(1:12) The word “vesture” is the translation of peribolaion (ðåñéâïëáéïí), literally, “that which is thrown
around.” The word speaks of a mantle, a wrapper, an article of clothing which is wrapped around one.
“Shalt fold” should be “roll up,” the mistake being due to a scribal error. “Shall fail” is in the Greek text
“shall fail” in the sense of “shall be ended, shall leave off,” the word leipo (ëåéðï) “to leave” being used.
The angels, being part of the Son’s creation, are as subject to change and decay as are the heavens. He, the
changeless One, is therefore superior to them.

Translation. And as a garment which one throws about one’s self shall they be rolled up; as a garment
also shall they be changed. But as for thee, thou art the same, and thy years shall not leave
off.

f. Is seated at God’s right hand (vv. 13, 14).

(1:13) The seventh quotation is from Psalm 110:1. These words were spoken to the Son, but never to an
angel. The word “sit” is present tense imperative in the Greek text, which construction emphasizes
durative action, literally, “be sitting,” a permanent place. “On my right hand” is literally “from my right
hand.” The usual formula is “on my right hand.” The ablative case and the preposition ek (¦ê) indicate a
moving from the right and taking the seat. The meaning, Vincent says, is “be associated with Me in my
royal dignity.”
Translation. But to which of the angels did He say at any time, Be sitting at my right hand until I set
your enemies down as the footstool of your feet.

(1:14) Here the writer sums up the function of the angels as compared to that of the Son. He is the highest
dignity, a co-ruler with God. They are His servants, appointed to minister to the heirs of redemption.

Translation. Are not they all ministering servants sent on a commission for the sake of those who are
about to inherit salvation?
Notes:

1 The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LLD.

2 There is no single English word which will give the meanings of poieô, “make, produce, build,
bring about, operate, arrange in order.”
3 Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament.
4 Alford’s Greek Testament.
5 Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
6 Greek translation of the Old Testament.
7 Greek Testament.
8 The Expositor’s Greek Testament.
9 Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Chapter 2

Note. In the midst of his argument, “the Son is better than the angels” (1:4–14, 2:5–18), the writer issues
an exhortation and a warning (2:1–4) to these Hebrews who had outwardly left the temple sacrifices, had
made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, and who were in danger of renouncing that profession and of
returning to the sacrifices.

g. Has ushered in a Testament which displaces theirs (2:1–4).

(1) Warning against letting New Testament truth slip away (v.1).

(2:1) The exhortation is to give more earnest heed to the New Testament message, and the warning,
against letting that truth slip away. The nature of the sin of Adam was a careless, indifferent attitude
towards the commands of God. The particular word which is translated “disobedience” in Romans 5:19
(parakoe (ðáñáêïå)) means literally “to hear alongside,” thus, “a failing to hear, a hearing amiss.” But this
failure to hear is due to a carelessness in paying attention to what God had to say. Back of that
carelessness is the desire to have our own will. Under pressure of persecution, these Jews were
discontinuing their attendance upon the Christian assemblies (10:25), and giving less and less heed to the
New Testament truth. The reason for this failure to attend earnestly upon the truth of the new dispensation
was that these Hebrews were desirous of getting out from under the persecution to which they were being
subjected from apostate Judaism. Entrenched and apostate ecclesiasticism was trying to take these Jews
away from the visible Church and bring them back to the temple. Thus does sin lead us to take the easy
road, tempting us to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage (12:16, 17).

The words “let them slip” are the translation of pararuomen (ðáñáñõïìåí) which Vincent translates
“should drift past them.” The verb itself means “to flow,” and the prefixed preposition, “alongside.” The
word was used of the snow slipping off from the soldiers’ bodies, and of a ring slipping from the finger.
Vincent quotes a rendering of Proverbs 4:21 as follows: “Let not my words flow past before thine eyes.”
The words “give the more earnest heed” are literally “to give heed more abundantly.” “Give heed” is the
translation of prosecho (ðñïóå÷ï) which means literally “to hold to,” thus, in its use here, “to hold (the
mind) to.” But these Hebrews are to give the more earnest heed “on account of this;” “because of this,”
the Greek has it. Because of what? Because the Son is better than the prophets and the angels. Israel had
given heed to the First Testament truth which was ministered to it by the prophets and the angels. Now,
because the Son is superior to these, the Testament He brought in is better than the one they introduced.
They should therefore hold their minds the more earnestly to it.

Translation. On this account it is a necessity in the nature of the case for us to give heed more
abundantly to the things which we have heard lest at any time we should drift past them.

(2) If rejection of First Testament truth was punished (v. 2), how much more will rejection of New
Testament truth be punished (v. 3), which truth was spoken by the Lord, confirmed by those who heard
Him, and attested by miracles (vv. 2–4).

(2:2) The Greek word “if” represents a fulfilled condition, not an hypothetical case. The idea is, “in view
of the fact that.” The word spoken by angels is the First Testament (Acts 7:38, 53). The agency of angels
shows the limits of the dispensation of law. The setting aside of the First Testament, means the abolition
of man’s subordination to angels. Such subordination is inconsistent with man’s ultimate destiny to
sovereignty over all creation. The word spoken by angels was steadfast, proved sure, proved inviolable,
held good.
“Transgression” is the translation of parabasis (ðáñáâáóéò), “a stepping over the line,” “disobedience,” the
rendering of parakoe (ðáñáêïå), “a disobedience which results from neglecting to hear, from letting things
drift by.” The First Testament was steadfast, inviolable, in that every overstepping of the line, every
neglecting to hear, was punished.

Translation. For in view of the fact that the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every
over-stepping of the line and neglecting to hear received a just recompense of reward;

(2:3) “How” is from pos (ðïò) which means “how is it possible?” The rhetorical question expresses a
denial. There would be no escape. The word “we” in the Greek text is emphatic. The pronoun refers here
to the first-century readers of this letter, its Jewish recipients. It is “we” to whom God spoke in One who
in character is His Son, and who therefore have much more reason for giving heed. “Escape” is the
translation of ekpheugo (¦êöåõãï) which means literally “to flee out from.”

The words “if we neglect” have their primary reference to the Jews of the period in which the writer lived,
who had outwardly left the temple sacrifices, had made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, and who
under stress of persecution from apostate Judaism, were neglecting attendance upon the means of grace
(10:25), were allowing themselves to drift by New Testament truth, were leaning back towards the First
Testament, and were in danger of returning to the temple sacrifices, an act that would constitute the sin
known as apostasy, from which there would be no recovery. The writer is trying to keep them from
committing that sin.

The word “salvation” refers to salvation itself, not to the teaching concerning it. The word “which” in the
Greek text is qualitative in nature. The idea is, “salvation which is of such a character” as to have been
spoken by the Lord. The message of salvation given by the angels was typical in its method of
presentation. It looked forward. It was not final in itself, since sin had not actually been dealt with. It was
given in many parts and in many ways. But the message of salvation given by the Lord was in its
character, final. He was not only the Spokesman but the One who brought into being and made available
to believing sinners, the salvation which He announced. Our Lord announced the New Testament as
taking the place of the First Testament, when He said, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).

These Hebrews had been convinced of the trustworthiness of the First Testament. They were beginning to
doubt the validity of the New Testament. The law had proved its validity by punishing transgressors. But
the certainty of the new revelation was becoming doubtful to them. Therefore, the writer speaks of the
New Testament as “so great salvation,” and shows its trustworthiness by adducing the following three
features: first, it was originally proclaimed by the Lord; second, it was confirmed by those that heard Him;
third, it was certified as from God by reason of the miracles that accompanied its announcement.

The word “Lord,” kurios (êõñéïò), in the Greek, is the word used in the LXX to translate the august title of
God in Israel, Jehovah. To the Jewish readers of this epistle, it meant just that. The First Testament was
given by angels; the New Testament, by Jehovah personally. And, being of such a nature as would be
expected of Jehovah, these Hebrews were certainly obligated to give more earnest heed to it than to one
given by angels.
The second proof of the validity of the New Testament which the writer brings to the attention of his
readers, is that those who heard the Lord Himself and His presentation of the New Testament truth, and
here the reference is presumably to official witnesses, the apostles, confirmed the truth of the New
Testament to the writer of the letter who refers to himself by the pronoun “us,” the literary “we.”

Translation. How is it possible for us to escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which salvation is of
such a character as to have been spoken at the first by the Lord, and was confirmed to us
by those who heard Him.

(2:4) But this confirmation not only had back of it the official sanction of those who heard the Lord, and
their attested characters and veracity, but also the accompaniment of miracles. The attesting power of
miracles was well known. The primary purpose of miracles in the first century was not to alleviate distress
and suffering, but to prove that the one performing the miracles, spoke or wrote from God (John 3:2;
Matt. 11:2–5).

These miraculous manifestations were in the form of signs (semeion (óåìåéïí)), “a sign, mark or token
miraculous in nature,” wonders (teras (ôåñáò)), “something so strange as to cause it to be watched,
miraculous in nature,” divers miracles (dunamis (äõíáìéò)) “a supernatural act which has in it the inherent
power of God,” thus, a miracle, and gifts (merismos (ìåñéóìïò)), “distributions or impartations” from the
Holy Spirit, the latter construction being subjective genitive, in which the person in the genitive case
performs the action in the noun of action, here the word merismos (ìåñéóìïò), (distributions,
impartations). For a catalogue of all these, one can go to the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and to First
Corinthians.

Translation. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with variegated
miracles, and with distributions from the Holy Spirit, according to His will.

h. Is to be ruler over the Messianic Kingdom (vv. 5–9)

(1) Angels, being servants, cannot rule (v. 5).

(2:5) The words “put in subjection” are the translation of hupotasso (ßðïôáóóï), a military term used of
arranging soldiers in order under the commanding general. The word speaks of an economy, a system of
administration. The word “world” is the translation of oikoumene (ïÆêïõìåíå), literally, “the inhabited
earth,” here the Millennial Kingdom of the Messiah. This kingdom will not be administered by angels. An
angel once was the regent of God on the first perfect earth, which angel with his associated angels
administered the affairs of a pre-Adamic race. His throne was on earth. He was the anointed cherub, the
guardian of the holiness of God. He struck at God’s throne, and forfeited the regency of this earth (Isaiah
14:12–14; Ezekiel 28:1–19). That angel was Lucifer. He is now Satan. The earth over which he had ruled,
was rendered a desolation and a waste, and he, with his angelic cohorts, were banished. After the
restoration of the earth, God placed man upon it, but man handed the sceptre over to Satan, who now is
the god of the world-system and whose throne is again on earth (Rev. 2:13).

But the Lord Jesus, through the blood of His Cross, has regained for man the dominion over this earth,
and will in the Millennial Kingdom dethrone Satan, ruling as King of kings and Lord of lords. The saved
of the human race will be associated with Him in this reign. Thus, the angels will not administer the
Millennial earth, but man in the Person of the Son of Man and those of the human race saved by His
precious blood.
Translation. For He has not given the administration of the inhabited earth to come concerning which
we are speaking, to the angels.

(2) Adam, placed over the earth, lost his dominion through sin (vv. 6–8).

(2:6) The writer now quotes from Psalm 8. The words “one in a certain place” do not mean that the writer
is ignorant of the identity of the writer of the psalm, but assume that the readers know who the author was.
The word “testified” in the Greek text implies a solemn, earnest testimony. The question as to whether the
Messiah or man is spoken of in verses 6–8, is settled easily and finally by the Greek word translated
“visit.” The Psalmist is exclaiming as to the insignificance of man in the question, What is man, that thou
art mindful of him? That is clear. But to whom do the words “son of man” refer, to the Messiah who is
called the Son of man, or to mankind? The Greek word “visit” is episkeptomai (¦ðéóêåðôïìáé). The word
means “to look upon in order to help or to benefit, to look after, to have a care for.” This clearly indicates
that the son of man spoken of here is the human race. God looks upon the human race in order to help or
to benefit it. Thus, the picture in verses 6–8 is that of the human race in Adam.

Translation. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the
son of man that thou dost look upon him in order to come to his aid?

(2:7) The words “What is man?” do not as the Hebrew text implies, mean, “how great is man?” but “what
kind of” that is, “how small or insignificant is man?” The words “son of man,” are in the Hebrew text,
“son of Adam.” The reference is to the earthly nature of man as formed out of the dust. The distinctive
word for “man” here in the Greek text is not aner (•íåñ) (a male individual) but anthropos (•íèñïðïò)
(the generic term, mankind).

The word “little” is applied by some interpreters to the meaning and connection which the a.v., gives it,
and by others, to the idea of time. The idea of time suits the whole line of thought better, would appear to
a Greek reader as the more natural interpretation, and is certainly clearly seen in verse 9, where the
Messiah is for a little time, i.e., during His incarnation previous to His resurrection, made lower than the
angels, to be raised in resurrection higher than the angels in His humanity glorified.

Adam was therefore made for a little time lower than the angels. In his position as the federal head of the
race, in his unfallen state, God crowned him with glory and honor. This is a picture of Adam in the
paradise of Eden, before he sinned. The distinctive word for “crowned” here is stephanoo (óôåöáíïï). The
diadema (äéáäåìá) is the royal crown, the stephanos (óôåöáíïò), the victor’s crown, and the crown given
to a person because of his exalted rank or station. The context here indicates that it is used here in the
latter sense. The position of Adam as the federal head of the human race, his control of the animal
kingdom through love, all spoke of his exalted position. And he was given honor and glory in view of it.
The words, “and didst set him over the works of thy hands,” are, according to Nestle, a rejected reading.

Translation. Thou madest him for a little time lower than the angels; thou didst crown him with glory
and honor.

(2:8) God put all things in subjection to Adam. He was the head of the human race, the lord of the earth.
Even the animal kingdom was in subjection to him.
But now comes a sad note. The words, “But now we see not yet all things put under him,” point to the fact
that Adam through his fall into sin, lost the dominion he had before enjoyed. He was no longer master of
himself. He had become a fallen creature, with a totally depraved nature. He was a slave to sin. The
animal kingdom was subservient to him not now through affection but fear. The ground, instead of
yielding only good things, now produced also thorns, weeds, and other harmful things. Extremes of heat
and cold, poisonous reptiles, earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes, all conspired to make his life a constant
battle to survive. He had lost the dominion over all these things.

Translation. All things thou didst put in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection
under Him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put
under him.

(3) Our Lord has regained this dominion for man, who will be associated with Him in His rule (v. 9).

(2:9) But now, in the midst of this dark picture of man’s lost dominion, the writer calls our attention to a
bright beam of light that pierces the surrounding gloom. It is Jesus. When the reader of the English
translation comes to this name here, at once there flashes into his mind the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus
of Paul, the Saviour of lost sinners. And that is all good, so far as it goes. But to the Jewish reader of the
Greek text of this letter, the reaction would be somewhat different. He would say to himself that the name
Jesus in the Greek text is just the transliteration of the Hebrew name Jehoshua (%åçïóçõá), the name of
the God of Israel that points to His distinctive nature as the One who saves. The idea of Deity would come
to his mind.

But as he read on, he would see incarnation in the words, “who was for a little time made lower than the
angels.” And that would lead him to the Person who in the Gospels was spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth.
Up to this point, the writer has not mentioned the name Jesus to his Jewish readers. He was well aware of
the fact that they were in a frame of mind in which they would be hard to handle. The controversy
centered around the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to the Messiahship. At one time some of these Jewish
recipients of this letter had acknowledged Him as such, with an intellectual assent to the fact, but not a
heart acceptance of His Person and Work. Now, they were drifting away from their former position. The
writer up to this point had spoken of the Son as superior to the prophets and the angels. Now, he suddenly
says that the Son is the Jehoshua of the Old Testament and the Jesus of Nazareth of the New.

The vision of Jesus which the writer wishes to bring to his readers is that of the Son incarnate, glorified,
crowned with glory and honor, seated at the right hand of God, a position of glory and honor which the
saved of the human race will share with Him in His future Millennial glory and earth dominion. That is
the glorious ray of light which the writer brings into the dark picture of man’s present estate.

But the path to glory and honor for the Son was through incarnation and the death of the Cross. He was
therefore made for a little time lower than the angels, in order that He might taste death for the human
race. The penalty of sin was paid by Him. He through the blood of His Cross regained for man that which
Adam through his fall lost for man.

Man today may have salvation from sin, its penalty and power, by believing. The earth itself, and the
animal kingdom will some day be relieved of the curse that was put upon it because of Adam’s sin, and in
the eternity to come, the saved of the human race will live on the earth remade into a paradise, with the
Son as their Sovereign and Lord. Thus, the angels will not rule over the Millennial earth, nor will the earth
in its eternal state consequent upon its renovation, be under the administration of angels.
The saved of the human race in their glorious Head, the Last Adam, will rule over the earth paradise of
God. Thus, the Messiah is better than the angels, since He will bear the rule and the sceptre, and they will
be His servants.

The words “for the suffering of death” are in the Greek text associated with the words, “crowned with
glory and honor.” It was through our Lord’s sufferings and because of them that He was crowned with
glory and honor. Our Lord’s exaltation and preeminence over the angels was obtained through His
humiliation. God manifested His grace toward man in that He set forth His Son as the propitiation that
would pay for sin. As in verse 7, the distinctive word for “crowned” is stephanoo (óôåöáíïï), the act of
placing a victor’s crown upon the head. Here the Last Adam gained the victory through the Blood of His
Cross over the Serpent under whose attack the First Adam had gone down in defeat, dragging down with
him, the entire human race of which he was the federal head. But the Last Adam, raising Himself out from
under that awful thing called death, brings with Him from that sphere into which He vicariously
descended, the saints of all ages, to some day share His glory and honor on His throne.

Translation. But Jesus, made for a little time lower than the angels with the design that He by the grace
of God should taste death for every man, we see crowned as victor with glory and honor
because of the suffering of death.

i. Is the High Priest who has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (vv. 10–18).

(1) He becomes the Saviour through His death on the Cross (v. 10).

(2:10) Christ (Messiah) crucified (I Cor. 1:23), was a stumbling block to the Jew. This may have been one
of the factors which was influencing these Hebrews in their drift away from their new profession of
Messiah, back to the Levitical sacrifices. The inspired writer seeks to justify his bold assertion of verse 9.
He senses the recoil which his readers would have from the thought of a suffering Messiah, and he now
shows that Jesus’ suffering and death were according to the divine fitness of things.

He says, “It became Him (namely, God the Father), for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,
in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.”

The words “it became” are the translation of prepo (ðñåðï), “to be becoming, seemly, fit.” It was not a
logical necessity (dei (äåé) “ought”) as in verse 1. It was not an obligation growing out of circumstances
(opheilen (Ïöåéëåí)) as in 2:17 (behooved). It was an inner fitness in God’s dealings. The fact that God the
Father decreed that it must be through the blood of Christ’s Cross that the Captain of our salvation would
become the Saviour of sinners, did not find its origin in a divine fiat, but in the very constitution of the
nature of God. A holy God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance. A righteous God cannot
but require that the demands of the violated law be satisfied. And a loving God cannot but provide the
very payment of the penalty which His law demands. Thus, the writer shows the sweet reasonableness of
the Cross. And because only God can satisfy the demands of God, so only the Messiah who is one of the
Persons of the Godhead, could in the great plan of salvation, provide the sacrifice. God the Father
provides the salvation, God the Son procures it, and God the Holy Spirit applies it.

The writer speaks of God as the God for whom (di hon (äé Òí)) are all things. “For whom” is literally “on
account of whom,” that is, for whose sake all things exist. God is the final reason for all things. “By
whom” is literally “through whose agency” all things came into being. These two emphasize the idea
which the writer has just given his readers, that of the sweet reasonableness and fitness of the fact that the
Messiah was to be a suffering Messiah.
The clause, “in bringing many sons unto glory,” speaks not only of believers as sons but includes also the
Son of God Himself, for in verse 9 the writer declares that our Lord was crowned with glory and honor
because of His sufferings. The words “to make perfect” are literally “to carry to the goal or
consummation.” The word is teleioo (ôåëåéïï). This does not imply any moral imperfection in the Lord
Jesus, but speaks of the consummation of the human experience of suffering the death of the Cross,
through which He must pass if He is to become the Captain of our salvation. The word “captain” is the
translation of archegos (•ñ÷åãïò), a word compounded of ago (•ãï) “to lead or go,” and arche (•ñ÷å),
“first,” thus, “one who goes first,” a “leader.” The Son precedes the saved on the road to heaven. He says,
“I am the road (hodos (Òäïò)),… No man cometh to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). And the writer to
the Hebrews speaks of “the freshly slain and living road” (10:20) into the presence of God, the road
sprinkled with the blood of Jesus. Our blessed Lord is, therefore, not only the leader on the road to God,
but the road itself, and that by reason of His precious blood.

Translation. For it was fitting for Him, for whose sake all things exist, and through whose agency all
things came into existence, when bringing many sons into glory, to make complete (as to
His Saviour-hood) the file-leader of their salvation through sufferings.

(2) This death made possible through His incarnation (vv. 11–16).

(2:11) In order to bring many sons to glory, our Lord becomes to them a brother. The words “He that
sanctifieth” refer to the Lord Jesus, the One who puts the believer on the path to glory, and then through
the ministry of the Holy Spirit leads him on that road through the process of progressive sanctification and
finally through glorification into the eternal conditions where all through the eternal ages he will grow
more and more like the Lord Jesus and approach toward His likeness, but will not in the infinite years of
eternity, ever become in an absolute sense just like Him, for finiteness can only approach toward infinity,
never equal it. The words “they who are sanctified” refer, of course, to the saints.

The words “of one” are literally, “out of one.” We have the ablative of source here. That is, the Lord Jesus
and the saints, are all out of one source. Because the Lord Jesus and the saints are all out of one source,
the writer says that He is not ashamed to call the saints His brethren. The Greek word for brother
(adelphos (•äåëöïò)) means “from the same womb.” That one source is God the Father. The Son in His
deity proceeds by eternal generation from God the Father. In His humanity, He finds His source in God.
The saints find the source of their sonship in God the Father. Thus, Jesus calls us His brethren. We, the
Lord Jesus and the saints, have the same God for our Father. What condescension on the part of our
glorious Lord! Notwithstanding His superior and exalted dignity, He is not ashamed to call us His
brethren.

Translation. For both He who sanctifies, and those who are sanctified, are all out of one source, for
which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.

(2:12) The writer has just stated the fact that the Lord Jesus is not ashamed to call believers brethren. He
quotes the words, “I will declare thy Name unto my brethren” (Ps. 22:22), uttered on the Cross by the
Lord Himself. While the psalm has its background in David’s own experience, yet the final and full
application of its truth, is to the Son of God. In verses 19–21, He prays to be raised out from among the
dead. In verses 22–31, He gives thanks for answered prayer even before His prayer is actually answered.
In view of the fact that God will raise Him from the dead, He will declare His Name to His brethren. The
writer to the Hebrews quotes this statement, not for its contextual value, but only to give scriptural
verification to his statement in verse 11.
Translation. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing
praise unto thee.

(2:13) The writer now quotes Isaiah 8:17, 18 LXX, to show the close unity which exists between the Lord
Jesus and those whom He calls His brethren. The context of the quotation from Isaiah concerns the
prophet’s invective against trusting in any help but God’s during the Syro-Israelitish war under Ahaz.
Isaiah declares his own trust in God, and that his children have been appointed as living symbols of the
divine will. The meanings of the names of the prophet’s children are “a remnant shall return,” and
“haste-spoil-hurry, prey.” These names will teach Israel that Assyria will spoil Damascus and Samaria,
and that in the midst of a foreign invasion, God will still be with Judah. Both the prophet and the children
are omens of the nation’s future. The children were babes at the time. Thus, the unity which existed
between Isaiah and the children was that which exists between every father and his children. This unity
the writer to the Hebrews uses as an illustration of the close unity between the Lord Jesus and believers,
whom He calls brethren.

Translation. And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God
hath given me.

(2:14) The children here refer of course, to human beings, the subjects of the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus. The word “partakers” is from koinoneo (êïéíïíåï) which means “to have a share in common with
someone else.” Thus, the individuals of the human race have in common with one another, flesh and
blood. The order in the Greek text is “blood and flesh.” In the rabbinical writers, this was a technical
phrase speaking of human nature in contrast with God.

“Likewise” is the translation of paraplesios (ðáñáðëåóéïò), made up of para (ðáñá) “alongside” and
plesios (ðëåóéïò) “nearby.” The Lord Jesus, in His incarnation, took His place alongside and nearby the
human race. The word could be better translated “in like manner.”

But now we come to a careful distinction. The words “took part of” are the translation of a different word
from that translated “partakers.” It is metecho (ìåôå÷ï), made up of echo (¦÷ï) “to hold” and meta (ìåôá)
“with,” thus, “to hold with.” Thus, our Lord took hold of human nature without its sin in the incarnation,
and held it to Himself as an additional nature, thus associating Himself with the human race in its
possession of flesh and blood. He took to Himself, something with which by nature He had nothing in
common. Human beings possess human nature in common with one another. The Son of God united with
Himself, something that was not natural to Him. God, as to His nature, is spirit, that is, incorporeal Being
(John 4:24). Vincent says that Westcott states the matter correctly. He says that koinonia (êïéíïíéá)
(partakers) marks the characteristic sharing of the common fleshly nature as it pertains to the human race
at large, whereas metecho (ìåôå÷ï) (took part of) speaks of the unique fact of the incarnation as a
voluntary acceptance of humanity. What light this throws upon the Bible’s attitude towards the dual nature
of our Lord, Very God and true Man.

The reason why the Lord Jesus became incarnate is that He might die. The reason why He needed to die is
that through dying and raising Himself out from under death, He might break the power of death, and thus
break the power of the one who has the power of death. The word “destroy” is the translation of
katergazomai (êáôåñãáæïìáé), which means “to bring to naught, to render inoperative.” Satan was not
annihilated at the Cross. His power was broken. Spiritual death cannot hold the person who puts his faith
in the Saviour. Physical death cannot keep his body in the grave. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus
provides the believer with eternal life, and his body with glorification at the Rapture.
Thus, Jesus conquered death, and brought to naught the Devil. Satan had the power of death, not in the
sense that he had power over death, but that he had the sovereignty or dominion of death. He had a
sovereignty of which death is the realm. The word for “power” in the Greek text here is kratos ( êñáôïò),
which means “power in the sense of dominion.” His dominion over the human race was in the form of
death. That dominion is now broken.

Translation. Therefore, since the children share in common with one another blood and flesh, He
Himself also partook with them in the same, in order that through the aforementioned
death He might bring to naught the one having the dominion of death, that is, the Devil.

(2:15) The word “deliver” is the translation of apallasso (•ðáëëáóóï) which was used in the papyri, for
instance, of a wife who may desire to be released from a marriage contract. So our Lord, through His
death, made possible for the believing sinner release from the grip that death had on him. The word
“subject” is the translation of enochoi (¦íï÷ïé), which is compounded of en (¦í), “in,” and echo (¦÷ï), “to
hold.” That is, death held sinners in bondage.

Translation. And effect the release of those who by reason of fear of death through the entire course of
their lives were held in bondage.

(2:16) The word “verily” is the translation of depou (äåðïõ) which has the ideas of “doubtless, as is well
known.” The words “he took” are epilambanetai (¦ðéëáìâáíåôáé) in the Greek text. The verb means “to
take, lay hold of, take possession of.” By a metaphor drawn from laying hold of another to rescue him
from peril, the word came to mean “to lay hold of for the purpose of helping or succoring.” It is used in
this latter sense here.

The words in the Authorized Version “him the nature of,” are in italics indicating that they are not in the
Greek text but are supplied by the translators in an effort to translate the passage. They are superfluous
and give the reader the wrong interpretation of the passage, in view of the meaning of epilambano
(¦ðéëáìâáíï) here. The idea here is that the Lord Jesus, in His work on Calvary’s Cross, did not provide
for the salvation of fallen angels but for the salvation of fallen human beings. In perfect righteousness He
passed by fallen angels, and in infinite mercy and condescension, stooped to provide salvation for man.
He passed by the superior being to save an inferior being. He gets more glory in taking an inferior being
and raising him to an exalted position in Christ Jesus, than in saving a superior being and raising him to
those heights of blessedness.

Translation. For, as is well known, He does not take hold of angels for the purpose of helping them, but
of the seed of Abraham He takes hold, with a view to succoring them.

(3) As High Priest for human beings, it was necessary that He become incarnate (vv. 17, 18).

(2:17) The word “wherefore” speaks of the necessity of the incarnation in view of the fact that our Lord
laid hold of the human race for the purpose of saving those in it who would accept salvation by faith. The
words “it behooved” are in the Greek text opheilo (Ïöåéëï), which speaks of an obligation imposed upon
one by reason of a certain consideration. Here the consideration is that of the position our Lord assumed
as the One who would come to the aid of lost sinners. The obligation arising out of this position was that
in order to provide a salvation for the human race, He had to become like the human race, namely, Man,
for a priest must always partake of the nature of the one for whom he officiates. Thus, the incarnation was
a necessity in the nature of the case. He became “like unto His brethren.”
Vincent says in this connection: “Likeness is asserted without qualification. There was a complete and real
likeness to humanity, a likeness which was closest just where the traces of the curse of sin were most
apparent—in poverty, temptation, and violent and unmerited death.”

The incarnation made possible, therefore, His becoming a merciful high priest. The Greek word
“merciful” speaks of that feeling of sympathy with the misery of another that leads one to act in his behalf
to relieve that misery. The idea is that of a compassionate heart leading one to acts of mercy, the purpose
of which is to relieve the suffering and misery of the object of that compassion. The Lord Jesus, being
such a compassionate high priest, is, therefore, a faithful one, the word “faithful” here having the idea of
fidelity.

The idea of compassion as an attribute of priests is not found in the Old Testament. One of the faults of
the priests was their lack of sympathy with the people (Hos. 4:4–9). In later Jewish history and in New
Testament times, the priests were unfeeling and cruel. This idea of a compassionate priest would be
welcomed by the Jewish readers of this letter, who knew of the lack of sympathy exhibited by the Aaronic
priesthood.

The words “in things pertaining to God” are a technical phrase in Jewish liturgical language speaking of
the functions of worship. The phrase is to be construed with the words “a faithful high priest,” not with
“merciful.”

The particular service our Lord as High Priest rendered, is given us in the words “to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people.” The verb here is hilaskomai (Êëáóêïìáé). Its noun form, hilasterion
(Êëáóôåñéïí), is found in Romans 3:25, where it is translated “propitiation.” In its Biblical usage, the verb
refers to the act of our Lord offering Himself on the Cross to satisfy the righteous demands of God’s
justice so that His government might be maintained, and that mercy might be shown on the basis of justice
satisfied. The words “reconciliation” and “propitiation” are to be understood in this light.

Translation. For this reason it was an obligation in the nature of the case for Him in all things to be
made like to His brethren, in order that He might become a compassionate and faithful
High Priest in things pertaining to God, with a view to offering that sacrifice for the sins of
the people that would perfectly meet the demands of God’s justice.

(2:18) The emphasis in this verse is not upon the fact that the Lord Jesus suffered, but upon the fact that
He was tempted. The order of the Greek words and their translation are as follows: “For in that which He
suffered, having Himself been tempted.” The words “in that which He suffered” qualify the word
“tempted.” The phrase explains in what the temptation consisted. The word “tempted” is the translation of
peirazomai (ðåéñáæïìáé), which referred first to the action of putting someone to the test to see what good
or evil is in the one tested, and second, because so many broke down under the test and committed sin, the
word came to mean a “solicitation to do evil.” Both meanings are in view here. Our Lord in His
incarnation as the Last Adam, was put to the test and was also solicited to do evil (Matt. 4:1–11). Here the
inspired writer has in view the testings and solicitations to do evil that were associated with His expiatory
sufferings on the Cross. For examples of these see Matthew 4:8, 9, where Satan tempts our Lord to go
around the Cross and accept from his hands the world-dominion He is yet to have. See Matthew 16:21,
22, where Peter, the unconscious tool of Satan dismisses as absurd the idea that Jesus as Messiah should
die at the hands of the leaders of Israel; and Matthew 26:36–46, where in Gethsemane His sinless human
and at the same time divine shrinking back from the prospect of being made sin and of losing the
fellowship of the Father caused Him to pray, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.”
But see how He met each temptation. In the case of Satan tempting Him to worship him, He who had
obeyed as a habit of life the words of Deuteronomy 10:20, now had because of that fact, reserves of
spiritual power in His sinless humanity with which to say NO to Satan. The believer has the same
resource. When Peter tempted Him to put the Cross away, He recognized Satan’s hand in it all, and
withstood the temptation, choosing the way that savored of God, not man. The believer has the same
resource. With his spiritual vision sharpened by the Holy Spirit through the Word, he is able to detect
Satan’s machinations and swing out away from them, keeping in the path of God’s leading. In the garden
of Gethsemane, our Lord was victor when He said, “nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.” He
chose death to self rather than disobedience to the Father’s wishes. That is what Paul is speaking of in
Philippians 2:5–8, 10. The believer has the same resource. When he comes to the place where he is dead
to self, where self has ceased its imperious demands for satisfaction, where nothing matters except the
sweet will of God, then he finds an arsenal of ammunition which he can hurl as an effective broadside
against temptation. In all temptations the Lord Jesus stands ready to give aid to the sorely tried saint. He
understands all about it, not only in His omniscience, but also experientially, for He has experienced all
this Himself. The word “succor” is the translation of boetheo (âïåèåï) which means “to run to the cry of
those in danger and bring them aid.” How precious to know that when we are being tempted, the Lord
Jesus always stands ready, eager to run to our cry and bring us aid.

Translation. For in that which He suffered, having Himself been tempted, He is able to run to the cry of
those who are being tempted and bring them aid.
Chapter 3

3. Moses (3:1–6) because

a. He is Creator of Israel, Moses only a member of that house (vv. 1–4).

Note. After having shown that Messiah is better than the prophets (1:1–3), and better than angels
(1:4–2:18), the writer demonstrates that Messiah is better than Moses.

(3:1) By the use of the word “wherefore,” the writer draws a conclusion from the preceding argument.
Having shown that Messiah is better than the prophets and the angels, he asks his readers to consider Him
in relation to Moses. He calls them “holy brethren.” The word “holy” here does not have particular
reference to a quality of life but to a position in salvation. The Greek word means “set apart for God.”
Thus, the basic idea of the word is that of a set-apart, a separated position with reference to God. The term
“holy brethren” here refers to the New Testament believers, the saints, set-apart ones. We must remember
in this connection that this epistle is addressed to the professing Church, made up of real believers and
also of those who gave only an intellectual assent to the Word. The writer, knowing in his heart that some
were not saved, yet addresses them upon the basis of their profession, not upon that of his own estimation
of their spiritual status.

But the words “holy brethren” could be used of the Old Testament saints. Therefore, to distinguish these
from the former, the writer adds the words “partakers of the heavenly calling.” “Partakers” is the
translation of the same Greek word translated “fellows” in 1:9, and “partners” in Luke 5:7. It speaks of
one who is associated with others in a common task or condition. Here the word designates the saints as
those who are associated with one another in a heavenly calling. Paul speaks of the “calling from above,”
that effectual call into salvation which comes from heaven and is to heaven (Phil. 3:14). This expression
in Hebrews 3:1 speaks therefore of the Church. Israel has an earthly calling and an earthly destiny. The
Church has a heavenly calling and a heavenly destiny. Thus does the writer mark the Jews to whom he
was writing, as belonging to the Church and as distinct from Israel.

The word “consider” is the translation of katanoeo (êáôáíïåï) which means, “to consider attentively, to
fix one’s eyes or mind upon.” The readers of this letter needed just that exhortation. They were allowing
their attention to relax so far as Messiah and the New Testament were concerned, and their gaze was
slowly turning back upon the First Testament sacrifices.

The writer speaks of the Lord Jesus as the apostle of the profession which has to do with the New
Testament. The word “apostle” is the English spelling of the Greek word apostolos (•ðïóôïëïò) which in
turn comes from the verb apostello (•ðïóôåëëï), the latter speaking of the act of sending someone off on
a commission to do something, the person sent having been furnished with credentials. This verb is often
used in the LXX of God sending Moses on a commission for Him (Ex. 3:-7:), and is used of God sending
the Lord Jesus on a commission (Luke 10:16; John 3:17, 5:36, 6:29). The two apostles are now compared.
The word translated “profession” (homologia (Òìïëïãéá)), could better be translated “confession.” The
Greek word means “to speak the same thing as another,” thus, “to agree with someone else.” The idea
here is that of the believer agreeing with God as to the report He gives in the Bible of His Son. That is the
believer’s confession. The word “profession” while including within itself the idea of bearing testimony to
what one believes, does not have in it the idea of agreeing with someone else on something and then
testifying to one’s faith in that thing.
Translation. Wherefore, brethren, set apart ones for God, associates of the heavenly calling, consider
attentively and thoughtfully, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus. 10

(3:2) The subject of the comparison of Messiah with Moses, was a most delicate one. Moses was the
object of deepest veneration to these Jewish readers. The writer displays great tact by showing that both
Messiah and Moses were faithful, before showing that while Moses was faithful as a servant, Messiah was
faithful as the Son. The reader will notice that the present author uses the name Messiah where the name
Christ appears in the translation. The name Christ is the English spelling of the Greek word Christos
(×ñéóôïò), and this Greek word is the translation of the Hebrew word which is by transliteration brought
over into the English language, Messiah. The name Christ has no meaning except that which the English
reader puts upon it. The Greek word means “the anointed,” as does the Hebrew word. But the name
Messiah has a definite content of meaning, even though it is but the transliteration of the Hebrew word. It
refers to the anointed King of Israel. In that sense it is used here.

The present tense is used in the Greek text, not the past. It is “who is faithful.” It is a general designation
of inherent character. Thus, Messiah is faithful as He always has been faithful. He is compared to Moses,
who was the highest example of human fidelity known to the Jewish readers of this epistle. God Himself
bears testimony to the fidelity of His servant Moses in the words, “My servant Moses is not so, who is
faithful in all mine house” (Num. 12:7).

Translation. Who is faithful to the One who appointed Him, as also Moses was in his whole house.

(3:3) But now, having prepared the ground, the writer comes out boldly with the assertion that Messiah
was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, on the basis of and measured by the principle that the one
who builds a house has more honor than the house. Messiah built the house of Israel. Moses is a member
of that house. Since Messiah has more honor than the house of Israel, it follows that He is worthy of more
honor than Moses, for Moses is a member of the house of Israel. Since Messiah is better than Moses, the
Testament which He inaugurated must be better than the one Moses was instrumental in bringing in, and
for the reason that a superior workman turns out a superior product.

Translation. For this One was counted worthy of more glory than Moses by so much as he who built a
house has more honor than the house.

(3:4) In verse 3, Messiah is seen as the Builder of the house of Israel. In this verse, the writer guards that
fact against any possible misunderstanding on the part of his readers. Messiah is the Builder of the house
of Israel, but not by any independent will or agency of His own. He as the Son built the house, but it was
as one with God who built all things, that He built the house of Israel. The special foundership of Messiah
does not exclude the general foundership of God.

Translation. For every house is built and completely furnished by someone. But the one who built and
completely furnished all things is God.

b. He is Son of God over Israel, Moses a servant (vv. 5, 6).

(3 :5) The word “and” introduces the further development of the thought of verses 2, 3, namely, the
fidelity of the Messiah and Moses, and the corresponding honor. The writer says that Moses was faithful
as a servant. The particular word he uses for “servant” deserves special study. It is therapon (èåñáðïí).
This word is used in the LXX of angels and prophets. There is an ethical character attached to the word. It
speaks of service of an affectionate nature, and of a hearty character, performed with care and fidelity.
Therapon (Èåñáðïí) speaks of service that is of a nobler and a freer character than that of doulos (äïõëïò)
(bondslave). The verb is used of the physician’s care of the sick. Xenophon uses it of the gods taking care
of men, and of men worshipping the gods. The word is used in the Book of Wisdom 10:16 of Moses in the
phrase, “servant of the Lord.” The use of the word in our present passage is indicative of the close
relationship which existed between Jehovah and Moses, and of the fact that his services were of an
exceptionally high and important character, and valued by Him.

The fidelity of Moses as a servant in the house of Israel is now said to be a “testimony of those things
which were to be spoken after.” The meaning is that the fact that God bore testimony to the fidelity of
Moses, was a guarantee of the trustworthiness of the report which Moses gave of the things God spoke to
him. This interpretation seems to be the correct one in view of the context in Numbers 12:7, 8, where God
says, “My servant Moses … is faithful in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth, apparently,
and not in dark speeches.”

Translation. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things
which were to be spoken after;

(3:6) Whereas Moses was a servant (en (¦í)) in God’s house, Messiah was Son (epi (¦ðé)) over that house.
Both were faithful in their respective positions and capacities. But Messiah’s exalted position and more
important work enhanced the quality of His fidelity over that of Moses, since both His position as Son and
work as High Priest involved peculiar difficulties and temptations to which Moses never was subject.
Thus, Messiah is better than Moses, and the Testament which He inaugurated is better and takes the place
of the one Moses was instrumental in founding.

The word “house” in verses 5, 6 must be defined by the context in which it is found. The general
application in all instances of its use in these verses is to the house of God. In the case of Moses, it was
the house of God as related to Israel. In the case of Messiah, it was the house of God as related to the
family of God in all ages. In the case of the “we” of verse 6, it is the house of God as related to the saints
of this dispensation.

Now, the writer, keeping in mind the fact that only part of his readers were really saved, and the other part
were merely making a profession of salvation, and the latter under stress of persecution were in danger of
relapsing back to apostate Judaism, proposes to these readers a test whereby they can tell whether they
really belong to the house of God or not, that is, whether they are really saved or not. The “if” in the Greek
text is the particle ean (©áí), introducing a future, unfulfilled, hypothetical condition. The writer is
proposing a condition as yet unfulfilled. If these Jews, to whom he is writing, hold fast their confidence
and the rejoicing of their professed hope in Messiah firm to the end of their lives, that fact shows that they
belong to the house of God, in other words, are saved. If they do not do so, but instead, renounce that
profession and return to the abrogated system of Levitical sacrifices, that shows that they never were
saved. It is not the retention of salvation that is in question here, but the possession of salvation. The text
does not say, “whose house will we continue to be,” but “whose house are we.” Frequently the verb of
being is left out by the Greek writer, it being understood in the light of the context. But it is in the Greek
text here, and in the present tense. Therefore, the subject of the security of the believer is not in view here.
This verse must be understood in the light of its historical background and context The purpose of the
writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to meet a certain condition in the first century. It was to reach
Jews who had outwardly left the temple sacrifices, had identified themselves with the visible Christian
Church, had made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, and who were at the time suffering persecution
from apostate Judaism in an effort to force them to renounce their professed faith in Messiah and return to
the First Testament sacrifices. Now—if under the pressure of this persecution they should hold fast their
confidence and rejoicing of their hope in Messiah to the end of their lives, that would show that they were
saved, and if not, that would indicate that they had never been saved. This verse therefore cannot be made
to refer in a secondary application to the present day, since the conditions in the first century which the
verse was written to meet, do not obtain today.

The words “hold fast” are the translation of katecho (êáôå÷ï). Among its meanings is one that vividly
illustrates its use here. It is used in nautical circles in the meaning of “holding one’s course toward.” Luke
uses it in Acts 27:40 where the storm-tossed ship held its course toward shore. The Authorized Version
translates “made toward shore.” If these Hebrews would hold their course in life steadfastly along the lines
of their present profession, that would show that they were saved. If they veered away from that course,
that would show that they never had been saved, but that their profession of Messiah had been, not one of
the heart but of the head.

The word “confidence” is the translation of parresia (ðáññåóéá), which is a compound of pan (ðáí) “all,”
and hrema (Õåìá) “speech,” literally “all speech.” Its dominant idea is one of the boldness and confidence
which are exhibited in freedom of speech, the unreserved, unfettered flow of language which is opposed
to fear, ambiguity, and reserve. This confidence or boldness would characterize the speech and behavior
of the Jew who was actually a possessor of salvation and not merely a professor of the same, but would
soon disappear in the case of a mere professor should he turn away from Messiah back to the sacrifices.
The writer reminds his readers that the word of God is alive and powerful, and able to penetrate beneath
any mere profession (4:12, 13). It is important to note that a spirit of rejoicing must accompany this spirit
of confidence, stamping it as genuine, for a simulated confidence does not give rise to any real rejoicing.

Translation. But Messiah as Son over His house; whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and
the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

4. Joshua (3:7–4:13), because He leads into a spiritual rest which is better than the temporal rest into
which Joshua led Israel.

a. Warning against hardening their hearts toward the Holy Spirit as the wilderness wanderers hardened
their hearts against God (3:7–9).

(3:7, 8) The word “wherefore” reaches back into the epistle to the three preceding arguments. In view of
the fact that Messiah is better than the prophets, the angels, and Moses, the warning is, not to harden their
hearts in renouncing their professed faith in Messiah and returning to the sacrifices. The construction is;
Wherefore (v. 7), take heed (v. 12), the contents of verses 7–11 being the parenthetical background and
scriptural enforcement of the warning of verse 12. The warning of the parenthetical passage is however
addressed to the readers.
The writer quotes from Psalm 95:7–11. The psalm was written by David, but the writer attributes it here to
the Holy Ghost. 11 The Holy Ghost spoke the words. David, the inspired penman, wrote them down. The
Hebrew reads, “O that you would hear his voice.” The Greek has the conditional particle ean (©áí)
introducing a conditional sentence, undetermined but with prospect of determination. The condition which
must be met if these Hebrews are to hear the voice of God is, that they must not harden their hearts. In the
psalm, the pronoun “he” refers back to God. In the context into which the writer of this epistle has put it, it
refers back to Christ. This makes the Jehovah of the o.t., the Messiah of the n.t. It is He who is said to
have spoken the words of the New Testament (2:3). These Jews were leaning back towards the First
Testament. This was a heart-hardening process. They are warned against it.

The writer recalls to them the provocation Israel caused God by its hardness of heart on account of the
lack of water at Rephidim, when the people murmured against Moses (Ex. 17:1–7). The word
“temptation” (peirasmos (ðåéñáóìïò)) is preceded here by the definite article, pointing to a particular
temptation. The Greek word means in its primary usage, “to put to the test.” Israel put God to the test by
asking, “Is the Lord among us, or not?” Instead of trusting God in the midst of adverse circumstances,
they demanded that He show His hand in order to demonstrate to them that He was in their midst to help
them. The Greek verb translated “harden,” together with the negative, forbids the continuance of an action
already going on. These Hebrews were already hardening their hearts. The writer exhorts them to stop
doing so.

Translation. Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit says; Today, if His voice ye will hear, do not go on
hardening your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of the putting to the test in the
wilderness.

(3:9) The word “when” is the Authorized Version translation of hou (Òõ) which really means “where.”
The Greek words translated “tempted” and “proved,” are peirazomai (ðåéñáæïìáé) and dokimazo
(äïêéìáæï) respectively. They are an interesting contrast. Peirazomai (Ðåéñáæïìáé) means “to put to the
test to see what good or evil may be in a person.” Dokimazo (Äïêéìáæï) means “to put to the test for the
purpose of approving the person if he meets the test.” The Greek here is “put Me to the test to see what
evil or good there is in Me when they put Me to the test for the purpose of approving Me should I meet the
test.” What crass unbelief is shown in such a procedure. What an insult it flings into the face of an
all-loving, all-powerful God. The first-century readers of this letter are warned not to take that attitude
toward God. They were being bitterly persecuted because of their professed faith in Messiah and the New
Testament. But they should trust God in the midst of it all and not harden their hearts against Him.

Translation. When your fathers put Me to the test to see what good or evil there is in Me, when they put
me to the test for the purpose of approving Me should I meet the test, and saw my works
forty years.

b. That generation did not enter Canaan rest (vv. 10, 11).

(3:10) The word “grieved” is the translation of prosochthizo (ðñïóï÷èéæï) which means “to be wroth or
displeased with.” It is the translation in the LXX of Hebrew verbs meaning “to loathe, be disgusted, to
spue out, to exclude, reject, abhor, repudiate.” One can see that the Greek word is, therefore, a strong one,
expressive of a strong displeasure, amounting to offence. God was offended at the actions of Israel. The
word translated “do err,” planao (ðëáíáï), here occurring in the passive voice, means “to be led astray, to
be led aside from the right way.” Israel was led astray with respect to the heart, the seat of one’s personal
character and of one’s moral and spiritual life.
The Hebrew has it, “They are a people of wanderers in heart.” “Have known” is in the aorist tense in the
Greek text, and is therefore a fact antecedent to the verb “err.” The distinctive word “to know” here is
ginosko (ãéíïóêï) which speaks of knowledge gained by experience. Israel’s ignorance of the ways of
Jehovah preceded and was the cause of their being led astray. Their ignorance was due to their neglect of
Jehovah, for the knowledge they lacked was experiential knowledge which was to be acquired through
experience with the ways and character of God.

Translation. Because of this I was offended with this generation, and I said, Always are they being led
astray in their hearts. And they themselves did not have an experiential knowledge of my
paths.

(3:11) The word “so” is the translation of hos (Òò) which has the idea of “according as, in conformity with
which fact.” The word “sware” is the translation of omnuo (Ïìíõï) which means “to take an oath, to
threaten with an oath.” The words “They shall not enter into” in the Greek text include a conditional
particle not brought over into the English. It is, “If they shall enter.” This is a common Hebraistic formula
in oaths. In the case where God speaks, as here, it is “may I not be Jehovah if they shall enter.” The word
for “rest” here is katapausin. Pauo (êáôáðáõóéí. Ðáõï), the verb, means “to cease or desist.” Thus, this
kind of rest refers to a cessation of activity. The prefixed preposition in its local use means “down,” and
speaks of permanency. Thus, the compound word refers to a permanent cessation of activity, a permanent
rest. The rest spoken of here is defined in the context as Israel’s rest in Canaan. It is God’s rest, in that He
would give it to His people. It refers to the permanent and tranquil abode promised Israel in Canaan. It
would be in contrast to the abject slavery of Israel in Egypt. This permanent and tranquil rest will be
Israel’s in the Millennium under its covenanted King, the Lord Jesus. The wilderness wanderers failed of
it because of unbelief. The new generation did enter the land but enjoyed no permanent rest because of
sin, and was taken into captivity. The remnant that returned was governed by the successive Gentile
empires, until during the Roman supremacy, it was scattered over the then known earth in the dispersion,
a.d. 70.

Translation. In conformity with which fact I took an oath in my wrath. They shall not enter into my rest.

c. The evidence of the fact that the recipient is saved, is that he retains his profession of faith in Messiah
under the stress of persecution, not going back to the First Testament sacrifices (vv. 12–14).

(3:12) Having reminded his readers of the defection of the wilderness generation, the writer now proceeds
to warn them against committing a similar sin. He says “Take heed.” The word is blepete (âëåðåôå), a
present imperative involving durative action. “Be seeing to it constantly, keep a watchful eye ever open,”
is the idea. The words, “lest there be” are in a construction in the Greek which indicates that with the fear
that the thing spoken of may occur, there is also a suspicion that it will occur. The words “in any certain
individual of your number” show that the writer is appealing to each one individually.

The Greek order of words is “ a heart evil with reference to unbelief.” The genitive of reference here
defines the kind of evil spoken of. The particular word for evil here is not kakos (êáêïò), evil in the
abstract, but poneros (ðïíåñïò), evil in active opposition to the good. When Satan is spoken of as the evil
one, the word used is poneros (ðïíåñïò). The latter is a much stronger word than kakos (êáêïò). Paul uses
it in Galatians 1:4. He speaks there of this present poneros (ðïíåñïò) (pernicious) age. The positive
activity of evil comes out far more in this word than in kakos (êáêïò). The kakos (êáêïò) man may be
content to perish in his own corruption, but the poneros (ðïíåñïò) man is not content unless he is
corrupting others as well, and dragging them down into the same destruction with himself. The English
word which best translates this Greek word is “pernicious.”
This evil heart of unbelief of which the writer speaks, and which he suspects is found in some of his
readers, is a heart in which the evil of unbelief is present, not in a passive or latent state, but in an active,
pernicious condition. The attitude of these Hebrews toward the New Testament was not one now of a
passive neglect, but one of an active opposition, which attitude the writer was afraid would result in a
deliberate and final rejection of the New Testament. We must be careful to discriminate here between a
heart in which unbelief is present, and an unbelieving heart. The first may be true of a Christian, but not
the second. The latter expression refers to a heart solely and entirely controlled by unbelief, in which there
is no faith whatever. These Jews to whom this warning was issued, were not saved as our historical
background and analysis have shown. They had merely given an intellectual assent to the Messiahship of
Jesus of Nazareth and to the New Testament.

The word “departing” deserves special attention. It is aphistemi (•öéóôåìé) which is made up of apo (•ðï)
“off,” and histemi (Êóôåìé) “to stand,” the compound word meaning “to stand off from.” This was exactly
the position of these Hebrews. They were standing aloof from the living God. The idea is not that of
departing, but of standing off from. Our word “apostasy” is derived from a form of this Greek word.
Apostasy is defined as the act of someone who has previously subscribed to a certain belief, and who now
renounces his former professed belief in favor of some other which is diametrically opposed to what he
believed before. In other words, his new belief is not merely a new system of faith, but one which at every
point negates his former belief. These Jews, should they renounce their professed faith in the New
Testament system and go back to the First Testament sacrifices, would be embracing that which if brought
in again would negate the New Testament. It was a question of the Levitical sacrifices or the crucified
Messiah. In making a profession of Messiah as High Priest and then renouncing that professed faith to
return to a dependence upon the sacrifices which God set aside at the Cross, the person would commit the
sin called apostasy.

Translation. Take heed constantly, brethren, lest there be in any one of you a heart perniciously evil
with unbelief in standing aloof from the living God.

(3:13) The word “exhort” is parakaleo (ðáñáêáëåï), made up of kaleo (êáëåï) “to call” and para (ðáñá)
which is used here to intensify the meaning of the verb. Kaleo (Êáëåï) is used in this verse in the words
“while it is called to-day.” The word means “to call aloud, to utter in a loud voice.” The idea is “as long as
the word ‘today’ is called out or proclaimed.” When the preposition para (ðáñá) is prefixed to this verb,
the compound word means “to call urgently,” thus, “to exhort.” Parakaleo (Ðáñáêáëåï) means, therefore,
“to beg, entreat, beseech, exhort.” The recipients of this letter are urged by the writer to exhort one another
not to harden their hearts by renouncing their professed faith in Messiah and going back to the Levitical
sacrifices which had been set aside by God at the Cross, also to exhort one another to go on to a heart faith
in Messiah. They were to beg, entreat, beseech one another not to go back to the sacrifices but on to faith
in Messiah as High Priest.

The word “Today” is preceded by the definite article in the Greek text. The article here points back to the
former expression in verse 7. It is, “But exhort one another daily so long as the aforementioned Today is
being called out.” It is the day of grace, while salvation through the Lord Jesus is still obtainable. The
word “deceitfulness” is the translation of apate (•ðáôå) which refers to a trick, stratagem, or deceit rather
than to the quality of deceitfulness. The recipients are warned against being hardened by a trick which
their sin may play upon them. The definite article precedes the word “sin,” identifying that sin with the
one spoken of in the context, namely, the sin of apostasy. The deceit here would be the illusion of their
past faithfulness to the ritual of the Levitical economy.
Translation. But be constantly exhorting one another daily, so long as the aforementioned Today is
being announced, lest any of you be hardened through the strategem of this sin.

(3:14) The word “partakers” is the translation of metochoi (ìåôï÷ïé) which is translated “fellows” in 1:9,
its verb form, rendered “took part of” in 2:14. The verb means literally “to hold with,” the noun, “one who
holds with another.” Here the word means “participators.” The word is used of those who are participators
in something, or of those who are participators with someone. The words “of Christ” are in the genitive
case. Thayer in defining this word says, “sharing in, partaking of,” with the genitive of the thing. That
would mean that those to whom the inspired author of the book is writing, were co-participators of
Messiah. They participated together in their possession of Him. In verse 6, the writer is speaking of the
fact that true believers are Messiah’s house, that is, they are His possession. In this verse, he is referring to
the fact that Messiah is the possession of believers. This is the uniform use of metochos (ìåôï÷ïò) in this
epistle where the genitive of the thing possessed is given. In 1:9 the word is used of participation with
someone. But in 2:14, 3:1, 5:13, 6:4, 7:13, 12:8, it is used of participators in something. The phrase thus
refers to the possession of salvation by the believer, a salvation which is in Christ.

The words “are made” are the translation of gegonamen (ãåãïíáìåí), the perfect of ginomai (ãéíïìáé), a
word which means “to become.” The perfect tense in Greek speaks of an action that was completed in past
time, having present results. The translation reads, therefore, “For we became partakers of Messiah with
the present result that we are partakers of Him.” That is, if these first-century Jews would maintain their
faith in Messiah to the end of their lives, that would show that they had become in the past partakers of
Messiah, and that as a present result they were partakers of Him. Again as in verse 6, the question is not
one of the retention of salvation based upon a persistence of faith, but of the possession of salvation as
evidenced by a continuation of faith. The perfect tense reaches back into the past and then speaks of the
present. It is not the future of these Jews that the writer is concerned about here, but he is concerned as to
whether in times past and as a result at the time of the writing of the epistle they were partakers of
salvation in Messiah.

The word “confidence” is the translation of hupostaseos (ßðïóôáóåïò). Its primary meaning is “that on
which anything is based.” Hence it takes the sense of hope or confidence. It is the ground of hope they
have in Messiah. This word is translated “title deed” in Hebrews 11:1 (“substance” a.v.). The word was
used, in secular manuscripts, of the documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property, deposited
in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership. It, therefore, was used of that which formed the
basis or evidence of one’s assurance of the ownership of anything. Here, it refers to their faith in Messiah
which is their ground of assurance that they are saved. If the faith of these Jews is a heart faith, they will
persist in that faith to the end of their lives, despite the persecution which they are enduring. If that faith is
a mere intellectual assent, it will not be able to stand up under this persecution, but will be repudiated by
that person. The first person is saved, the second, unsaved. The phrase “the beginning of our confidence”
refers to the incipient confidence they had which had not yet reached its perfection. The words “the end”
could refer either to the end of their lives or to the consummation of the whole life of faith.

Translation. For we have become participators of Messiah and as a present result are participators of
Him, (and that is shown) if we hold the beginning of our assured expectation steadfast to
the end.
d. The recipient will die in his sins if he fails to put his faith in Messiah as High Priest, just as the
wilderness wanderers died a physical death because of unbelief (3:15–4:8).

(3:15) The inspired writer warns against hardening the heart in verse 13, and now in this verse exhorts
against it. He uses the unbelieving generation in the wilderness as an example, which at the borders of
Canaan refused to follow Caleb and Joshua into the Promised Land, but chose to take the advice of the
others. In the last analysis it was lack of faith in God and His power to give them victory over the giants.
This is the provocation spoken of.

Translation. While it is being said, Today, if His voice ye will hear, stop hardening your hearts as in the
provocation.

(3:16) The word “some” is the translation of the indefinite pronoun in the Greek text. The interrogative
pronoun is spelled the same as the indefinite, the only thing that distinguishes the two being the accent.
The Nestle Greek text accents the word as the interrogative. The writer is saying, “For who, having heard,
did provoke?” using a question to recall to the minds of his readers the identity of those who refused to
enter Canaan. The interrogation is continued. “But, was it not all who came out of Egypt through the
instrumentality of Moses?” The writer reminds his readers that it was the entire generation that committed
the sin of apostasy.

Translation. For who, having heard, did provoke? But was it not all who came out of Egypt through the
instrumentality of Moses?

(3:17) The word “carcases” is the translation of a Greek word which in its singular number means “a
limb.” The idea of dismemberment underlies its use. The LXX uses it to translate a Hebrew word meaning
“a corpse.” The writer is referring in this verse to Numbers 14:29. Paul speaks of the same thing in I
Corinthians 10:5 where the literal translation of the Greek gives us the picture of this tragic event, “They
were strewn down along in the wilderness.”

Translation. But with whom was He grieved forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose
carcases fell in the wilderness?

(3:18) The word translated “believed not” is apeitheo (•ðåéèåï) which means, “not to allow one’s self to
be persuaded, not to comply with, to refuse or withhold belief, to be disobedient.” The word pisteuo
(ðéóôåõï) which is the usual word translated “believe” is not used here. The word used is more descriptive
of the character of the generation that refused to enter Canaan. They were of that non-persuasible type that
will not listen to reason, stiffnecked, obstinate.

Translation. And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest but to those who were
non-persuasible?

(3:19) The word “unbelief” is the translation of apistia (•ðéóôéá), a compound of the usual word for
“faith” in the New Testament with Alpha privative prefixed to negate the word. Their disobedience led to
their lack of faith. At the root of all unbelief is sin. Lack of faith in God’s Word is never purely an
intellectual thing. At its basis is the love of sin.
Translation. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Notes:

10 The name “Christ” is a rejected reading.

11 The words “Ghost” and “Spirit” are the translation of one Greek word, pneuma.
Chapter 4

(4:1) Having reminded his readers that the generation which came out of Egypt did not enter into the rest
of Canaan because of unbelief, the writer now proceeds to warn them of a possible failure on their part of
entering into rest in Messiah. The words “being left” are the translation of a present participle. The idea is
“there being left behind and still remaining.” The writer wishes to emphasize the fact that the promise of a
spiritual rest in Messiah is still available to the first century Hebrews. He is fearful lest any of them should
come short of this rest. The words “come short of” are the translation of a verb which could be rendered
either “should seem to have fallen short, should be judged to have fallen short, or, should think that he has
fallen short or come too late.” The historical background and the context are decisive for the last. These
persecuted Jews had expected to find the fulfilment of all promise in Messiah, including freedom from
stress and strain such as they were experiencing in the persecutions (10:32–34). The Old Testament Jews
were taught to believe that tribulation was a mark of God’s displeasure with Israel. They did not
understand that that which was a mark of God’s displeasure with His own in Old Testament times, was a
mark of His blessing and a means of purging and refining the lives of saints in New Testament times.
Thus, they found it hard to believe that rest was attainable in Messiah. Their professed faith was being
sorely tried by the adverse circumstances in which they found themselves. Thus, they were in danger of
renouncing their professed faith and of returning to the First Testament sacrifices under the stress of this
persecution. The writer proceeds to show that this promise is still open.

Translation. Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left behind and still remaining of entering into
His rest, anyone of you should think that he has fallen short of it or has come too late.

(4:2) To understand this verse we must identify the pronouns. “Us” refers to the first-century Jewish
readers of this letter, “them” to the generation which came out of Egypt. The words “the gospel was
preached” are the translation of a verb which means “to announce good news.” The character of the good
news must be defined by the context. The good news which was announced to the first-century readers of
this epistle was that of a spiritual rest in Messiah. The good news given to the generation which came out
of Egypt was that of a temporal, physical rest in a land flowing with milk and honey, offered to a people
who had been reduced to abject slavery for 400 years and who had lived on a diet of leeks, garlic, and
onions during that time.

But the writer says that this good news did not profit this generation, “not being mixed with faith in them
that heard it.” The verb is sugkerannumi (óõãêåñáííõìé). It means “to mix together, commingle, to unite
one thing to another.” Thayer says, “the word heard did not profit them, because it had not united itself by
faith to them that heard, i.e., because the hearers had not by their faith let it find its way into their minds
and make it their own.” Those who heard did not assimilate the good news by faith. They did not make the
promise of rest in Canaan their own. The words “Unto us was the gospel preached” are a periphrastic
perfect participial construction in the Greek text. This speaks not only of a complete work accomplished
in the past, but also of the persistence of the finished results in the present. The announcing of the good
news of Canaan to the generation which came out of Egypt, and the proclamation of the good news of a
spiritual rest in Messiah to the first-century generation was so thoroughly done that the memory of these
messages was indelibly impressed on the minds of their respective hearers. There was therefore no excuse
possible that the message had not been clearly and forcibly delivered in both instances. The participle is in
the passive voice. The literal rendering is, “For we have in times past been completely evangelized with
the present result that the message of good news is in our minds, even as they.” The word “evangelized” is
the transliteration of the Greek word here. We could translate, “We have been completely good-newsed.”
Translation. For to us (first-century Jews) was the good news (of rest in Messiah) thoroughly
announced, with the present result that we have it indelibly impressed in our minds, as well
as the good news (of rest in Canaan) thoroughly proclaimed to them (the generation which
came out of Egypt), good news that was indelibly impressed on their minds. But the word
of the report did not profit them, not having become united by faith to those who heard.

(4:3) In this verse, the writer enforces his declaration of the previous verse to the effect that faith is the
God-ordained way of appropriating that which God has for the individual. In the words, “We which have
believed do enter into rest,” he says that the entering into rest is a fact which characterizes believers. And
this is in accordance with the implication of the words of God, “As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall
enter into my rest.” The meaning is, that we who have believed have entered into rest in accordance with
God’s declaration to the effect that those who did not believe should not enter into rest. The point the
writer makes is that faith is the condition of entering into rest. The words “although the works were
finished from the foundation of the earth,” assume the reader’s acquaintance with the account of creation
in Genesis. The providing of a rest is implied in the completion of God’s works. The unbelieving
generation which came out of Egypt did not enter into Canaan rest, although God had provided that rest
into which they might have entered.

Translation. For we enter into this rest, we who believed, as He said, As I swore in my wrath, if they
shall enter into my rest, although the works from the foundation of the world were
constituted.

(4:4) What was implied in the previous words is now stated. The reference is to Genesis 2:2.

Translation. For He spoke in a certain place concerning the seventh day thus, And God rested on the
seventh day from all His works.

(4:5) The words “in this place” refer back to the words “If they shall enter into my rest” in verse 3. They
are cited again to emphasize the fact that the rest was not entered into by Israel.

Translation. And in this place again, if they shall enter into my rest.

(4:6) The writer now proceeds to show that those under Moses have failed completely of the rest in
Canaan through unbelief, that those under Joshua had entered into the temporal, physical, and material
rest in Canaan, and that the rest under Joshua was not a complete and final one since God invited Israel
into rest during David’s time. The words “it remaineth” are the translation of apoleipo (•ðïëåéðï). The
idea is “remains over from past times.” The promise of rest had not been appropriated in the first instance,
and in the second instance the character of the rest was not final, so that the promise of rest still holds
good. The rest was not provided for nothing. God’s provision of a rest implies that some will enter into it.
But the appropriation of that rest is still future. Some, therefore, must enter into it. The words “they to
whom it was preached” are the translation of one word euaggelizomai (åÛáããåëéæïìáé), an aorist passive
participle. One could translate, “They who were the subjects of the announcement of the good news.” The
word “unbelief” is the translation of apeitheia (•ðåéèåéá), made up of peitho (ðåéèï) “to persuade” and
Alpha privative which makes the compound word mean, “non-persuasible,” thus, “disobedient.”

Translation. Since therefore it remains over (from past times) that certain must enter into it, and they
who were first the subjects of the announcement of the glad tidings, did not enter because
of disobedience.
(4:7) The word “limiteth” is the translation of horizo (Òñéæï) which means “to mark out the boundaries
of,” thus, “to put limitations upon, and thus “to define.” The “again” is the writer’s, as in verse 5, calling
attention to another added detail. God in Psalm 95, defines or designates a day in which the promise of
rest is offered. The words “after so long a time” are not part of the quotation from the psalm, but refer to
the fact that God, five hundred years after His offer of rest to the generation under Moses, makes another
offer of rest. This offer is accompanied by the warning that the people should not harden their hearts. The
words “as it is said” are from a verb in the perfect tense, “as it has before been said, and is still on record.”
The words refer to the citations in 3:7, 8, 15.

Translation. Again, a certain day He designates, Today, speaking by means of David after such a long
time, just as it has been said before and is still on record, Today, if His voice ye will hear,
stop hardening your hearts.

(4:8) The Greek form of the Hebrew name Jehoshua is Iesous ( åóïõò). This Greek word refers to the Lord
Jesus in the New Testament except in two places where the context clearly indicates that it speaks of
Joshua, Acts 7:45 and in this passage. The Greek name refers to either Joshua or Jesus. The argument of
the writer is that if Joshua had given Israel a complete and final rest in Canaan, then God would not, five
hundred years afterward, have spoken of a rest for Israel as He did in Psalm 95. The writer has now
proved that Jesus the Messiah is better than Joshua since He provides a better rest than Joshua did. The
rest into which Joshua led Israel was a temporal, physical, and material rest, whereas Jesus leads into an
eternal and spiritual rest. Since Jesus is better than Joshua, the New Testament is superior to and takes the
place of the First Testament.

Translation. For if Joshua had given them rest, then would He not have spoken of another day
afterward.

e. Exhortation to enter into rest in Messiah, and warning against continued unbelief (vv. 9–13).

(4:9) The writer uses here a different Greek word for “rest.” In his previous references to the idea of rest,
he has used katapausis (êáôáðáõóéò), meaning “a cessation from activity,” thus “a rest,” a general word
for the idea of rest. Now, he uses sabbatismos (óáââáôéóìïò), the word used of the Sabbath rest. The
word points back to God’s original rest, and speaks of the ideal rest. It is a Sabbath rest because the
believer reaches a definite stage of attainment and has satisfactorily accomplished a purpose, as God did
when He finished the work of creation. It is not the believer’s rest into which he enters and in which he
participates, but in God’s unique, personal rest in which the believer shares.

Translation. Therefore there remains over a rest for the people of God.

(4:10) The writer goes back to katapausis (êáôáðáõóéò) as the word for “rest” in this verse. The person
who has entered into His (God’s) rest, has ceased from his works as God did from His own private,
peculiar, personal works. The word “his” before “rest” is the general personal pronoun, referring here to
God. The words “his own” are the translation of the same personal pronoun, and the translation should be
“his.” The last mention of the pronoun “his” in the Greek text is the word idios (Æäéïò) which speaks of
private ownership, of individuality, of uniqueness, and should be translated “His own.”

Translation. For the one who has entered into His rest also himself has rested from his works, even as
God rested from His own works.
(4:11) The words “let us labor” are the translation of spoudazo (óðïõäáæï) which means “to hasten, make
haste, to exert one’s self, endeavor, give diligence.” It is used in the papyri in such senses as “do your best,
take care, hurry on the doing of something.” The verb speaks of intensity of purpose followed by intensity
of effort toward the realization of that purpose. These first-century Jews who were on the point of
renouncing their professed faith in Messiah and of returning to the abrogated sacrifices of Judaism, are
exhorted to give diligence, take care, exert themselves, hasten to enter the rest in Messiah. The readers are
warned not to fall as did the generation under Moses. That generation died a physical death in the
wilderness. Those to whom this warning was issued, would die in their sins and be lost forever. The
example of the wilderness wanderers should deter them from committing the same sin of unbelief.

Translation. Let us give diligence to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall in the same example of
disobedience.

(4:12) The writer now warns against any insincerity and lack of diligence in appropriating the rest offered.
He says that the Word of God, here, the body of revealed truth, which offers rest to the believer, is able to
penetrate beneath any insincerity and lack of diligence on the part of these who profess faith in Messiah
but who have never really exerted a heart faith in Him.

He says that the Word of God is quick. The word “quick” is the translation of zon (æïí), a present
participle of the verb zao (æáï) which means “to live, be alive.” The word “quick” is obsolete English.
The translation here should be brought up to date. The Word of God is alive, actively alive, and as the
tense indicates, constantly active. It is powerful. The word “powerful” is the translation of energes
(¦íåñãåò) from which we get our word “energy,” and which means “active, energizing.” The word
“sharper” is the translation of tomoteros (ôïìïôåñïò) which comes from temno (ôåìíï) “to cut.” Vincent
says in this connection, “The word of God has an incisive and penetrating quality. It lays bare
self-delusions and moral sophistries.” 12

“Piercing” is the translation of diikneomai (äééêíåïìáé) which means “to go through.” The words “The
dividing asunder of soul and spirit,” do not mean, “the dividing asunder of soul from spirit.” Nor is it “the
dividing asunder of joints from marrow.” The case in Greek is the genitive of description, defining the
action in the verb in this case. It is a going through the soul, a going through the spirit. Joints and marrow
are not in contact with one another, and cannot therefore be said to be divided asunder. The preposition
prefixed to the verb is dia (äéá) which means “through,” in the sense of “the sword pierced through the
heart.” The dividing asunder here is not that of one thing from another, but of one thing in itself by the
action of something separating its constituent elements from one another by piercing it. Vincent says,
“The form of the expression is poetical, and signifies that the word penetrates to the inmost recesses of
our spiritual being as a sword cuts through the joints and marrow of the body. The separation is not of one
part from another, but operates in each department of the spiritual nature.”

The word translated “discerner” further expands and defines the writer’s meaning here. It is kritikos
(êñéôéêïò), which comes from krino (êñéíï) “to divide or separate,” thus “to judge,” the usual New
Testament meaning being “to sift out and analyze evidence.” In the word kritikos (êñéôéêïò), the ideas of
discrimination and judgment are blended. Thus, the Word of God is able to penetrate into the furthermost
recesses of a person’s spiritual being, sifting out and analyzing the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The word “thoughts” is the translation of enthumesis (¦íèõìåóéò), which has the idea of pondering or
thinking out. The word “reflections” is an accurate translation. “Intents” is the translation of ennoia
(¦ííïéá) which means a “conception.” This word is closely allied to enthumesis (¦íèõìåóéò) in that both
refer to the act of consideration or reflection.
Translation. For actively alive is the Word of God and energetic, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, going through even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and
is a sifter and analyzer of the reflections and conceptions of the heart.

(4 :13) The word “creature” is the translation of ktisis (êôéóéò), namely, “a thing created.” The word
“opened” is the translation of the Greek word trachelizo (ôñá÷åëéæï). The noun form is trachelos
(ôñá÷åëïò), “the neck or throat.” The verb means “to seize and twist the neck or throat.” It was used of
combatants who handled their antagonists in that way. It meant also “to bend back the neck of the victim
to be slain, to lay bare or expose by bending back.” Hence the verb came to mean “to lay bare, to uncover,
to expose.” The three possible metaphors in this case seem to be first, the athlete grasping his opponent by
the throat; second, the bending back of the malefactor’s neck and the exposing of his face to the
spectators; and third, the drawing back and the exposing of the neck of the sacrificial victim at the altar.
The last one suits the previous figure of a sword better than the others. The metaphor of the victim’s throat
bared to the sacrificial knife is a vivid illustration of the total exposure of the human heart to the eye of
God whose inspired Word is as keen as a two-edged sword.

The words “with whom we have to do” in the Greek text, have in them the idea of “with whom is our
reckoning,” or “to whom we must give account.” The word “logos (ëïãïò)” is used, which was used in
classical Greek in the phrase “to make account,” that is, “to put a value on a person or thing.” The idea
therefore in the word is that of a reckoning. There is a day of reckoning coming, when these Hebrews will
have to give account to God for the way in which they treated the New Testament truth.

Translation. And there is not a thing created which is not manifest in His sight. But all things are naked
and laid bare to His eyes, to whom we must give account.

5. Aaron (4:14–8:6) since He

a. Ascended through the heavens into the actual Holy of Holies (4:14–16).

(4:14) Having shown that Messiah is superior to the prophets, the angels, Moses, and Joshua, the writer
now proceeds to prove on the basis of Old Testament Scripture that He is better than Aaron. Notice the
ascending scale of importance. The prophets gave the Word to Israel, the Word was given to the prophets
through the disposition of angels, Moses led Israel out of Egypt, and Joshua led the nation into Canaan.
But all this would be of no avail if Israel did not have a high priest to mediate salvation. Aaron occupies
the pinnacle of importance among the servants of God in Israel.

The writer represents the Messiah as a great high priest, greater than Aaron, since He is passed into the
heavens. But Aaron also passed into the heavens when the Lord Jesus took the Old Testament saints from
Hades to heaven when He ascended. In what sense is Messiah better than Aaron, therefore, on that basis?
The solution to the problem is found in the Greek preposition translated “into.” The Authorized Version
translators have given us the result of the action referred to in the verb, not the description of the action.
The preposition is dia (äéá), which means “through.” Messiah “is passed through the heavens.” The
participle is perfect in tense, speaking of a completed action in past time, having results existing in present
time. Literally, “He has passed through the heavens with the present result that He is in heaven.”
The word “through” is the clue that opens up the truth here which shows that Messiah is better than
Aaron. The latter as high priest in Israel, passed through the court of the tabernacle, through the Holy
Place, into the Holy of Holies, which were all figures or types of realities. Messiah as High Priest of the
New Testament passed through the heaven of the clouds, the heaven of the stars, into the heaven of
heavens, the centralized abode of Deity. Since Messiah passed through the realities of which the
tabernacle was only a type, and Aaron passed through the things that were the types, Messiah is better than
Aaron.

But there is another way in which Messiah is seen to be better than Aaron. The events that took place
when Messiah passed through the; heavens, show that He is infinitely better than Aaron. Aaron could
never have performed such a feat. The reference here is to our Lord’s Easter morning ascension from the
resurrection tomb to heaven as High Priest having made atonement for sin at the Cross. In Israel, the
atonement was not complete at the brazen altar. Not until the high priest had carried the atoning blood into
the Holy of Holies, and had sprinkled it on the Mercy Seat, was the atonement complete. Likewise, our
Lord’s atonement was not complete at the Cross. Not until He had entered heaven as the High Priest
having made atonement for sin, was His atonement complete. He, glorified High Priest, in His body of
flesh and bones but no blood, had to present Himself at the Mercy Seat in Glory in His bloodless body, the
evidence that sin had been paid for. The writer says of Him, “By His own blood He entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (9:12).

But that is not all that is involved in His superiority to Aaron. Not only was Aaron unable to offer a
sacrifice that would pay for sin, but he could not have passed through the heavens to complete the
atonement, had he been able to offer one. And there was more than the gravitational pull on Aaron that
would have kept him from passing through the heavens. There was the power of Satan and his demons
that would have opposed his progress through the atmosphere of this earth, which is the region where
Satan has his kingdom of demons and from where he operates in his attempt to isolate and insulate the
human race so far as God and heaven are concerned. This power opposed the progress of the Messiah as
He left the resurrection tomb and went through the heavens to present Himself as the High Priest who had
made atonement for sin at the Cross.

Our Lord met this opposition from Satan and his demons, the principalities and powers of Ephesians 6:12
and Colossians 2:15. He spoiled the principalities and the powers (the definite article is in the Greek). The
word “spoiled” is the translation of apekduomai (•ðåêäõïìáé). The verb means “to wholly put off from
one’s self,” the prefixed preposition apo (•ðï) implying separation from that which is put off, the
compound word meaning “wholly to strip off from one’s self, that is, for one’s own advantage; to despoil,
disarm.” What a picture of that Easter morning battle in the skies in which the demons of Satan were
attempting to keep the Messiah from going from the Cross to the Mercy Seat in heaven to complete the
atonement. As they tried to impede His progress, He stripped off and away from Himself the demons that
sought to lay hands on Him and keep Him from going through their territory to heaven.

The word “triumphing” is the translation of thriambeuo (èñéáìâåõï) which among the Romans was used
of a triumphal procession where a conquering general home from the wars would lead a procession in
which were his captives. Our Lord, when stripping off and away from Himself the attacking demons, led
them captive in a triumphal procession. Paul speaks of this same thing in Ephesians 4:7–11. The
victorious Messiah led the captive demons captive. Because He was able to go through the abode of the
demons in His ascension, He was able to give the gifted men of verse eleven to the Church. Thus was
Messiah better than Aaron. He is passed through the heavens, a thing Aaron could not do.
Now comes the exhortation based upon the foregoing facts; “Having therefore a high priest, a great one
who is passed through the heavens, let us continue to hold fast our confession.” The recipients of this
letter, who under the persecution of apostate Judaism, were sorely tempted to renounce their professed
faith in Messiah as High Priest and to return to the abrogated sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple, are
exhorted to retain that faith which they professed to have, in view of the greatness of their High Priest.

But now the inspired writer confronts his Jewish readers with a, to a Jew, most puzzling conception. It is
found in the phrase, “Jesus the Son of God.” It is the same thing with which our Lord confronted the
Pharisees when they asserted that Messiah would be the Son of David. He asked, “How then doth David
in spirit call Him Lord?” (Matt. 22:43). That which was involved in our Lord’s question was the
incarnation of the Jewish Jehovah in the Person of the Messiah. Here the word Iesous ( åóïõò), the Greek
transliteration of the Hebrew Jehoshua, would speak to the Jew of his God, the God of the Old Testament.
But the name Iesous ( åóïõò) had by this time acquired another particular significance, designating a
particular Person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. Jehoshua, his (Israel’s) God was the Son of God, thus,
God the Son. How could that be except there be more than one Person in the Godhead; and that Person
become incarnate in human flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, Deity and humanity united in one Person, the
Jewish Messiah. Those are the thoughts which would run through the Jewish reader’s mind as he came to
this passage. Not only was He the High Priest, but He was Son of God, God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth,
the One who was rejected and crucified by the nation Israel, its Messiah. The writer here brings to bear
upon the heart and conscience of his Jewish readers, the acid test of their faith. Could the Jewish mind
give adherence to such doctrine and the Jewish heart give entrance to this Messiah? The test would be an
encouragement to those of his Jewish readers whose hearts were ripe for salvation, to go on to a real
saving faith in the Lamb of God, and would be the means of turning back to the act of apostasy, those
whose sin hardened hearts would have none of the salvation Messiah had provided. As it is the same sun
that melts the wax which hardens the clay, so it is the same Word of God that leads some on to salvation,
and turns others who will have none of it away into outer darkness.

Translation. Having therefore a high priest, a great one, One who is passed through the heavens, Jesus
the Son of God, let us continue to hold fast our confession.

(4:15) The writer, having spoken of the exalted and victorious High Priest, and of the fact that He is Very
God of Very God, now hastens to assure his readers that, whatever they, because of these facts, have
thought to the contrary, this high priest is quite approachable and of a sympathetic nature. He speaks of
Him as not one who cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities. The word in the Greek is
sunpatheo (óõíðáèåï). The word patheo (ðáèåï) comes from pascho (ðáó÷ï) which means “to suffer.”
The prefixed preposition means “with.” The compound word means “to suffer with” another person, thus
to sympathize with him to the extent of entering into his experience and feeling his heartache yourself.
The use of the word here means more than a knowledge of human infirmity. It points to a knowledge that
has in it a feeling for the other person by reason of a common experience with that person. Our Lord’s
appreciation of our infirmities is an experiential one, based upon the fact that He was tempted like we are.

The infirmities here are not sufferings but weaknesses, moral and physical, that predispose one to sin, the
weaknesses which undermine our resistance to temptation and make it difficult for us to keep from
sinning. He was tempted “like as we are.” On this last, Expositor’s has a valuable note: “The writer
wishes to preclude the common fancy that there was some peculiarity in Jesus which made His temptation
wholly different from ours, that He was a mailed champion exposed to toy arrows.
On the contrary, He has felt in His own consciousness, the difficulty of being righteous in this world; has
felt pressing upon Himself the reasons and inducements that incline men to choose sin that they may
escape suffering and death; in every part of His human constitution has known the pain and conflict with
which alone temptation can be overcome; has been so tempted that had He sinned, He would have had a
thousandfold better excuse than ever man had. Even though His divinity may have ensured His triumph,
His temptation was true and could only be overcome by means that are open to all. The one difference
between our temptations and those of Jesus is that His were without sin.”

The words “without sin” mean that in our Lord’s case, temptation never resulted in sin. They could mean
also that temptation never sprang, in our Lord’s case, from any sinful desire on His part. In other words,
they could mean that He was apart from sin in that he had no sinful nature like us. But, in the light of the
context, it seems that the first meaning is the one which the writer is desirous of imparting to his readers,
since it is the likeness of our Lord to us which is the point of emphasis, not a dissimilarity.

Translation. For we do not have a high priest who is not able to enter experientially into a
fellow-feeling with our infirmities, but one who has been tempted in all points like as we
are, without sin.

(4:16) Now the writer exhorts these Hebrews who have only given an intellectual assent to the New
Testament truth, to obtain salvation at the throne of grace. They had not yet obtained mercy. Mercy was
offered on the basis of Messiah’s atonement. God waits for man to come by faith and appropriate it. “Let
us come” is the translation of proserchomai (ðñïóåñ÷ïìáé), used commonly of the sinner’s approach to
God through the First Testament sacrifices, and in this epistle, of his approach to God through the
sacrifice of Messiah. Mercy was to be obtained for past sins. That is justification. Grace was to be
procured for present and future spiritual needs. That is sanctification. The words “in time of need” in the
Greek text have the idea of “seasonable help,” or “help in good time.” The idea is that these Jews should
obtain salvation before it is too late, while there is still time to seek God’s rest.

Translation. Let us come therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, in order that we may procure
mercy and find grace for seasonable help.

Notes:

12 Vincent.
Chapter 5

b. Was taken, not from among men, but from the Godhead (5:1).

(5:1) Having indicated in 4:14 the identity of the New Testament High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God,
having spoken of His fellow-feeling with our infirmities in verse 15, and having exhorted his readers to
come to Him in faith to appropriate the salvation which He procured for them by His death on the Cross,
the writer now proceeds to explain Him further as a high priest. The Hebrews had not been familiar with
the idea of Messiah being High Priest. He had not come from the family of Aaron. His was a priesthood of
another order, that of Melchisedec. The Messiah while on earth did not have access to the Jerusalem
temple so far as officiating as a priest was concerned. He performed no priestly duties and thus
contradicted the whole Jewish conception of the priesthood. The writer feels the need of explaining
somewhat further about this new Priest to whom they were to go for salvation.

He says that every (Levitical) priest, since he is taken from among men, is constituted a priest on behalf of
men. The point is that in order for a priest to officiate on behalf of men, he must be taken from among
men. A priest must partake of the nature of the person for whom he officiates. His work is to minister to
men in things that involve man’s relation to God. This he does by offering gifts and sacrifices. The word
“offer” is the translation of prosphero (ðñïóöåñï), which means “to carry toward or to.” It is used often in
the LXX of the priest bringing the sacrifice to the altar. The word “gifts” refers to gifts in general, while
the word “sacrifices” speaks of blood sacrifices. These are for the sins of the individual. If the priest is to
do this efficiently, he must have a genuine compassion for the sinful. This the writer proceeds to bring out
in the next verse. Messiah is seen here to be superior to Aaron in that He as High Priest is not taken from
among men but from among the members of the Godhead. In I Peter 1:20 we see Him foreordained to be
the Lamb slain for sacrifice, and in Hebrews 10:7 He responds to the summons.

Translation. For every high priest, since he is taken from among men, on behalf of men is constituted as
such with reference to the things which pertain to God, in order that He may offer both
gifts and sacrifices for sins.

c. Is sinless (vv. 2–5).

(5:2) Because the high priest is taken from among men, he is able to have compassion on his
fellow-sinners, since he himself is a sinner. The Greek word translated “compassion” is not the one
translated “touched with the feeling of” in 4:15, sunpatheo (óõíðáèåï), which we translated “to have a
fellow-feeling for.” The word here is metripatheo (ìåôñéðáèåï). The reader will observe that the words are
the same except for the prefixed additions. Sun (Óõí) means “with” and makes the compound word mean
“to suffer with” another person. Metri (Ìåôñé) has the same root as metron (ìåôñïí) which means
“measure.” The latter is used to designate an instrument for measuring something. Thus, the compound
word means literally “to suffer according to a measured limit.” The word was used originally by the
Greeks, of the rational regulation of the natural passions, as opposed to the Stoic word apatheia (•ðáèåéá),
which involved the crushing out of the passions. Metripatheo (Ìåôñéðáèåï) means to be moderate or
tender in judgment toward another’s errors. It speaks of a state of feeling toward the ignorant and the
erring which is neither too severe nor too tolerant. The high priest must be careful lest he become irritated
at sin and ignorance. He must also take care that he does not become weakly indulgent.
The high priest must be able to be moderate and tender toward the ignorant. The word is defined by its
historical background. In Numbers 15:22–31 we learn that even sins committed through ignorance of
God’s commandments must be atoned for (see also Hebrews 9:7). This was required by the Levitical law
as a means of educating the moral perception, also in order to show that sin and defilement might exist
unsuspected, that God saw evil where men did not, and that His test of purity was stricter than theirs.

The high priest is able to be moderate and tender in his judgment toward other’s sins, because he himself
is compassed with infirmity. The Greek word translated “is compassed” presents a graphic picture here.
The word is perikeimai (ðåñéêåéìáé) which means literally “to be lying around.” The high priest has
infirmity, sinful tendencies, lying around him. That is, he is completely encircled by sin, since he has a
sinful nature which if unrepressed, will control his entire being. The same word is used by the writer in
12:1, where he speaks of the encompassing cloud of witnesses. This is denied in the case of Messiah,
which fact makes Him better than Aaron. The word “infirmities” is astheneia (•óèåíåéá), “moral
weakness which makes men capable of sinning,” in other words, the totally depraved nature.

Translation. Who is able to exercise moderate and tender judgment with respect to those who are
ignorant (of certain sins in their lives) and with respect to those who are being led astray,
since also he himself is completely encircled with (moral) weakness.

(5:3) The word “ought” is opheilo (Ïöåéëï) which speaks of an obligation that is a necessity imposed
either by law and duty, by reason, by the times, or by the nature of the matter under consideration. It is
here a moral obligation. It is the moral obligation of the high priest to offer sacrifice for his own sins as
well as for those of the people for whom he officiates, since he also is completely encircled with moral
weakness (total depravity).

Translation. And because of this, he is under a moral obligation, just as with reference to the people,
thus also concerning his own sins, to offer (sacrifice).

(5:4) But the high priest must be divinely called to his office. One who is compassed with infirmity would
hesitate to offer sacrifice for sin unless called by God to do so.

Translation. And not to himself does one take this honor, but being called by God (he takes it), even as
also Aaron.

(5:5) The writer is careful to let the reader see that it was no personal ambition on Messiah’s part that
resulted in His becoming a high priest, but rather the fact that God called Him to that position, and that the
call to priesthood was based upon the fact that the Messiah was God’s Son. Bruce says regarding this:
“Christ’s priestly vocation ceases to be an accident in history, and becomes an essential characteristic of
His position as Son: sonship, Christhood, priestliness, inseparably interwoven.” We have an unfinished
sentence which the writer expects the reader to complete. It appears in its entirety in the translation
offered.

Translation. So also the Messiah did not glorify Himself, becoming a high priest, but the One who said
to Him, My Son thou art, I this day have begotten thee (this One glorified Him by
constituting Him a high priest).
d. Is an eternal High Priest (v. 6).

(5:6) After informing his readers in verse 5 that Messiah’s priesthood was not by self-appointment but by
God’s appointment, the writer goes on in this verse to speak of the different and superior order of
priesthood into which He was called. He quotes from Psalm 110 where Messiah is prophetically pointed
out as a priest after the order of Melchisedec, the distinguishing characteristic of this order of priesthood
being that it is an eternal one.

Translation. As He said also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.

e. Becomes actual High Priest through His death and resurrection (vv. 7–10).

(5:7) The writer now speaks of the training Messiah received for His work as priest. He also speaks of a
prayer Messiah offered during His earthly life to the One who was able to save Him from death. The
implication is clear that He prayed to be saved from death. There are two words in Greek which mean
“from,” apo (•ðï) which means “from the edge of,” and ek (¦ê) which means “out from within.” The
second is used here. The Messiah prayed to be saved out from within death. Had the inspired writer used
apo (•ðï), he would have reported our Lord as praying to be saved from dying a physical death. At no
time in His life did He pray that prayer. The cup for Him in Gethsemane included two things, that He was
to be made sin, and that the fellowship between Father and Son would be broken. Our Lord fully expected
to be raised out from among the dead. Hence there was no need of such a petition. Furthermore, if He had
prayed for escape from physical death, His prayer was not answered. And the writer to the Hebrews says
that this prayer spoken of in 5:7 was answered, which shows that escape from physical death was not in
the writer’s mind.

The prayer here was a petition to be saved out from under death. It was a prayer for resurrection, uttered
on the Cross. It is believed, and with good reason, that our Lord uttered the entire twenty-second Psalm
while hanging on the Cross. It is His own description of what took place there. Verses 1–13 speak of His
heart sufferings; those due to His abandonment by God in verses 1–6, those due to the fact that mankind
spurned Him in verses 7–13. His physical sufferings are described in verses 14–18. His prayer for
resurrection is recorded in verses 19–21, and His thanksgiving for answered prayer in verses 22–31.

The word “prayers” is the translation of deesis (äååóéò) which speaks of special, definite requests. The
word comes from deo (äåï) which means “I want, I need.” Thus, requests of this nature emphasize the fact
that the suppliant is in need of the thing asked for. The word “supplications” is the translation of
hiketerios (Êêåôåñéïò). The word translated “offered” is prosphero (ðñïóöåñï) which was used in the LXX
of the priests bringing a sacrifice to the altars of God. The Levitical priests offered up blood sacrifices.
This Priest after the order of Melchisedec offered up Himself as a blood sacrifice, but before doing this,
brought another offering to God, a heart torn with anguish and suffering, a soul in which the conflict of
the ages was raging, a contest in which God the Son was facing the powers of darkness, waging a battle
for the lost race, a battle in which He was victor over death, and thus over him who had the power of
death, the devil.

This prayer was accompanied with strong cryings and tears. Those at the foot of the Cross must have
heard this prayer, the strong cryings of a dying Man, but they could not have seen the tears that coursed
down His face, marred and disfigured by the blows of sinners, covered with blood from the crown of
thorns, for the darkness covered the land and hid His sufferings from the ribald mob.
He was heard in that He feared. The word for “fear” in the Greek text is not phobos (öïâïò), the ordinary
word for fear, but eulabeia (åÛëáâåéá). The verb of the same root means “to act cautiously, to beware, to
fear.” The picture in the word is that of a cautious taking hold of and a careful and respectful handling.
Hence, it speaks of a pious, devout, and circumspect character, who in his prayer, takes into account all
things, not only his own desire, but the will of the Father.

Translation. Who in the days of His flesh, offered up special, definite petitions for that which He
needed, and supplications, doing this with strong cryings and tears to the One who was
able to save Him out from within death, and was heard on account of His godly fear.

(5:8) The Authorized Version translates, “Who (v. 7) though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience.”
But there is no point in saying “though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience.” All believers are sons
of God, and they learn obedience by the things which they suffer. There is no indefinite article in Greek
comparable to the indefinite article in English. The absence of the definite article in Greek emphasizes
quality or character. The translation should read, “Though He was Son by nature.” The deity of the
Messiah is referred to here. The idea is, “Though He was the Son of God, God the Son, Very God of Very
God, yet He learned obedience by the things He suffered.” The omniscient God knew what obedience
was, but He never experienced it until He became incarnate in human flesh. Before His incarnation, He
owed obedience to no one. There was no one greater than He to whom He could have rendered obedience.
But now in incarnation, God the Son became obedient to God the Father. He learned experientially what
obedience was.

It was not that He had to learn to obey, for He said, “I do always those things that please Him” (John
8:29). Vincent says that “He required the special discipline of a severe human experience as a training for
His office as a high priest who could be touched with the feeling of human infirmities. He did not need to
be disciplined out of any inclination to disobedience; but as Alford puts it, ‘the special course of
submission by which He became perfected as our high priest was gone through in time, and was a matter
of acquirement and practice.’ This is no more strange than His growth in wisdom (Luke 2:52). Growth in
experience was an essential part of His humanity.”

Translation. Though He was Son by nature, yet He learned obedience from the things which He
suffered.

(5:9) The word “perfect” is the translation of teleios (ôåëåéïò). The fundamental idea in this word is the
bringing of a person or thing to the goal fixed by God. The word speaks here of Messiah having reached
the end which was contemplated in His divinely appointed discipline for the priesthood. This
consummation was reached in His substitutionary death on the Cross.

The word “author” is the translation of aitios (áÆôéïò) which means “that in which the cause of anything
resides.” Messiah in His death on the Cross is the cause of our salvation. His death is that from which our
salvation proceeds. The words “that obey Him” are descriptive of those who are saved. They do not
present the grounds of their salvation.

Translation. And having been brought to the place of completeness (as to His experience in suffering),
He became to all those who obey him, the One who brought into being eternal salvation.
(5:10) The word “called” is the translation of prosagoreuo (ðñïóáãïñåõï) which means “to address or
accost by some name, to give a name to publicly, to salute, to style.” He was addressed or saluted by God
as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. God thus addressed Him because He had passed through
and completed His earthly discipline.

Translation. Saluted by God as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

f. Is the reality as High Priest, which does away with the types of the First Testament (5:11–6:12).

Note. Before beginning a study of this difficult section, we must indicate its analytical structure. The
section consists of a description of the spiritual status of the Jew whom the writer wishes to reach, of a
warning not to go back to the abrogated sacrifices of the Levitical system, and of an exhortation to put a
heart faith in the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah. It is one of the passages found throughout the
book containing a warning not to go back to the type but to go on to faith in the reality.

This individual is described as hard to teach and dull of hearing (5:11), one who ought to be able to teach
but cannot (5:12), one who is a babe (5:13), who was enlightened, who tasted of the heavenly gift and had
been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost (6:4), one who had tasted the Word of God and the powers of the
age to come (6:5), and who had been brought to repentance (6:6).

He is exhorted to put off once for all any dependence upon the Levitical sacrifices and to go on to faith in
the New Testament Sacrifice (6:1). The first part of this exhortation is strengthened by the warning that
should he fall away, that is, renounce his professed faith in Messiah as the High Priest of the New
Testament and return to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament, he would be crucifying the Son of
God. This would be an act which would make it impossible to restore him again to that place of
repentance to which he had been brought (6:6). The second part of the exhortation is repeated in the
words, “that ye be not slothful but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises”
(6:12), this second exhortation to faith being strengthened by the example of the saved among these Jews
who showed by their lives that they really had exercised saving faith, the “beloved” of 6:9. We must be
careful to note that this letter to the Hebrews is written to the professing church made up of saved and
unsaved, but the concern of the writer is with reference to the unsaved. We are now ready for an
exegetical study of the Greek text of the passage under discussion, based upon the analysis of the entire
epistle, the only scientific way of going about our work.

(1) The recipients hard to teach and dull as to spiritual perception (5:11).

(5:11) The words “of whom” of 5:11 are from a preposition and a relative pronoun, which latter is in a
case form that indicates either the masculine or neuter gender. The last named individual to which a
masculine pronoun could point, is Melchisedec. But the writer is not concerned with him in what he has to
say in 5:11–6:12. Therefore, the pronoun is neuter, referring to the teaching of the Melchisedecan
priesthood of Jesus Christ, a thing which these Jewish readers who were still unsaved, needed to be
convinced of if they were to leave the Aaronic priesthood and its system of Levitical sacrifices. The
superiority of the New Testament sacrifice over the Levitical offerings is the very thing which the writer is
seeking to prove. He shows that Melchisedec is better than Aaron. Therefore, the sacrifice of Christ is
better than the Levitical sacrifices. The words “hard to be uttered” are literally “hard of interpretation to be
speaking.” It is difficult to make this teaching intelligible to these unsaved Hebrews. The difficulty is
experienced by the writer. However, it is not found in any lack in the writer, but in the spiritual condition
of the subjects of this warning and exhortation. They are dull of hearing.
The word “dull” is from nothros (íïèñïò), meaning “slow, sluggish.” It is used of the numbed limbs of a
sick lion, and the stupid hopes of the wolf that heard the nurse threaten to throw the child to the wolves. It
is a combination of two Greek words, one meaning “no,” the other “to push,” hence, “no push,” thus
“slow, sluggish.” These Hebrews were slow, sluggish, stupid, numbed, in their apprehension of the
teaching of New Testament truth. This made it difficult to teach them. The difficulty lay therefore not in
the writer but in them.

But they had not always been in that condition, as is shown by the word translated “are.” The word means
“to become.” It is in the perfect tense which tense speaks of a process completed in past time having
present results. These Hebrews had at one time a spiritual apprehension of New Testament truth
sufficiently clear that they saw that the New Testament Sacrifice displaced the First Testament offerings.
The writer tells us that also in the words, “who were once enlightened” (6:4). The inability to apprehend
was not a natural, inherent, and pardonable weakness, but a culpable incapacity which was the result of
past neglect of and a gradual working away from New Testament truth (2:1–3). It was the hardening of the
heart against the ministrations of the Holy Spirit (3:7, 8). It was a deterioration of spiritual apprehension
on the part of these unsaved Hebrews who had been the recipients of the pre-salvation ministry of the
Holy Spirit, who had been leading them on step by step toward the act of faith in the New Testament
sacrifice, the Messiah. The use of the perfect tense here tells us that the process had gone on to the point
of completion, with finished results. Their neglect had done its work, and they as a result were in a settled
state of spiritual stupidity so far as their ability to apprehend New Testament truth was concerned.

Translation. Concerning which (teaching, namely, that the Lord Jesus is a high priest after the order of
Melchisedec) there is much that we can say; yet when it comes to the saying of it, one finds
it difficult to explain, because you are become those who are in a settled state of
sluggishness, yes, of stupidity in your apprehension of the same.

(2) They had been instructed in New Testament truth (5:12).

(5:12) “Time” is from chronos (÷ñïíïò), speaking of time contemplated merely as the succession of
moments, not from the word referring to a definite portion of time having limits. The word is in a
construction which refers to extension. Thus because of the length of time in which these Hebrews had
been under the instruction of teachers presenting New Testament truth, they ought to be teaching the
same. The “ought” is one of moral obligation. The Greek word is used of a necessity imposed either by
law or duty, or by the matter under consideration. “Again” is in an emphatic position in the Greek and is
to be construed with “need,” not “teach.” They again have need that someone be teaching them, the word
“teach” showing a continuous process. These Hebrews had grown so sluggish in their apprehension of
New Testament truth that it would require many lessons to do anything with them.

“Principles” is from stoicheion (óôïé÷åéïí), which refers to rudimentary ideas. The word “first” in the
Greek text refers to the first in a series, the very beginning of things. “Oracles” is from the Greek word
used also in Romans 3:2, and Acts 7:38, and refers to divine utterances. Thus, these Hebrews again
needed someone to be teaching them, and the start should be made with the rudiments of the very
beginning of the divine utterances in New Testament truth. “Meat” is from the Greek word meaning
“food” in general. Today the word “meat” refers to the edible flesh of animals. When the Authorized
Version was translated, it meant food in general. Our Lord said, “My food is to do the will of Him that
sent Me and to finish His work” (John 4:34). “Are become” is perfect tense, speaking of a process
finished in past time with present results.
These Hebrews by their neglect of New Testament truth, and their gradual turning away from it because of
the pressure of persecution which they were undergoing, had come to the place where they could only
assimilate milk. The word “strong” is literally “solid.” Thus, only a liquid diet, milk, the very beginning of
the rudimentary teachings of the New Testament could be administered, not solid food, the deeper
teachings of the Word.

Translation. In fact, when at this time you are under moral obligation to be teaching by reason of the
extent of time (you have been under instruction), again you are in need of someone to be
teaching you the rudimentary things of the very beginning in the oracles of God, and are
become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food.

(3) They were babes, that is, immature in their spiritual thinking (vv. 13, 14).

(5:13, 14) The writer continues his explanation in the words, “For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in
the word of righteousness; for he is a babe.” “Useth” has the idea of “has for his share in ordinary
feeding.” It refers to an exclusive diet of milk. Adults drink milk, but it is not their exclusive diet.
“Unskillful” is from a Greek word that means “inexperienced.” The word “babe” is not the translation of a
Greek word meaning an “infant,” such as is used in Luke 2:16, nor from a word translated “child” as in
Luke 1:7, which latter word is related to the verb which means “to give birth to,” and therefore speaks of a
child in its birth relationship to its parents; but from nepios (íåðéïò), which means “immature” as
contrasted to “mature.” Paul used this word in contrast to a word which means “mature.” In I Corinthians
2:6 he says that he speaks wisdom among the perfect, that is, the spiritually mature. But the Corinthian
saints were babes in Christ, immature Christians. He speaks of those who are perfect, that is, spiritually
mature, in contrast to children, namely, immature Christians (Eph. 4:13, 14). Here the writer contrasts
these Hebrews who are immature so far as their spiritual apprehension is concerned, with those of full age,
namely spiritually mature.

We must be careful to note that the Greek word “babe” in itself carries with it no implication of salvation.
The phrase, “babe in Christ,” as used today, refers to a new convert. Paul’s use of it in I Corinthians 3:1 is
different. There he refers to immature Christians. One can be forty years old in the Faith and still be
immature spiritually. Furthermore, the word “babe” needed the qualifying phrase “in Christ” to indicate
that these Corinthian “babes” were saved. Therefore, the word “babe” in our Hebrew passage cannot be
made to show that the person referred to is a saved individual. It has no birth relationship idea about it.
The analysis of the book and the context in which the word is found require that we understand it to refer
to these unsaved Hebrews who, because of their neglect of New Testament truth and their turning away
from it, have again become immature in their spiritual apprehension of the same. These who are described
as perfect or mature and thus able to partake of solid food (strong meat), are said, “by reason of use, to
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” The word “use” is translated from a Greek
word which refers to a habit of the body or mind. It speaks here of the habitual use of the perceptive
faculties (senses) which are being vigorously exercised. This results in the ability to discriminate between
good and evil, and in this context, good and evil teaching. But these Hebrews had abused their perceptive
faculties in rejecting the new light given and turning again to the First Testament sacrifices. Light rejected,
blinds.

Translation. For everyone whose sole diet is milk is inexperienced in a message which is righteous in
quality, for he is an (spiritually) immature person. But solid food belongs to those who are
(spiritually) mature, to those who on account of long usage have their powers of
perception exercised to the point where they are able to discriminate between both that
which is good in character and that which is evil.
Chapter 6

(4) They are exhorted to put away “the beginning word of the Christ,” namely, the Levitical ritual, and
be borne along to New Testament truth, and are warned against laying down again a foundation of First
Testament doctrines (6:1–3).

(6:1–3) We now come to a careful study of the two Greek words translated “leaving” and “let us go on.”
A correct understanding of these is absolutely essential to the proper exegesis of the passage we are
treating. The word translated “leaving” is a verb meaning “to put or place,” with a preposition prefixed
which means “off” or “away” (aphiemi (•öéåìé)). The preposition implies separation and is used with a
case in Greek which implies separation. The case speaks not only of the literal removal of one object from
the vicinity of another, but also of the departure from antecedent relations such as derivation, cause,
origin, and the like. It contemplates an alteration in state from the viewpoint of the original situation. It
comprehends an original situation from which the idea expressed is in some way removed. Thus, the basic
idea in the verb is that of an action which causes a separation. The various meanings of the word are as
follows: “to send away, to bid go away or depart, to let go, to send from one’s self, to let alone, to let be,
to disregard.” It is used of teachers, writers, and speakers when presenting a topic, in the sense of “to
leave, not to discuss.” In manuscripts of the Koine (Êïéíå) period, we have as reported in Moulton and
Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, the sentence, “Let the pot drop,” and the clause, “Not to
leave me to be neglected in a strange land;” also an appeal from a forsaken girl to her lover, “Oh, Lord, do
not leave me.” In Matthew 13:36 and Mark 4:36, this word is used of the sending away of the multitudes.
Expositor’s Greek Testament translates it here, “Let us abandon.” Alford explains it in the words,
“Leaving as behind and done with in order to go on to another thing.” To use the word “leaving” in the
sense that a superstructure of a house leaves the foundation and yet builds on it, as is done by some
expositors, is a case of English eisegesis (reading into the text what is not there). But such a usage will not
stand the scrutiny of the Greek exegesis of this word (taking out of the text what is there), nor is it in
accord with the historical background and the analysis of the book.

The word is an aorist participle. Greek grammar tells us that the action of the aorist participle precedes the
action of the leading verb in the sentence, which in this case is “let us go on.” The aorist tense speaks of a
once for all action. We could translate, “Therefore, having abandoned once for all the principles of the
doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” The act of abandoning is the pre-requisite to that of going
on. One cannot go on without first separating one’s self from that to which one is attached. The word
translated “let us go on” is first person plural subjunctive, which is used for hortatory purposes in Greek.
That is, we have an exhortation here. Another way of exhorting one in Greek is to use the imperative
mode. There is a classification of the participle in Greek which is designated, “the participle used as an
imperative.” Our word “abandoning” is an imperative participle. It gives a command.

We come now to the word translated “let us go on.” The verb means “to carry or bear,” (phero (öåñï)).
Moulton and Milligan report its use as “bring” and “carry,” in such sentences from early Greek
manuscripts as: “Her tunic, the white one which you have, bring when you come, but the turquoise one do
not bring,” and “Return from where you are before someone fetches you,” the words “bring” and “fetch”
being the translations of this word. The word is in the passive voice, which means that the subject is
passive or inactive itself and is being acted upon by some outside agent. Thus we could translate,
“abandoning once for all … let us be carried along.”
Now what does the writer exhort these Hebrews to abandon, and to what does he urge them to allow
themselves to be borne along? Well, what does a mariner do when he is at a loss as to exactly where he is?
He checks his position by his instruments. The aviator in a similar situation checks his course by the radio
beam. An exegete in a similar situation will consult the historical background and analysis of the book.
And that is exactly what we will do. We found that the writer proves twice over that the New Testament
in Jesus’ Blood is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood. After proving
this, he shows that faith is the only way of appropriating the salvation which the High Priest procured for
sinners at the Cross. In the light of this demonstration, he warns them against falling away. He exhorts
them to go on to faith in the New Testament Sacrifice. Having left the temple sacrifices, and having
identified themselves with the visible Church, from what could they fall away but from their profession of
Messiah as High Priest, and to what could they fall back to but First Testament sacrifices?

Thus the words, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” must refer to the First Testament sacrifices, for
these Jews are exhorted to abandon them. Likewise, the word “perfection” must speak of the New
Testament Sacrifice to which they are exhorted to allow themselves to be borne along. Our analysis has
guided us to the correct interpretation.

A study of the Greek text here will substantiate this. The words, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,”
are literally, “the word of the beginning of the Christ.” The phrase, “of the beginning,” does not modify
“Christ” for He had no beginning. It therefore modifies “word.” The phrase, “the beginning word of the
Christ,” refers to that teaching concerning Him which is first presented in the Bible. And what is that but
the truth concerning His Person and work found in the symbolism of the Levitical sacrifices. The
tabernacle, priesthood, and offerings all speak of Him in His Person and work. And this interpretation is in
exact accord with the argument of the book. All dependence upon the Levitical sacrifices is to be set aside
in order that the Hebrews can go on to “perfection,” as we have it here. That the word “perfection” speaks
of the New Testament Sacrifice, the Lord Jesus, and the Testament He inaugurated by His work on the
Cross, is seen from the use of the Greek word here (teleios (ôåëåéïò)), referring to that which is complete,
and in 7:11 where the writer argues that if perfection (same Greek word) were under the Levitical
priesthood, then there would be no further need of another priesthood. But since God has brought in a
priestly line after the order of Melchisedec, it logically follows that completeness obtains under the New
Testament which He brought in. He states in 7:19 that the law of Moses, namely the sacrificial law, made
nothing perfect. That is, the Levitical offerings were not complete in that the blood of bulls and goats
could not pay for sin. Neither was their completeness in what they could do for the offerer. But “this priest
(the Lord Jesus), after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity on the right hand of
God” (10:12). His sacrifice was complete. Thus, the writer exhorts these Hebrews to abandon the type for
the reality, that which is incomplete for that which is complete. Before leaving this point, the English
reader should know that the expressions, “the first principles of the oracles of God” (5:12), and “the
principles of the doctrine of Christ” (6:1), are quite different in the Greek. The word “principles” in these
verses comes from two different Greek words. The expression in 5:12 refers to the elementary teachings
in New Testament truth, and the one in 6:1, to the teaching of the First Testament where Messiah was first
spoken of.

But the question arises, if these Hebrews had left the First Testament sacrifices and had made a profession
of Messiah, why does the writer exhort them to abandon these? The answer is that the Holy Spirit had
enlightened them (6:4) so that they saw that the sacrifices had been done away with at the Cross, and that
the New Testament sacrifice was the only way of salvation. They had acted upon that and had abandoned
their dependence upon these, and had made a profession of faith in the New Testament sacrifice.
Their former dependence upon the sacrifices had not resulted in their salvation for either one of the
following two reasons. In the case of those Hebrews who lived before the Cross, that dependence was a
mere intellectual assent such as they were giving now to the New Testament. And in the case of those who
were born since the Cross, their dependence upon the sacrifices was of no avail since these had been set
aside by God at the Cross. But under stress of persecution (10:32–34) they were absenting themselves
from the New Testament assemblies (10:25), and were wavering (10:23), literally “leaning,” that is, they
were leaning toward the Levitical system again, and letting New Testament truth slip away (2:1). The
result was that their spiritual perceptions were dulled, had become sluggish (5:11), and they themselves
had become immature in their thinking along spiritual lines. This growing dependence upon First
Testament sacrifices, they were exhorted to abandon, and abandoning these, they would be in that place
where the Holy Spirit would carry them along in His pre-salvation work to the act of faith. We must be
careful to note that these Hebrews had not yet finally and irrevocably discarded New Testament truth. The
tendency was that way. The writer was attempting to reach them before it was too late.

If they would go back to the First Testament sacrifices, they would be laying again the foundation of the
First Testament, and building upon it again. This foundation is given us in 6:1, 2. “Repentance from dead
works” is First Testament teaching, was preached by John the Baptist, and is in contrast to New Testament
teaching of repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). “Faith toward God” is First Testament teaching, and is
contrasted to the New Testament teaching of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). “The doctrine of
baptisms” (same Greek word translated “washings” in 9:10) refers to the ceremonial ablutions or
washings of Judaism, and is typical of the New Testament cleansing of the conscience from dead works to
serve the living and true God by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5).
The “laying on of hands” refers to the imposition of the offerer’s hand upon the sacrificial offerings of the
Levitical system (Lev. 1:4), and is typical of the act of a sinner today laying his hand of faith upon the
sacred head of the Lamb of God. “The resurrection of the dead,” an Old Testament doctrine, is more fully
developed in the doctrine of the out-resurrection from among the dead (Phil. 3:11 Greek) which indicates
that there are two resurrections, one of the saints, the other of the lost. “Eternal judgment” of the old
dispensation is in contrast to the “no judgment for the believer in Christ” of the new. Thus, these Hebrews
are exhorted not to return to First Testament teaching, but to go on to faith in the New Testament
Sacrifice.

But coupled with this exhortation is an ominous hint, as Vincent calls it. It is in the words, “And this will
we do if God permit.” Here are his words: “An ominous hint is conveyed that the spiritual dullness of the
readers may prevent the writer from developing his theme, and them from receiving his higher instruction.
The issue is dependent on the power which God may impart to his teaching, but His efforts may be
thwarted by the impossibility of repentance on their part. No such impossibility is imposed by God, but it
may reside in a moral condition which precludes the efficient action of the agencies which work for
repentance, so that God cannot permit the desired consequence to follow the word of teaching.” All of
which goes to say that while there is such a thing as the sovereign grace of God, yet there is also such a
thing as the free will of man. God never in the case of salvation violates man’s free will. The choice must
be made by these Hebrews between going back to the sacrifices or on to faith in Christ as High Priest. But
their spiritual declension if persisted in, would result in their putting themselves beyond the reach of the
Holy Spirit. This is implied in 3:7, 8 where they are warned that if they desire to hear the voice of the Holy
Spirit, they should not harden their hearts, the implication being clear that they could harden their hearts to
the extent that they would have no more desire to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. This shows that the
“impossibility” of 6:4, 6 resides in the condition of their hearts, not in the grace of God.
Translation. Therefore, having put away once for all the beginning word of the Messiah, let us be
carried along to that which is complete, not again laying down a foundation of repentance
from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of ablutions, and of imposition
of hands, of a resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do if only
God permits.

(5) They had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to New Testament truth, they had tasted of that
which constitutes salvation, and had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (v. 4).

(6:4) And now the writer presents a most solemn warning to those among his readers who would persist in
their leanings toward the First Testament and their abandonment of the New. It would be impossible to
renew them again to repentance. The Greek word translated “impossible” cannot be diluted to mean
“difficult.” The same word is used in Hebrews 6:18; 10:4, and 11:6, where it can only mean “impossible.”
Likewise, the word “renew” must be taken in its full force. Expositor’s Greek Testament says that it
means that those who have once experienced a renewal cannot again have a like experience. The person
described cannot again be brought to a life-changing repentance. Repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit
on the heart of the one who is approaching the act of faith in Christ. It is usually involved in that act, but
can also exist separate and apart from it, as is seen in the present instance. These Hebrews had allowed the
Holy Spirit to carry them along to the place of repentance. Now should they refuse the proffered faith by
which they could lay hold of the High Priest as their Saviour, and return to the abrogated sacrifices of the
First Testament, it would be impossible to bring them back to the act of repentance again. And as we have
seen, the impossibility would inhere in their own spiritual condition, not in the grace of God.

In connection with this solemn warning, the writer reminds these Hebrews of all that a loving God had
done for them. They were once enlightened. The word translated “once” is literally “once for all,” and is
used of that which is so done as to be of perpetual validity, and never needs repetition. That means that as
these Hebrews listened to the message of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit enlightened their minds and
hearts to clearly understand it. The work of the Spirit with reference to their understanding of New
Testament truth had been so thorough that it needed never to be repeated for the purpose of making the
truth clear to them. These Hebrews had understood these issues perfectly. The type was set aside for the
reality, the First Testament for the New. They were enlightened as every sinner is enlightened who comes
under the hearing of God’s Word. But as the unsaved in an evangelistic meeting today clearly understand
the message of salvation but sometimes refuse the light and turn back into the darkness of sin and
continued unbelief, so these Hebrews were in danger of doing a like thing.

They had tasted of the heavenly gift, and in such a way as to give them a distinct impression of its
character and quality, for the words “once for all” qualify this word also. These Hebrews were like the
spies at Kadesh-Barnea who saw the land and had the very fruit in their hands, and yet turned back
(4:1–13). One of the pre-salvation ministries of the Spirit is to enable the unsaved who come under the
hearing of the gospel, to have a certain appreciation of the blessedness of salvation. He equips them with a
spiritual sense of taste with reference to the things of God. Many a sinner has been buoyed up by the
message of the evangelist, has had stirrings in his bosom, has had a pleasant reaction towards the truth,
and yet when the decision time came has said, “The world is too much with us,” and has turned back into
sin.
They had been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. We must be careful to note that the Greek word
translated “partakers” does not mean “possessors,” in the sense that these Hebrews possessed the Holy
Spirit as an indwelling Person who had come to take up His permanent abode in their hearts. The word is
a compound of the Greek verb “to have or hold” (echo (¦÷ï)), and a preposition meaning “with” (meta
(ìåôá)), thus “to hold with.” It is used in Luke 5:7 where it is translated “partners,” signifying one who
co-operates with another in a common task or undertaking. It is used in Hebrews 1:9 where the angels are
“fellows” of our Lord, partners or associates with Him in the work of salvation. It is used in Hebrews 3:1
where the recipients of this letter are called participators in the heavenly calling. That is, they participated
together in the heavenly calling. These Hebrews had left the earthly calling of the nation Israel, and had
identified themselves with the Church which has a heavenly calling. It is used in Hebrews 3:14, where it
speaks of those who participate together in the Lord Jesus.

The word (metochos (ìåôï÷ïò)) was so used in secular Greek. Moulton and Milligan give examples of its
usage in the following phrases: “We, Dionysius son of Socrates and the associate collectors;” “Pikos son
of Pamonthes and his colleagues,” “the joint-owner of a holding,” “I am unable to take part in the
cultivation,” “Some do so because they are partners in their misdeeds.” Thus the word signifies one who
participates with another in a common activity or possession. It is so used here. These Hebrews became
participators in the Holy Spirit insofar as an unsaved person can do so, namely, in the sense that they
willingly co-operated with Him in receiving His pre-salvation ministry, that of leading them on step by
step toward the act of faith. He had led them into the act of repentance. The next step would be that of
faith. Here they were in danger of turning their backs upon the Spirit and returning to the sacrifices. Peter
in his first epistle (1:2) in the words, “through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience,” speaks of this
work of the Holy Spirit on the unsaved, setting them apart from unbelief to faith. This word in its context
does not at all imply that these Hebrews had been born of the Spirit, sealed with the Spirit, indwelt by the
Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, or filled with the Spirit. This
work of the Holy Spirit in leading them on towards faith was a once-for-all work, so thoroughly done that
it needed never to be repeated. However, there was nothing permanent of itself in this work, for the work
was only a means to an end. This is shown by the aorist participle used, referring to the mere fact, not a
perfect, speaking of a finished act having present results. The fact that the writer did not use the perfect
tense here, which is a specialized tense, but rather the aorist, which is the maid of all work, points to the
incompleteness of the work of the Spirit in the case of these Hebrews. So far as the work had been done, it
was perfect, thorough. But it would not be complete until the Hebrews accepted the proffered faith from
the Spirit. The incompleteness of the work would be due, therefore, not to the Spirit, but to their
unwillingness to go on as a partner or cooperator with the Spirit.

Translation. For it is impossible in the case of those who have been once for all enlightened, and have
both tasted of the heavenly gift and have become participators in the Holy Spirit.

(6) They had tasted the Word, and had seen the attesting miracles (v. 5).

(6:5) They had tasted “the good word of God,” and “the powers of the world to come.” The word
translated “powers” is used in the Gospels repeatedly to refer to miracles, and is translated by the words,
“wonderful works, mighty works, miracles, powers.” The word “world” (aion (áÆïí)) is the word which in
Romans 12:2; I Corinthians 1:20, 2:6; II Corinthians 4:4 refers to an age, that is, a period of time
characterized by a certain type of life or economy of government or other social regulating agency.
In the passages just mentioned it refers to “all that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims,
speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be
impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the
moral or immoral atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,
the subtle informing spirit of the world of men who are living alienated and apart from God” (Trench,
Synonyms of the New Testament). It is the “age,” the “spirit or genius of the age.” This is the present age
in which we are living. The age to come is the Millennial Age. What a change there will be when God the
Son reigns on earth personally, and His Chosen People are saved. These Hebrews had seen attesting
miracles performed, the performance of which proved to them that the New Testament was from God.
This was another factor which made their guilt so enormous. It is interesting to note in passing that
attesting miracles will again be performed in the Millennial Age when the Lord Jesus comes back to earth.

Translation. And have tasted the good word of God, also the powers of the age that is about to come.

(7) They had been led into repentance. Now should they fall away from their profession of faith in
Messiah and back to the sacrifices, it would be impossible to renew them to repentance (vv. 6–8).
(6:6) We come now to a study of the Greek word translated “fall away,” (parapipto (ðáñáðéðôï)). It is
used only here in the New Testament. It is found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Ezekiel
14:13, 15:8, where Israel is seen falling away from the true worship of Jehovah. The Greek word itself
means “to fall beside a person or thing, to slip aside,” hence, “to deviate from the right path, to turn aside,
to wander.” Moulton and Milligan give two occasions of its use in the Greek papyri which exactly
correspond to its usage in Hebrews. The first is; “If the terms of it (the contract) should be broken or it in
any other way rendered invalid,” which usage is similar to that in the case of these Hebrews should they
break their contract which they made with the Holy Spirit when they willingly became His associates in
His pre-salvation work, breaking their contract by refusing His further ministrations and going back to the
First Testament sacrifices. The other instance of its use is in a document which speaks of a person who
falls back on his earlier interpretation of a verb. How like the act of this Hebrew, should he fall back to his
earlier position with regard to the sacrifices. The words “fall away” are from a participle in the aorist
tense, the time of action being past time, the classification being a conditional participle. The translation
reads therefore, “if they fell away.” Paul here presents a hypothetical case, warning these unsaved
Hebrews from making such a thing a reality.

Now the writer gives the reason why these Hebrews cannot be brought back to the place of repentance,
should they return to the First Testament sacrifices. They would crucify to themselves the Son of God and
put Him to an open shame. The word “afresh” is not needed nor is it warranted from the Greek. It was
included in the translation from a prefixed preposition to the verb meaning “to crucify.” But Expositor’s
Greek Testament makes it clear that this preposition here means “up” and refers to the lifting up on the
Cross; also that the compound verb was used and understood by the Hellenistic world to mean only
“crucify.” Besides, any “crucifying to themselves” would be a fresh crucifixion. The words “to
themselves” have the idea, “so far as they are concerned.” “The apostate crucifies Christ on his own
account by virtually confirming the judgment of the actual crucifiers, declaring that he, too, has made trial
of Jesus and found Him no true Messiah but a deceiver and therefore worthy of death” (Expositor’s). “The
greatness of the guilt is aggravated by the fact that they thus treat the Son of God” (Vincent).
The words “put to an open shame” are from a Greek word used also in Numbers 25:4 (Septuagint
translation), where it implies exposing to ignominy or infamy, such as was effected in barbarous times by
exposing the quarters of the executed criminal, or leaving him hanging in chains. Archilochus, says
Plutarch, rendered himself infamous by writing obscene verses. He put himself to open shame.
All this these Hebrews would be doing to the Son of God if they renounced their professed faith in
Messiah and went back to the First Testament. Should they do this, they would render their hearts so hard
that they would be impervious to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. They would be irrevocably lost. There
would be no more hope for them. Of course, it should be plain that this sin cannot be committed today.
There is no temple in Jerusalem, there are no sacrifices to leave and to return to, no attesting miracles
being performed, there is no question as to the closing of the old dispensation and the opening of the new.
This sin is not the same as the rejection of Christ by the sinner today. It is not only a rejection of Christ,
bad as that is. This sin involves the relative merits of the First and New Testaments, the abandonment of
the type for the reality, the sin of the crucifixion of Messiah by His own people.

Translation. And have fallen away, again to renew to repentance, crucifying the Son of God and putting
Him to an open shame.

(6:7–8) In these verses the writer presents an analogy in nature. The abundant and frequently renewed
rain, represents the free and reiterated bestowal of spiritual enlightenment and impulse to these Hebrews.
One piece of ground reacts by producing herbage good for food. This is the Hebrew who accepts the New
Testament by faith. On the other hand, the ground that receives the same rain, but produces thorns and
briers, is likened to the Hebrew who being the recipient of the pre-salvation work of the Spirit, yet turns
his back on Him and goes back to the First Testament sacrifices, the apostate who can look for nothing but
certain judgment (10:26–31).

Translation. For land which drank in the rain that comes oft upon it and produces herbage meet for
those on whose account it is tilled, partakes of a blessing from God. But if it brings forth
thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse, and its end is burning.

(8) The saved among the recipients would not apostatize. The unsaved exhorted to follow in the steps
of faith of the saved (vv. 9–12).

(6:9–12) We come now to the concluding section of this analytical unit. We will need to remind ourselves
again of the historical background and analysis of the book, and the purpose of the author in writing it. He
was writing to the visible professing Church made up of saved and unsaved. There is no greeting to the
saints like we find in most of the epistles. The concern of the writer is with those of his unsaved Jewish
readers who under stress of persecution were in danger of renouncing their professed faith in Messiah and
returning to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament. These he repeatedly warns against this act, and
repeatedly exhorts to go on to faith in the New Testament sacrifice, Messiah. The fact that he urges them
on to faith, shows that they merely made a profession and were not saved. After issuing this solemn
warning in 5:11–6:8, he addresses the saved among his readers and uses them as an example to urge the
unsaved on to the act of faith.
He addresses them as “beloved.” The word occurs only here in this epistle. It is plural in number, and the
word used is the one that speaks of God’s love. One could translate, “divinely loved ones.” It is clear that
the writer is differentiating between the saved and unsaved among his readers in this section, because after
holding up the “beloved ones” as examples, he says, “We desire that everyone of you do show the same
diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end, that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who
through faith and patience inherit the promises.” These words imply that some of his readers were not of
the class called “beloved” whose lives showed that they were saved. This group whom he exhorts here is
made up of those whom he warns in 5:11–6:8. He urges them to follow those who have exercised faith,
implying that they had no faith.

He says that he is persuaded better things of these who are saved. “Persuaded” in the Greek implies that
the writer had felt misgivings but had overcome them. His conviction was the result of proof. The perfect
tense is used, “I have come to a settled conviction.” He assures them that he is persuaded better things of
them than those of falling away and crucifying the Son of God. He also is persuaded that things that
accompany salvation are true of them. One of these he gives in verse 10. The work of the Holy Spirit
spoken of in verses 4–6 precedes salvation. The constant practice of these called “beloved,” namely, that
of ministering to the saints, shows that the Holy Spirit had produced His fruit in their lives, and that they
were truly born-again ones.

The writer then uses these as an example for his unsaved readers to follow. Their lives showed evidence
of faith, and the mere professing Hebrew should go on to that act. In verses 13–20, the great example of
faith, Abraham, is introduced to strengthen the exhortation.

Translation. But we have come to a settled persuasion concerning you, divinely loved ones, the things
which are better and which are attached to a saved condition of life, even if we thus speak.
For God is not unjust to forget your work and the divine love which you exhibited toward
His name in that you ministered to the saints and are continuing to minister. But we are
strongly desirous that each one of you show the same diligence which will develop your
hope into full assurance until the end, in order that you may become, not sluggish, but
imitators of those who through faith and patient waiting are now inheriting the promises.

g. Is a High Priest who actually brings the believer into an eternal standing in grace (vv. 13–20).

(1) Abraham, the man of faith who was rewarded, a precedent (vv. 13–15).

(6:13) In verses 11, 12, the writer exhorts the unsaved among his readers, to go on to the act of faith in
Messiah as High Priest, and thus to be followers of those who through faith and patience inherit the
promises. In this verse, he cites the example of Abraham as an illustration of one of those who through
faith and patience inherit the promises. The Jewish community in the Christian Church was undergoing
persecution by apostate Judaism, and was growing restive because of the fact that Messiah’s return was
being seemingly delayed. The writer is conscious of this, and seeks to comfort these Jewish believers by
the words “For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (10:37). All the
examples of faith in chapter 11 illustrate the long outlook of faith, involving patient waiting and
endurance. Abraham is one of them (11:9, 10). The example of Abraham shows that the promise of God is
sure.

Translation. For when to Abraham God made promise, since He had no one greater to swear by, He
swore by Himself.
(6:14) The words “blessing I will bless,” and “multiplying I will multiply,” are Hebraisms, the repetition
emphasizing the idea.

Translation. Saying, Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

(6:15) “Patiently” refers back to the word “patience” in verse 12. The word “obtained” is the translation of
epitugchano (¦ðéôõã÷áíï) which means “to light or hit upon a person or thing, to attain to, obtain.” The
word here indicates that Abraham did not personally receive the entire fulfilment of the promise, but only
the germ of that fulfilment. The promise was that Abraham was to become a great nation, and that the
earth was to be blessed through Abraham. Isaac, born miraculously, was a partial fulfilment of the
promise, and the Lord Jesus as Saviour and coming Messiah fulfils all that God promised Abraham.

Translation. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

(2) God’s oath and God’s promise guarantee the believer’s eternal retention of salvation (vv. 16–18).

(6:16) The writer now illustrates the security of the divine promise by using the analogy of human
practice. The word “oath” is preceded by the definite article in the Greek text. The oath, which is used
with a view to confirming something, is the end of all disputes. Thus, the act of God in confirming His
promise by an oath, is justified by human practice. The confident hope which God’s oath warrants is
justified by the fact that even a human oath puts an end to dispute.

Translation. For men swear by the greater, and the oath which is for the purpose of confirmation, is to
them an end of every dispute.

(6:17) The word “wherein” refers to the entire previous clause. The idea is “in accordance with this
universal custom.” Since the oath has this convincing power among men, God disregards the insult
implied in man’s doubting His Word, and condescends to human infirmity, confirming His Word by an
oath. The word “willing” is the translation of boulomai (âïõëïìáé) which speaks of a desire that is based
upon the reasoning faculties as over against thelo (èåëï), a desire that arises from the emotions. God,
facing human infirmities, was minded to do thus and so.

The word “immutability” is the translation of ametatheton (•ìåôáèåôïí). The word is from metatithemi
(ìåôáôéèåìé). Tithemi (Ôéèåìé) means “to place,” and meta (ìåôá) prefixed refers to a change. Thus, the
compound word means “to change place,” thus “to transpose” two things, one of which is put in place of
the other. The derived noun metathemenos (ìåôáèåìåíïò) means “a turncoat.” The Greek letter Alpha
prefixed to the word makes it mean the opposite to what it meant originally. That is, God will not change
His position as to His promise. Having made the promise, He will stand by it. He is not a turncoat. He will
not change His position as to His promise, because that promise rests upon His counsel, and that is
ametatheton (•ìåôáèåôïí) also, immutable. The word “counsel” is the translation of boule (âïõëå), which
word is allied to boulomai (âïõëïìáé) “to desire, which desire comes from one’s reason.” The Triune God
in council convened brought forth this counsel to the effect that the soul might find a sure refuge in the
Lord Jesus. This counsel is immutable.
The word “confirmed” is the translation of mesiteuo (ìåóéôåõï) which means “to act as mediator between
litigating or covenanting parties, to accomplish something by interposing between two parties.” A mesites
(ìåóéôåò) is a sponsor or surety, so mesiteuo (ìåóéôåõï) comes to signify “to pledge one’s self, to give
surety.” God placed Himself between Himself and the inheritors of the promise. Expositor’s quotes
Delitzsch as follows: “God descended, as it were, from His own absolute exaltation, in order, so to speak,
to look up to Himself after the manner of men and take Himself to witness; and so by a gracious
condescension confirm the promise for the sake of the inheritors”; and Davidson, “He mediated or came
in between men and Himself, through the oath by Himself.”

The word “promise” is preceded by the definite article in the Greek text, pointing to a definite, particular
promise defined in the context. It is the promise to Abraham and his posterity found in verse 14.

Translation. In (accordance with) which God more abundantly desirous of demonstrating to those who
are inheritors of the promise, the immutability of His counsel, interposed with an oath.

(6:18) The word “things” is the translation of pragma (ðñáãìá), which comes from prasso (ðñáóóï), “to
do, practice, accomplish, perform.” Pragma (Ðñáãìá), therefore, means more than “thing.” It speaks of an
accomplished fact, of that which has been done. The two accomplished facts, the two things which were
done, are the act of God making a promise and the act of God taking an oath. And these are not subject to
change. They are immutable.

The word “consolation” is the translation of parakaleo, kaleo (ðáñáêáëåï, êáëåï) meaning “to call,” para
(ðáñá) prefixed being perfective in its function, thus making the compound word mean “to call earnestly,”
thus “to exhort, to encourage.” “Strong” in the Greek text is ischuros (Æó÷õñïò) which speaks of
indwelling strength embodied or put forth either aggressively or as an obstacle to resistance, as an army or
a fortress. Thus the encouragement which God’s promise and God’s oath afford is a strong army or a
fortress against doubt and discouragement. God’s promise and God’s oath should keep these Jews from
apostatizing through the encouragement they give.

The writer says that this encouragement is for those of his readers who have fled for refuge to lay hold of
the hope set before them. The Greek word meaning “to flee for refuge” katapheugo (êáôáöåõãï) is used in
the LXX (Deut. 4:42) of the slayer who killed his neighbor unawares, and who, to escape the avenger,
flees for refuge to one of the cities of refuge. Here it speaks of the sinner fleeing for refuge from the
penalty of sin, to the High Priest who has offered atonement for him and his sin. His only hope is in his
High Priest, the Messiah.

Translation. In order that through the instrumentality of two immutable facts in which it is impossible
for God to lie, we might be having a strong encouragement, we who fled for refuge for the
purpose of laying fast hold of the hope which is lying before us.

(3) This salvation made possible by the presence of the High Priest in the heavenly Holy of Holies (vv.
19, 20).
(6:19) The writer speaks of the hope of eternal life as an anchor of the soul. He uses two adjectives to
describe this anchor, “sure” and “steadfast.” The distinction between these two adjectives here is in the
relation of the same object to two different tests applied to it from without. The word “sure” is the
translation of asphale (•óöáëå), which is made up of a (á), “not,” and sphallo (óöáëëï), “to make totter,”
the compound word meaning “not to make totter, not to baffle or foil.” It speaks, therefore, of something
that cannot be made to totter when put to the test. “Steadfast” is the translation of bebaian (âåâáéáí)
which means “sustaining one’s steps in going.” Thus it speaks of something which does not break down
under the weight of something that steps on it. This hope which the believing soul has in the Lord Jesus is
an anchor of the soul which cannot be made to totter nor break down when put under stress and strain.
The words “which entereth” go back syntactically to the word “anchor.” It is the anchor that enters into
that within the veil. The words “that within” are the translation of to esoteron (ôï ¦óïôåñïí), the definite
article and the comparative, the latter speaking of something farther within. The words speak, therefore, of
the place within the veil. The word “that,” properly a demonstrative, does not point to anything definite
here. The idea is merely that the anchor is within the veil. The veil of the temple separated the Holy Place
from the Holy of Holies. But the writer is not speaking here of the type but of the reality, the Holy of
Holies of heaven itself which is the reality of which the earthly Holy of Holies is the type. The anchor of
the believer is, therefore, fastened within the veil of the Holy of Holies of heaven.

We have some rich figures here. This present life is the sea; the soul, a ship; the hidden bottom of the sea,
the hidden reality of the heavenly word. The soul is seen as storm-tossed on the troubled sea of life. The
soul of the believer, as a tempest-tossed ship, is held by the anchor within the veil, fastened by faith to the
blessed reality within the veil.

Translation. Which (hope) we are having as an anchor of the soul both stable and steadfast and which
anchor enters into the place within the veil.

(6:20) The anchor of the believer’s soul, his hope of eternal life in his High Priest, the Messiah, is fastened
securely to a Rock within the veil of the Holy of Holies in heaven. That Rock is Messiah, whom the writer
now speaks of as the forerunner. Here an entirely new idea is introduced, foreign to the ideas of the
Levitical economy. The Aaronic high priest did not enter into the Holy of Holies as a forerunner, but only
as the people’s representative. He entered a place where the one in whose behalf he ministered, could not
follow him. He entered the Holy of Holies in the stead of the believer, not as one cutting a pioneer path for
him. The writer in 10:19, 20, when exhorting the unsaved professing Jew to place his faith in the Messiah
as High Priest, urges him to enter the Holy of Holies personally, a thing which the First Testament
believer could only do in his high priest. The Authorized Version misses the point entirely, when it places
the definite article before the word “forerunner,” as if the idea of a high priest being a forerunner were
perfectly familiar to the Jewish recipient of this letter. Again, the name Iesous ( åóïõò), in the English
translation, Jesus, reminds the reader of the fact that the Jehoshua of the Old Testament is the Jesus of the
New Testament, that it was the God of Israel who died on the Cross as an atonement for sin.

But this High Priest is not in the line of Aaron, but in that of Melchisedec. He is an eternal High Priest.
His priesthood had no beginning nor will it have an ending. This High Priest is the Rock of Salvation into
which the anchor of the believer’s soul is fastened, which anchor is his faith in the atonement his High
Priest has offered.
The high priest in Israel arrayed in his gorgeous robes, would enter the sanctuary, wearing on his
shoulders twelve onyx stones upon which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and
upon his breastplate, twelve onyx stones with the names of the tribes of Israel upon them. Thus he would
carry upon the shoulders of his strength and upon the heart of his love, the saved of Israel into the
presence of God. Just so, this heavenly High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, carries upon the
shoulders of His omnipotence, and upon the heart of His infinite love, those who place their faith in Him,
into the presence of God. Thus does the writer encourage the unsaved reader to put his faith in the New
Testament Sacrifice, the Messiah, rather than go back to the First Testament sacrifices which were set
aside by God at the Cross.

Translation. Where a forerunner on behalf of us entered, Jesus, having become a High Priest forever
after the order of Melchisedec.
Chapter 7

h. A High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (7:1–3).

(1) Melchisedec, a sinner saved by grace, had no recorded parents, no recorded date of birth or of
death.

(2) A type, therefore, of Messiah in His eternal priesthood.

(7:1) The brief history of Melchisedec is given in Genesis 14:18–20. When Abraham came to Salem, he
found a Gentile priest of God, ministering to believers in that city.

Translation. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of God the Most High, who met Abraham
returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him.

(7:2) The word “gave” is the translation of merizo (ìåñéæï) which means “to separate into parts, to
distribute.” In dividing to Melchisedec a tenth part of the spoils of battle, Abraham acknowledged
Melchisedec as a priest. The startling conclusion based upon this fact is stated in 7:4–10. The word “first”
refers to the first designation with reference to this mysterious individual. The name Melchisedec which is
the first designation which the writer uses, means “king of righteousness.” Then follows a designation
“king of Salem,” which means “king of peace,” the latter coming from his character, as the first came
from his name. The ancient name of Jerusalem was Jebus. When Melchisedec was the King and Priest of
the city, it was called Salem.

Translation. To whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all; the first designation on the one hand
being interpreted means king of righteousness, and then, on the other hand (he was) king
of Salem which is king of peace.

(7:3) The words “without father, without mother, without descent” speak of the fact that there is no record
of his parentage. This is significant, for it indicates a different type of priesthood from the Levitical, in
which a person’s genealogy was of first importance. In Israel, no man was allowed to exercise priestly
functions unless he belonged to the family of Aaron.

The words “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” refer to the fact that the historical record is
silent regarding his birth and death.

Melchisedec was made like the Son of God, likened to the Son of God (aphomoioo (•öïìïéïï), to
produce a facsimile), in the sense that his history was so written up that he appeared to have no father and
mother, and no end of days. As Westcott says, “The resemblance lies in the Biblical representation, and
not primarily in Melchisedec himself.” One could not have a type that was in itself eternal, for then one
would have the reality, not the type. Thus, an accommodative type, so to speak, must be used.

It is important to note that the likeness of Melchisedec is not to Messiah as Son of Man but to Him as Son
of God. As Son of Man He was born and died. As Son of God, neither could be said of Him.
The words “abideth a priest continually” are not to be construed with “made like unto the Son of God.”
The latter clause refers to what has preceded. It is not here likeness with respect to priesthood that is
asserted, but likeness with respect to duration of being which is asserted. In view of the fact that there is
no record of the death of Melchisedec, it is assumed that he is still alive, and is therefore still a high priest,
thus, a fitting type of the eternity of being of the Messiah as a High Priest.

Translation. Fatherless, motherless, having no genealogy, having no beginning of days nor termination
of life, but likened (in these respects) to the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

i. A High Priest in a superior order of priesthood (7:4–10).

(1) The Aaronic priests received tithes (vv. 4, 5).

(7:4) The writer now proceeds to show that Melchisedec was better than Abraham, in order that he might
show that he was better than Levi, and thus better than Aaron. It follows therefore that if Melchisedec is
superior to Aaron, his priesthood must be better than that of Aaron. Since that is the case, Messiah’s
priesthood, being in the order of the priesthood of Melchisedec, must be better. That makes Messiah better
than Aaron and, therefore, the New Testament He instituted, better than the First Testament, which Aaron
was instrumental in bringing in. And that is the argument of the Book of Hebrews, namely, that the New
Testament in Jesus’ blood is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood.

The word “consider” is theoreo (èåïñåï) in the Greek text. It is used, not of an indifferent spectator, but of
one who looks at a thing with interest and attention. Theoreo (Èåïñåï) would be used of a general
officially reviewing or inspecting an army, as against theaomai (èåáïìáé) which would be used of a lay
spectator viewing the parade. It speaks of a critical, discriminating inspection.

The word “spoils” in the Greek text is interesting. It is akrothinion (•êñïèéíéïí), made up of akron
(•êñïí), “the topmost point,” and this (èéò), “a heap.” It was the tenth part of the top of the pile, or the
pick of the spoil, which Abraham gave to Melchisedec. The Greeks after a victory, gathered up the spoils
in a heap, and the top, or best part of the heap, was presented to the gods. The fact that Abraham gave a
tenth of the pick of the spoils to Melchisedec, magnifies the latter’s greatness in the eyes of the readers of
this letter. But it was not any ordinary man called Abraham who paid tithes to Melchisedec. It was
Abraham, the patriarch. The writer is careful to identify him, lest his Jewish readers think it might be
some other man of the same name. The word “patriarch” is the transliteration of the Greek word
patriarches (ðáôñéáñ÷åò). Patri (Ðáôñé) means “father,” and arches (•ñ÷åò) means “first.” Thus, Abraham
is their first father. He is the progenitor of the Hebrew race, and yet Melchisedec is greater than he.

Translation. Now, give careful consideration to how great this man was, to whom a tenth part Abraham
gave of the pick of the spoils, the patriarch.

(7:5) The words “they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood” are in the
Greek text “those out of the sons of Levi who receive the office of priest.” There should not be a comma
after Levi in the Authorized Version. The point is that not all the sons of Levi became priests, but only
those who belonged to the family of Aaron. These were given a special injunction to take tithes of their
brethren, even though the latter, like them, were descended from a common ancestor, Abraham.
The significance of this act of tithing is seen when one understands that the Aaronic priests took tithes of
their brethren by legal appointment only. When they paid tithes in this way, there was no acknowledgment
of inferiority on the part of these who paid tithes. It was mere compliance to a law. But in the case of
Abraham, there was no law that required him to pay tithes to Melchisedec. When he paid the latter tithes,
it was an acknowledgment on his part of his own inferiority and a personal tribute to his greatness and
superiority.

Translation. And those of the sons of Levi who receive the office of priest, have a commandment to take
tithes of the people according to the law, and this from their brethren, even though they are
come out of the loins of Abraham.

(2) Melchisedec received tithes from Abraham, therefore, was better than he (vv. 6, 7).

(7:6) The words “But he whose descent is not counted from them” are in the Greek text literally, “But he
who is not genealogically derived from them,” speaking here of Melchisedec. The latter, who had no part
in the Levitical genealogy or economy, and because of that, no legal right to exact tithes from Abraham,
took tithes from the patriarch himself. The voluntary gift of Abraham implied a recognition on the part of
the latter, of the personal superiority of the former.

Then, Melchisedec accepted the exalted position Abraham accorded him, and gave the patriarch his
blessing. Abraham, who had received the divine promises and blessings, might be supposed to have been
above being blessed by any man. But not so.

Translation. But he who is not genealogically derived from them, received tithes of Abraham, and the
one who has the promises, he blessed.

(7:7) The word translated “contradiction” is antilogia (•íôéëïãéá) which means literally, “a word spoken
against,” and thus it comes to mean “a dispute.” The writer says that such a universally held truth that the
inferior is blessed by the superior, leaves no room for dispute about the matter. The words “less” and
“better” are in the neuter gender in the Greek text, expressing in its widest form the principle stated above.
This principle applies where the blessing carries with it not only the verbal expression of good-will, but
also goodwill achieving actual results.

Translation. But apart from every dispute, the less by the better is blessed.

(3) Melchisedec in type still receiving tithes, whereas Aaronic priests die (v. 8).

(7:8) The word “here,” hode (Òäå), means “according to the Levitical law which was still being observed,
though unlawfully, by Israel!” “There,” ekei (¦êåé), means “in the passage in Genesis where Melchisedec
is recorded to have been receiving tithes.” The words do not refer to any specific places.

In the expression “men that die receive tithes,” the word “die” is a participle, describing “men.” The
emphasis is upon the fact that dying men receive tithes. The Levites are dying men who pass off the scene
in due time and are succeeded by others. The record concerning Melchisedec does not mention his death.
Thus the record testifies in that way to the fact that he is still alive. Thus, his office as priest does not pass
on to another. He is still receiving tithes.

Translation. And here on the one hand dying men are receiving tithes, but there he receives them,
concerning whom the testimony is that he lives.
(4) Aaron in Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, therefore, the latter is superior; therefore, Messiah is
better than Aaron, being a priest in the order of Melchisedec (vv. 9, 10).

(7:9, 10) The words “as I may so say” are literally “so to speak a word.” The expression introduces an
unusual statement, one that may appear paradoxical or startling to the reader. The expression indicates that
what is to be said is not to be taken in strictness. It is used when anything is about to be said that is
unexpected, or somewhat strained, not likely to be universally recognized, at least in the general way in
which it is asserted. It is sometimes used for “roughly, improperly.”

The tendency in Jewish theology was to view heredity in this realistic manner. Levi was in the loins of
Abraham in that he was descended from him. When Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, Levi paid him
tithes. Thus, Melchisedec was superior to Levi. That means that he was better than Aaron. It follows that
since Melchisedec is better than Aaron, Messiah is better than Aaron, for He belongs to a superior order of
priesthood. That makes the New Testament better than the First Testament, which is the argument of the
book. This kind of reasoning would appeal to Jewish readers, for they emphasized strongly the solidarity
of the Jewish race. The whole Jewish law, its ordinances and priesthood, it regarded as potentially in
Abraham.

Translation. And so to speak, by the intermediate agency of Abraham, also Levi who receives tithes,
paid tithes, for yet in the loins of his father he was when Melchisedec met him.

j. Is High Priest of a Testament that offered a sacrifice that put away sin (vv. 11–22).

(1) The First Testament neither offered nor made anything complete (v. 11).

(7:11) The word “perfection” is the translation of teleiosis (ôåëåéïóéò) which signifies the act or process of
consummating. It speaks of completeness. An institution is perfect or complete when it effects the purpose
for which it was instituted, and produces a result that corresponds to the idea of it. The purpose of the
priesthood was to remove the obstacle, sin, which kept man from God, and make a way of access for man
to God. The Levitical priesthood could do that in a typical but not in an actual way. The priesthood and
the sacrifices were an index finger pointing to the Messiah and His substitutionary death on the Cross.
Because the Levitical sacrifices and priesthood could not actually provide a salvation for sinful man, it
follows that a new priesthood must be instituted that would. And because a salvation needed to be
provided, a new priesthood was brought in, and a new priest, Messiah, a priest after the order of
Melchisedec. The word “another” is the translation of heteros (©ôåñïò), meaning, “of another kind.” That
is, since the Levitical priesthood brought nothing to completion, not merely another priest was needed, but
another priest of a different kind. It could not be another priest in the line of Aaron, but one of a different
order of priesthood. That is the argument of the writer. Since there was a need for a priesthood of a
different order than Aaron, it follows that a new order of priesthood has arisen, that of Melchisedec. The
writer has proved his proposition again, namely, that the New Testament, is superior to and takes the place
of the First Testament. There was a need for a different Testament since the first one could not offer a
sacrifice that paid for sin.

Translation. If indeed, therefore, completeness were through the Levitical priesthood, for the people
upon the basis of it had the law laid down (to them), what need after that should there be of
a priest of a different kind arising according to the order of Melchisedec and not being
called after the order of Aaron?
(2) First Testament priests came from the tribe of Levi, the New Testament priest from the tribe of
Judah (vv. 12–17).

(7:12) The words “being changed” are the translation of metatithemi (ìåôáôéèåìé) which means “to
transpose, to put one thing in the place of another.” Thus, the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec
was put in the place of the priesthood after the order of Aaron. The blood of animals could not pay for sin,
but the blood of Messiah could. Thus, the New Testament was substituted for the First Testament, Jesus’
blood, the reality, for animal blood, the type. But that could only be done by changing the law governing
the priesthood. Thus, if a transfer to a new and different order of priesthood was to be effected, it must be
by reason of a transfer to a new basis. The law governing the priesthood as found in the Mosaic economy
must be abrogated in favor of another which would provide for an order of priesthood that would function
successfully in the very thing in which the Aaronic priesthood failed.

Translation. For there being a transfer of the priesthood (to another order), of necessity also of the law
there is a transfer.

(7:13) Since the Mosaic law required that the priests should come from the tribe of Levi, a new
priesthood, not of the order of Aaron, must set aside that law. The Messiah comes from another tribe, and
not merely from another tribe, but from a tribe which was not specially set apart for priestly service, a
tribe of a different nature in that respect from the tribe of Levi. This is made clear by the use of heteros
(©ôåñïò) rather than allos (•ëëïò), the first referring to another of a different kind, the second to another of
the same kind.

The word “altar” is the translation of thusiasterion (èõóéáóôåñéïí) which means “an altar for the sacrifice
of victims.”

Translation. For He concerning whom these things are spoken, pertained to a different kind of a tribe
from which no one gave attendance at the altar.

(7:14) The word “evident” is the translation of prodelos (ðñïäåëïò) which means “openly evident, known
to all.” The facts concerning the birth and ancestry of Jesus of Nazareth were well known from the records
in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The fact of this origin would naturally militate against His claims as
High Priest, among Jews who knew nothing in the history of their nation except the Aaronic order of
priests. The word “sprang” is the translation of anatello (•íáôåëëï) which was used of the rising of a
heavenly body, sun, star, of a cloud, of the springing up of plants. The word “Lord” is the translation of
kurios (êõñéïò) which is used in the LXX to translate the august title of God, Jehovah. In the Jewish
setting in which it is found, the use of this name is significant. The writer predicates deity to Jesus of
Nazareth. He calls Him our (the Jewish) Jehovah, the One to whom the Jews laid claim as their God.

Translation. For it is known to all that out of Judah our Lord has sprung, with reference to which tribe
concerning priesthood not even one thing did Moses say:

(7:15) The words “far more evident” are the translation of katadelion (êáôáäåëéïí) which means
“thoroughly evident.” The statement of the writer here does not refer to that which is declared to be
prodelon (ðñïäåëïí) “evident” in verse 14, namely, that Messiah sprang out of Judah, but to the general
proposition which the writer is putting forth in the context, to the effect that the Levitical priesthood did
not measure up to the purpose for which a priesthood is instituted, namely, to offer a sacrifice that would
pay for sin and make a way for sinful man to be saved. The writer says that it is perfectly obvious that
after the likeness of Melchisedec a different kind of a priest should arise.
Translation. And it is yet far more obvious that after the likeness of Melchisedec there arises a different
kind of priest.

(7:16) The Levitical priests were constituted such by a law of a carnal commandment. The High Priest
after the order of Melchisedec was constituted a high priest according to the power of an endless life. Here
we have two most important statements that present an important contrast. The word “law” is the
translation of nomos (íïìïò) which means “a norm, a standard.” The word “commandment” is the
rendering of entole (¦íôïëå) which is a specific precept. “Carnal” is the translation of sarkines (óáñêéíåò)
which means “fleshly.” The norm or standard prescribed by the Mosaic commandments had to do with the
human body. The priests had to come from a certain family, the Aaronic. Fitness for office even among
the male members of this family was determined largely by physical qualifications. The priests must be
without bodily blemish, and ceremonially pure.

The word “endless” is the translation of akatalutos. Luo (•êáôáëõôïò. Ëõï) means “to loose,” kata (êáôá),
“down,” a (á), “not,” and thus the compound word means “not to loose nor to dissolve or disunite.” The
word describes therefore that which cannot be dissolved or disunited. The Messiah was constituted a High
Priest according to the power of an indissoluble life. The life which was His could not be broken down
into disunited elements.

In the case of the Levitical priest, no matter how ill-suited he was and reluctant to take the office, the law
made him a priest because of his pedigree. He did what he did so far as official duties were concerned by
reason of an outside compulsion. In the case of the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, He
performed His duties as High Priest, not by reason of the fact that any official necessity was laid upon
Him, but by virtue of a power in His own nature compelling and enabling Him, the power of a life that
even death could not dissolve, for He raised Himself from the dead.

The life of the new priest is indissoluble or indestructible, not as eternally existing in the preincarnate Son,
but as existing in Him incarnate and while fulfilling priestly duties. It is here that the term “indestructible”
is applicable, for He died on the Cross as the High Priest offering atonement, but it was necessary for the
continuance and completion of His priestly duties, that He raise Himself from the dead, thus manifesting
the power and the nature of that indissoluble life that is His.

Translation. Who was constituted (a priest), not according to the norm of a fleshen commandment, but
according to the power of an indissoluble life.

(7:17) Scripture testifies to the fact of the indestructible character of the life of the new priest in the words
of the Psalmist (110:4).

Translation. For He testifies, as for thee, a priest thou art forever according to the order of Melchisedec.

(3) First Testament set aside in favor of a better Testament (vv. 18–22).

(7:18, 19) These two verses take up the idea of verse 16. They speak of the negative and positive result of
the superseding of the fleshly ordinance by the power of an indestructible life. On the one hand there is a
setting aside of the previous enactment. On the other, there is the bringing in of a better hope. The word
“disannulling” is the translation of athetesis (•èåôåóéò), the fundamental idea of which is the doing away
of something established. The words, “the commandment going before” could better be phrased “a
foregoing commandment.”
The word “foregoing” does not emphasize mere precedence in time, but rather the preliminary character
of the commandment as destined to be done away by a later ordinance. It was set aside because of its
weakness and unprofitableness. The Levitical economy was perfect for the purpose for which it was
instituted, that of being an index-finger pointing to the High Priest, Messiah. But when it came to the
place where a sacrifice would be demanded of it that would pay for sin, it was found to be weak and
unprofitable.

This is explained in the words, “for the law made nothing perfect.” The words “made perfect” are the
translation of teleioo (ôåëåéïï) which means “to carry through completely, to make complete, to finish,
bring to an end.” The Mosaic economy brought nothing to a conclusion. It could not offer a sacrifice
which would pay for sin. Therefore, it could not save anyone. Therefore, it was set aside.

In place of it, there was brought in a better hope. The Greek text has it “a bringing in upon;” that is, the
better hope was brought in upon the ground formerly occupied by the commandment. The reason why the
new order is better is that through it, men are enabled to draw nigh to God. The old priesthood could not
effect this.

Translation. For there is indeed a doing away with a foregoing commandment because of its weakness
and unprofitableness, for not even one thing did the law bring to completion; and a
bringing in thereupon of a better hope, by means of which we are drawing near to God.

(7:20, 21) When the Levitical priests were inducted into office, God took no oath. But when Messiah was
made a high priest, God took an oath guaranteeing the unending character of His priesthood. This shows
the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood to that of Melchisedec.

Translation. And not without an oath (He was made priest); for indeed without an oath they have
become priests, but this One with an oath through the agency of the One who says to Him,
The Lord took an oath and will not change His mind. As for thee, a priest forever than art.
13

(7:22) In this verse, the writer states the proposition which he wishes to prove, namely, that the New
Testament in Jesus’ blood is better than and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood. His
argument here is that Jesus is the surety of a better covenant because God took an oath that His priesthood
would be an everlasting one. Jesus is the guarantee or pledge of a better covenant or testament.

Translation. By so much was Jesus made a pledge of a better testament.

k. Messiah lives forever: the Aaronic priests died (vv. 23–28).

(1) Because mortal, there were many Aaronic priests (v.23).

(7:23) Another proof of the superiority of the New Testament over the First Testament is found in the
continued life of the priest, this priest therefore able to make intercession for the believer forever, and thus
able to save him completely, whereas the Aaronic priests were compelled by death to transfer their
ministry to the next priest in succession. The word “continue” is the translation of parameno (ðáñáìåíï)
which means “to remain alongside.” The idea is that because the Aaronic priests died, they were hindered
from abiding by their ministration.
Translation. And they indeed have been made many priests in number, because they were hindered from
continuing by reason of death.

(2) Our Lord, because eternal, has a non-transferable priesthood, thus able to save the believer forever
(vv. 24, 25).

(7:24, 25) The word “unchangeable” is the translation of aparabation (•ðáñáâáôéïí) which is made up of
baino (âáéíï) “to step,” para (ðáñá), “across,” and a (á) “not,” the compound word meaning “not stepping
across.” Thus, the word describes that which cannot be violated, or that which does not pass over to
another. The priestly ministry of Messiah is in view here, a ministry such that no other person can step
into it, a ministry that cannot be transferred to another.

The word “uttermost” is the translation of panteles (ðáíôåëåò) which is made up of pas (ðáò) “all,” and
telos (ôåëïò) “end, termination.” Thus, we have a two-dimensional salvation spoken of here. By reason of
Messiah’s eternal ministry as High Priest, He is able to save the believer in his totality of being, body,
soul, and spirit, and do all that to the point of termination, an unending state of salvation in eternity.
The word “intercession” is the translation of entugchano (¦íôõã÷áíï) which speaks of intervention rather
than merely intercession. It includes every form of Messiah’s identifying Himself with humanity, and
includes the idea of intercession. The writer speaks here of the present intercession of Messiah on behalf
of believers, which is based upon and follows His once-for-all offering of Himself as the sacrifice for sin.

Translation. But this (priest), because He abides forever, has the priesthood which is non-transferable,
for which reason He is able to be saving those completely and forever who come to God
through Him, being always alive for the purpose of continually making intercession for
them.

(3) A better High Priest, because sinless (vv. 26–28).

(7:26) The word “became” is the translation of prepo (ðñåðï) which means “to be becoming, to be seemly,
to be fitting.” The Messiah as High Priest was as to His character, one who was fitting to us. There was an
essential fitness in the provision God made in Him as High Priest of the believer. That essential fitness
consisted of the qualities mentioned in verses 26–28. That is, we sinners being sinful and dependant upon
the mediation of a priest, needed a sinless one. What a contrast this is to the Aaronic priests who were
themselves sinners and who needed in the last analysis, a High Priest to mediate salvation for them.

Messiah is holy. The word is hosios (Òóéïò) here, not hagios (ãéïò). The former speaks of personal
holiness, the latter of holiness as a state of separation to God. It speaks of holiness as that state of a person
who is undefiled by sin, free from wickedness. “Harmless” is the translation of akakos. Kakos (•êáêïò.
Êáêïò) is the Greek word for evil in the abstract sense. The Greek letter Alpha prefixed makes the
compound word mean “not evil,” that is guileless, free from malice and craft. The word “undefiled” is the
translation of amiantos (•ìéáíôïò) which is defined as follows, “free from that by which the nature of a
thing is deformed or debased, or its force or vigor is impaired.” “Separate” is a perfect participle in the
Greek text, literally “separated.” That is, the Messiah is separated from sinners in that in His service as
High Priest, He is void of all contact and commerce with sinners, removed far away in His glorified state
and body, into God’s Holy of Holies.

Translation. For such a high priest is fitting to us, holy, without guile, undefiled, having been separated
from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.
(7:27) Messiah’s once-for-all offering of Himself on the Cross as a sacrifice for sin, is contrasted to the
daily offering of the high priests in Israel. Here we meet a difficulty. The high priest entered the Holy of
Holies just once a year. Several views are offered as an explanation. We submit the following: Alford
points out that the position of the word “daily” shows that it belongs to Messiah, not to the high priests, so
that the sentence means, “Who has not need day by day, as the high priests had year by year.” Messiah’s
intercession is continuous, from day to day, but in order to intercede daily, He does not need day by day to
renew the sacrifice as the Aaronic high priest year by year, and whose intercession was once a year, which
intercession was only efficacious and that only typically, when he offered an annual sacrifice. The great
point is repetition. The Aaronic priests had to offer repeated sacrifices because the blood of animals could
not pay for sin. Messiah needed to offer but one sacrifice, because His blood did pay for sin. Furthermore,
He did not, like the high priest, have to offer first for His own sins, for He had none. The word “once” is
the translation of ephapax (¦öáðáî), which means “once for all.” Messiah is, therefore, shown to be a high
priest who is fitting to us, a priest of the kind lost sinners need.

Translation. Who does not have daily need, even as those high priests, first for their own sins to be
offering up sacrifice, then for those of the people, for this He did once for all, having
offered up Himself.

(7:28) The word “infirmity” is the translation of astheneian (•óèåíåéáí) which is stronger than astheneis
(•óèåíåéò), the former speaking of infirmity as a general characteristic, whereas the latter might imply
only special exhibitions of weakness. The law constitutes men who are constitutionally weak, morally,
spiritually, physically, high priests, whereas the sworn declaration of God constitutes the Son High Priest,
who is perfected forevermore. “Consecrated” of the Authorized Version is from teleioo (ôåëåéïï) which
means “to bring to completion.”

Translation. For the law constitutes high priests men having infirmity, but the word of the oath which
was since the law, constitutes One who is in character Son (a High Priest), who is
perfected forevermore.

Notes:

13 The words “after the order of Melchisedec” are a rejected reading.

Chapter 8

1. Officiates in a better tabernacle (8:1–6).

(1) His tabernacle, the heavenly one, Aaron’s merely the type (vv. 1–5).

(8:1) The words “of the things which we have spoken” are an inaccurate translation of the Greek text here.
The verb is present in tense, and the preposition epi (¦ðé) does not mean “of” but “in the case of.” The
reference is not to the things just discussed, but to the matters to be considered. The word “sum” is the
translation of kephalaion (êåöáëáéïí) which means “the chief point.” It does not refer to the sum of what
precedes, but to the main point of that which follows. The words “such an high priest” refer back to verses
26, 27. The words “is set” are the translation of ekathisen (¦êáèéóåí), literally “sat down.” Here we have
priestly imagery. This High Priest took His seat in the heavens. His work of offering a sacrifice for sin was
finished. He now officiates in a heavenly tabernacle, whereas Aaron engaged in priestly service in an
earthly one. The place of the Messiah is at the right hand of the throne in heaven, a place which Aaron
could not occupy. Thus, Messiah as High Priest is seen in every way to be superior to Aaron, and,
therefore, the New Testament He inaugurated, superior to the First Testament which Aaron officiated
under.

Translation. Now, in the consideration of the things which are being spoken, this is the chief point:
Such an High Priest we possess, who took His seat on the right hand of the throne of the
Majesty in the heavens.

(8:2) Messiah, having paid for sin at the Cross, is now seated in heaven as a minister. The word “minister”
is the translation of leitourgos (ëåéôïõñãïò) which is made up of an old adjective leitos (ëåéôïò) meaning
“belonging to the people,” and ergon (¦ñãïí), meaning “work.” It was used of a person in the service of
the state who held public office. The word is used in the LXX and the New Testament, both of priestly
service to God and of service to man. The word “sanctuary” is the translation of ton hagion (ôïí ãéïí).
The latter word means “holy.” The words are in the plural. Thus, Messiah ministers in the holy places, the
heavenly sanctuary. The word “tabernacle” is in the Greek text literally “a tent.” “True” is alethinos
(•ëåèéíïò), literally “genuine,” not in this case opposed to that which is false or counterfeit, but in contrast
to that which is a mere copy or representation of the heavenly. The genuine tent or tabernacle which the
Lord pitched is the Holy of Holies of heaven itself, and it is in this sanctuary that Messiah officiates as
High Priest. He is, therefore, superior to Aaron since He serves in a superior sanctuary, and because He is
superior to Aaron, the New Testament which He inaugurated is superior to the First Testament under
which Aaron served. And this is the argument of the epistle.

Translation. A minister of the holy (places) and of the tabernacle, the genuine one which the Lord
pitched, not man.

(8:3) A priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Therefore, Messiah as High Priest must have gifts
and sacrifices to offer also, and a sanctuary in which to offer them.

Translation. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Wherefore it is
necessary that this one be having that which He might offer.
(8:4) Since Messiah was not a priest in the order of Aaron, He could not officiate on earth, for the
Levitical order of priesthood was established by law, the Mosaic. He would, therefore, not be a priest on
earth. Since that is true, He must be a high Priest in heaven.

Translation. If indeed, therefore, He were on earth, in that case He would not be a priest, there being
those who offer the gifts according to law.

(8:5) The word “example” is the translation of hupodeigma (ßðïäåéãìá) which refers to a sign suggestive
of anything, an outline, a delineation, a suggestion. The word “shadow” is the translation of skia (óêéá),
“an adumbration (imperfect portrayal or representation of a thing) of a reality which it does not embody.”
A shadow has no substance in itself. It has no independent existence. It merely is proof of the fact that
there is a reality back of it. It is not itself solid or real. Just so, the earthly tabernacle gave proof of the fact
that there was a real one, the heavenly one where God Himself dwelt, where Messiah officiates as High
Priest. The Aaronic priests performed their priestly rites in the representation of the heavenly tabernacle.

Translation. Who are of such a character as serve the copy and representation of the heavenly things,
even as Moses was divinely commanded when about to make the tabernacle. For, See, He
says, make all things according to the pattern which was showed to you on the mountain.

(2) His Testament therefore better than the one Aaron served under (v. 6).

(8:6) This is an important verse. It is a pivotal verse in the epistle. It closes the first major argument. The
book was written to prove the following proposition: The New Testament in Jesus’ blood is superior to
and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood. The writer has proved this to be true on the
basis of pure logic and the Old Testament Scriptures. Using the logical argument that a superior workman
turns out a superior product, he has shown that Messiah, the Founder of the New Testament is better than
the founders of the First Testament, who were the prophets, angels, Moses, Joshua, and Aaron. Therefore,
the testament He brought in is superior to and takes the place of theirs.

In the light of this, we can better understand the words, “But now hath He (Messiah) obtained a more
excellent ministry than they (prophets, angels, Moses, Joshua, Aaron), by how much also He is the
Mediator of a better covenant (the New Testament), which is established upon better promises.”

The words “more excellent ministry” refer primarily to the more excellent ministry which Messiah has
than that of the Aaronic priests, but since this verse concludes the first major argument in which the
relative merits of the founders are compared, and the next verse begins the second major argument in
which the relative merits of the Testaments themselves are compared, the present writer has reached back
to the beginning of the epistle to gather together the threads of the entire demonstration. The word “now”
is not temporal but logical in its usage here. The word “established” is the translation of nomotheteo
(íïìïèåôåï) which means “to enact laws.”

Translation. But now a more excellent ministry He has obtained, by how much also He is a mediator of
a better testament, which is of such a character as to have been enacted upon the basis of
better promises.
II. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament (8:7–10:39) because

1. It was prophesied to be better (8:7–13).

a. The First Testament faulty in that it did not put away sin (v. 7).

(8:7) Since God instituted the First Testament, it was perfect for the purpose for which it was planned, as
an index-finger pointing to Messiah and His substitutionary atonement. But it was faulty when it came to
the place of providing an atonement that would pay for sin. The very fact that a place in history was
sought for a new one, shows that the First Testament was faulty. The words “have been sought” are the
translation of zeteo (æåôåï), a verb in the imperfect tense, which tense speaks of progressive action going
on in past time. The literal translation is, “then no place would have been being sought.” That is, a search
would not have been going on for a new testament if the First Testament had been faultless. This implies a
sense of dissatisfaction with the First Testament while the First Testament was still in force, and a looking
about for something better. The writer to the Hebrews is now going to show that the Levitical system was
in character, a testament which was recognized as imperfect and transitory by an Old Testament prophet,
since he spoke of the divine purpose of bringing in a new testament.

Translation. For if that first testament had been faultless, in that case there would not have been a
constant searching out of a place for a second.

b. New Testament made with Israel and Judah (v. 8).

(8:8) The writer now quotes Jeremiah (31:31–34), one of their own prophets. It is an astute move. He puts
the Jewish recipients of this letter in the place where they will have to accept the New Testament and the
testimony of their own prophet to the effect that God would bring in a New Testament, or, if they reject
the New Testament, they will be forced to reject their own prophet. Thus does the writer build his
argument upon the Old Testament Scriptures, the very Word of God his readers profess to believe.

The word “them” refers to the people of Israel during the time the First Testament was in force. The writer
after finding fault with the First Testament, now finds fault with the people. Expositor’s quotes Rendall;
“There is a subtle delicacy of language in the insensible shifting of language from the covenant to the
people. The covenant itself could hardly be said to be faultless, seeing that it failed to bind Israel to their
God; but the true cause of failure lay in the character of the people, not in the law, which was holy,
righteous, and good.” Expositor’s continues: “The old covenant was faulty because it did not provide for
enabling the people to live up to the terms or conditions of it. It was faulty inasmuch as it did not
sufficiently provide against their faultiness.”

The word “make” is the translation of sunteleo (óõíôåëåï), which means “to conclude or consummate.”
The writer seems to have chosen this word rather than poieo (ðïéåï) “to make,” in order to emphasize
more clearly the conclusive perfecting power of the New Testament.

It is important to note that the New Testament is not Christianity. The Book of Hebrews is not an
argument the purpose of which is to prove that Christianity is superior to Judaism as seen in its Founder,
Christ. The First Testament was a covenant made with Israel. The New Testament is also a covenant made
with Israel. God makes no covenants with the Gentiles. Israel is the chosen channel through which He
brings salvation to the human race. The First Testament consisted of a system of sacrifices, symbolic in
their import.
The New Testament is a Sacrifice, the Lord Jesus at the Cross, actual in its character, and efficacious in its
merits. The First Testament began at Genesis 3:21, and ended at the Cross. The New Testament began at
the Cross and is an everlasting one (13:20). Christianity refers to the Mystical Body of Christ of which He
is the Head. This Body is composed of all who are saved from Pentecost to the Rapture. The New
Testament made Christianity possible. The saints of the Church Age are saved through the Blood of the
Sacrifice which was offered under the New Testament. That is the relationship between the New
Testament and Christianity. The two names, Israel and Judah, refer here to the two parts of the divided
nation, Israel the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern.

Translation. For, finding fault with them He says, Behold the days come, says the Lord, and I will
consummate with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new testament.

c. First Testament dealt with Israel as with a minor (v. 9).

(8:9) The word “covenant” is the translation of diatithemi (äéáôéèåìé) which is made up of tithemi (ôéèåìé)
“to place” and dia (äéá) the root meaning of which is “two!” thus, “to place between two.” Thus, a
covenant is something placed between two, an arrangement between two parties. The inspired writer uses
the same word in 9:16–20 where the meaning of the word is that of a testament in the sense of a last will
or testament, the legal instrument by which something is bequeathed to someone. Thus, the words
“covenant” or “testament” refer in this epistle to one thing, the act of God providing for the salvation of
the believing sinner through the blood atonement offered on Calvary’s Cross by the Lord Jesus. It is a
covenant in the sense that it is an agreement on God’s part that He will give salvation to the sinner who
will receive it by faith in the High Priest He has appointed. It is a last will or testament in the sense that
God bequeaths salvation to the sinner who will receive it on the terms of the will, faith in the blood of
Jesus. God, the divine Testator, dies to make the will effective. The words “covenant” and “testament” are
used of one thing in this book, viewed from two angles.

The words “lead them by the hand,” speak of the fact that the First Testament was given to a people in its
minority. Israel was treated as a minor. God put it under laws and regulations. If Israel behaved itself, it
was rewarded, and if it misbehaved, it was punished. Israel was taught by object lessons as one would
teach a child, for instance, the tabernacle, priesthood, offerings, the gorgeous vestments of the high priest.
Under this covenant, the believer in Israel was declared righteous (Gal. 3:6), and was regenerated (John
3:10 “Art thou the teacher of Israel and dost thou not have an experimental knowledge (ginosko
(ãéíïóêï)) of these things?)”. But with all this, the believer was only a born child in its minority (teknon
(ôåêíïí)), as over against the believer in this Age of Grace, an adult son (huios (õÊïò)), (Gal. 4:2 children,
teknon (ôåêíïí), 3:26 the sons of God huios (õÊïò), not “children” as in the Authorized Version).
The word “continue” is the translation of emmeno (¦ììåíï) which means “to persevere, to hold fast, be
true to, abide by.” “Regarded not” is the translation of ameleo (•ìåëåï) which is made up of melo (ìåëï)
“to care for” and Alpha privative which negates the word, making it mean “not to care for.” The idea in
the word melo (ìåëï) is that of a concern or solicitude which one has for another. When Israel failed to be
true to the covenant, God’s solicitude and concern for His chosen people gave place to one of righteous
indignation, which attitude culminated with the captivities. How serious was Israel’s defection is seen in
the words which Delitzsch quotes from Schelling: “The Law appears to be the mere ideal of a religious
constitution, as it has never existed in fact: in practice, the Jews were almost throughout polytheists. The
substance of their national feeling was formed by heathendom: the accidents only, by revelation.
From the queen of heaven down to the abominations of the Phoenicians, and even Cybele, the Jews passed
through every grade of paganism.” Delitzsch adds, “In fact, there is no period of the history of Israel
before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except the
time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel still continued to be
felt. And when by the captivity idol-worship was completely eradicated from the people, as far at least as
regards that part of it which returned, it is well-known that a hypocritical letter-worship got the mastery
over them, which was morally very little better.”

Translation. Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them
by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue true to
my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

d. New Testament through the indwelling Spirit brings believers to adult sonship (v. 10).

(8:10) The words “the covenant that I will make” are interesting in the Greek text. The noun and verb are
cognate. By that is meant that the noun and verb both have the same root and meaning. Literally, it is, “the
arrangement which I will arrange with them,” or “the covenant which I will covenant with them.” In the
case of the First Testament, God wrote His laws on tables of stone to be obeyed by the regenerated
Israelite. In the case of the New Testament, He writes them on the mind and heart in the sense that He not
only regenerates the individual, but He provides for the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the
believer, in whose ministrations are added resources of grace which give the believer both the desire and
the power to do God’s will (Phil. 2:12, 13).

The words “I will be to them a God,” have the idea, “I will be to them to serve as a God.”

Translation. Because this is the covenant which I will arrange with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord, giving my laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them. And
I will be to them, God, and they themselves will be to Me a people.

e. Under the New Testament, all individuals in Israel will know the Lord (v. 11).

(8:11) In explanation of this verse we offer the excellent note in Expositor’s: “The inward acceptance of
God’s will involves the knowledge of God. In the new covenant all were to be ‘taught of God’ (Isa. 54:13;
John 6:45) and independent of the instruction of a privileged class. Under the old covenant, none but the
educated scribe could understand the minutiae of the law with which religion was identified. The
elaborate ritual made it impossible for the private individual to know whether a ram or a pigeon was the
appropriate sacrifice for his sin, or whether his sin was mortal or venial. A priest had to be consulted.
Under the new covenant intermediates were to be abolished. The knowledge of God was to lie in the heart
alongside of the love of parent or friend, and would demand for its expression no more external
instruction than those primal, instinctive and home-grown affections.”

The words “they shall not teach” are emphatic in the Greek text. There are two negatives before the word
“teach,” which in Greek do not make a positive, but an emphatic negation. The construction speaks of that
which will in no wise happen. The word “neighbor” is the translation of polites (ðïëéôåò) which means “a
fellow-citizen.”
The Greek text uses two different words in the case of the expressions “know the Lord,” and “all shall
know Me.” In the case of the first instance of the use of the word “know,” the word is ginosko (ãéíïóêï).
This word is used where one commends God to the knowledge of one who is ignorant of Him. The word
thus implies the recognition of the person or thing disclosed, upon the part of the one to whom disclosure
is made. The other word is oida (ïÆäá) which speaks of an absolute acquaintance with something. Under
the New Testament, Israel in the Millennium, its individual members cleansed in the fountain filled with
blood through the sovereign grace of God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit who will both sanctify and teach the
individual (Zech. 12:10–13:6), will have no need of any intermediate between the individual believer and
God. Equipped with the Great Teacher, the Holy Spirit, all, from the least to the greatest among them,
shall have a personal, direct relationship to God. While there will be priests offering sacrifices, yet the
people will be on a level with the priests of Israel so far as their understanding of God and His Word is
concerned. In this sense the New Testament is an advance upon the First Testament. This knowledge of
God will be without any distinction of age or station in life.

Translation. And in no wise shall each one teach his fellow-citizen and each one his brother, saying,
Come to know the Lord in an experiential way, because all shall know Me in an absolute
way, from the least to the greatest of them.

f. Under New Testament, sins put away (v. 12).

(8:12) The word “for” is hoti (Òôé) in the Greek text. Introducing the statement in this verse and
connecting that statement with the contents of the preceding verse, it speaks of the fact that the
forgiveness of sins or the manifestation of God’s grace are prerequisite and fundamental to the person’s
participation in the blessings of the New Testament and a personal acquaintance with God. The words
“and their iniquities” are not found in the best manuscripts. The expression “will I remember no more” is
emphatic in the Greek text, two negative particles occurring before the word “remember.” Under the First
Testament, sins were brought to mind every year by reason of the constant repetition of the sacrifices.
Under the New Testament sins are forgotten, and for the reason that they have been paid for. God
remembers them no more.

Translation. Because I will be merciful in the case of their unrighteousnesses, and their sins l will in no
wise remember anymore.

g. New Testament displaces First Testament (v. 13).

(8:13) In saying the word “new” (v. 8) God through the prophet Jeremiah had even at that time made the
First Testament old. The distinctive Greek word for “old” here is not archaios (•ñ÷áéïò), namely, that
which is old in point of time, but, palaios (ðáëáéïò), that which is old in point of use, worn-out,
antiquated, useless, outmoded. Even in Jeremiah’s time, the insufficiency of the First Testament was
recognized, and the need of a new one proclaimed.
The words “made old” are the translation of palaioo (ðáëáéïï) which verb has the same root as the noun
palaios (ðáëáéïò) mentioned above. It is in the perfect tense, which tense speaks of an action completed in
past time having present results. Thus, we could translate, “In saying new, He has permanently antiquated
the first (covenant).” The word “decayeth” is the translation of the same verb, and we have “that which is
being antiquated.” The words “waxeth old” are the translation of gerasko (ãåñáóêï) which means “to
grow old” and carries with it the suggestion of the waning strength and the decay which are incident to old
age. It has the meanings also of being obsolescent, failing from age.

Translation. In the fact that He says new, He has permanently antiquated the first. Now, that which is
being antiquated and is waning in strength, is near to the point of vanishing away.
Chapter 9

2. It is actual, the First Testament, only typical (9:1–15).

a. First Testament typical (vv. 1–10).

(1) Its sanctuary on earth (v. 1).

(9:1) The words “ordinances of divine service” mean “ordinances adapted for divine service.” The definite
article occurs before the words “worldly sanctuary.” The word translated “worldly” is kosmikon
(êïóìéêïí) which means “of this world” as contrasted to the heavenly world, having to do with the earth
in contrast to heaven. The word “worldly” does not here have any evil connotation.

Translation. Then indeed the first testament had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a
sanctuary of this world.

(2) Its appointments typical (vv. 2–5).

(9:2) The word “tabernacle” is the translation of the ordinary Greek word for “tent.” The writer speaks of
the first tent, that is, the first division of the tabernacle, the Holy Place, thirty feet long, fifteen feet wide,
and fifteen feet high. He speaks of the two divisions as two tabernacles or tents. The word “candlestick” is
the translation of luchnia (ëõ÷íéá) which refers to a lampstand. There were seven lamps burning on this
lampstand. The table and the loaves are treated as one item. The Greek text is literally here, “the table and
the setting forth of the loaves”; that is, it refers to the table with its loaves set forth. The word “sanctuary”
is the translation of hagia (ãéá) which means “holy.” This Greek word is in the plural number, literally
“holies.”

Translation. For a tent was constructed, the first in which was both the lampstand, and the table and its
loaves set forth, which (the tent) is of such a character as to be called a sanctuary.

(9:3) According to Exodus 26:31–37, there were two veils. One was before the door of the Holy Place and
the other separated the latter from the Holy of Holies.

Translation. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies.

(9:4) We face a difficulty here in the words “which had the golden censer.” In speaking of the articles of
furniture in the Holy Place, the writer omitted the altar of incense which stood just before the veil in the
Holy Place. Now, he speaks of the golden censer as being one of the appointments of the Holy of Holies.
Alford offers the following as a possible solution. He says that the Greek word translated “had” (echo
(¦÷ï)), which means “to have,” cannot be kept to its stricter meaning of “containing,” since neither the
incense-altar nor the censer was kept in the Holy of Holies. He quotes from the Mischna to the effect that
there was a censer used on the day of expiation that was different from that used on any other day,
different in that it was made of gold, and of a particular and precious kind of gold. This golden censer, full
of burning coals of fire was carried into the Holy of Holies by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.
The incense was then put upon the fire, and the cloud of the incense covered the mercy seat (Lev. 16:12,
13). The meaning of the writer therefore would be that the golden censer had to do with the Holy of
Holies, but was not a permanent article of furniture which it contained.
The word “ark” is the translation of kiboton (êéâïôïí) which means a box or chest. The word “ark” is still
used in Scotland in the expression “the meal-ark,” for the “meal-chest.” The ark in the Holy of Holies was
made of shittim wood overlaid with gold. Regarding the statement of the writer to the effect that the pot of
manna and Aaron’s rod were in the ark, Vincent calls our attention to the fact that according to Exodus
16:34 and Numbers 17:10, both of these were “before the testimony,” and that in Exodus 25:16, Moses is
commanded to put only the tables of the law into the ark, also that in I Kings 8:9 it is said of the ark in the
temple “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone.” Vincent comes to the conclusion that
the writer followed the rabinnical tradition that the pot of manna and the rod were inside the ark.

Alford, on the other hand points out that “this, as Delitzsch observes, will not prove anything against the
pot of manna and the rod having once been there; nay, rather from the express declaration that there was
then nothing but the tables of stone, it would seem that formerly there had been other things there. The
Rabbis certainly treat of the pot of manna as of the rod being in the ark … The Gemara mentions a
tradition that with the ark disappeared the pot of manna, and the cruse of anointing oil, and the rod of
Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest which the Philistines sent for a trespass-offering (I
Sam. 6:4, 8).”

Translation. Having the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in
which was the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron, the one that budded,
and the tablets of the covenant.

(9:5) The writer next speaks of the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat. The word “cherubim” is a
transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning “living creatures.” Those in Ezekiel have four faces, of a man,
a lion, an ox, and an eagle, representing respectively intelligence, strength, steadfastness, and rapidity.
They represented all that is best in creation by a combination of excellences found in no single animal.
The cherubim associated with the ark were two in number, made of gold, of one piece with the mercy seat,
the golden cover of the ark, one at each end of the ark, looking towards one another, and overshadowing
the mercy-seat. They are described as the cherubim of glory probably because they were closely attached
to and attendant upon the place of the manifestation of the divine glory in redemption.

The words “mercy seat” are the translation of hilasterion (Êëáóôåñéïí), used in the LXX to designate the
throne of mercy above the ark. This same word is used in Romans 3:25 where it is translated
“propitiation.” This Greek word as used in the Bible does not as its English translation, “propitiation,”
suggests, mean “something offered to placate or appease anger,” but refers to atonement or reconciliation
through covering, and in that way getting rid of the sin which stands between God and sinful man. The
chief idea in the word is not that which is related to an offended party, but to sin or uncleanness. As
Vincent says, “the scripture conception of hilaskomai (Êëáóêïìáé) (the cognate verb) is not that of
appeasing one who is angry with a personal feeling against an offender, but of altering the character of
that which, from without, occasions, a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle of
fellowship.” That obstacle between God and man, namely, sin, was removed by our Lord’s atoning death
on the Cross. The sacrificial blood sprinkled on the cover of the ark fully satisfies the demands of the
broken law, and comes between the tablets of the law reposing in the ark and the high priest who
represents the people and in whom the people stand. Thus, did the blood of Jesus interpose itself between
the law of God and the guilty sinner. The hilasterion (Êëáóôåñéïí) or cover of the ark, called the mercy
seat, the throne where mercy is offered on the basis of justice satisfied, is the place where a holy God will
meet sinful man and save him. The writer says that he could not at the time of the writing of this passage
speak particularly of the mercy seat. That is, he did not feel that he could speak of it in detail, since the
emphasis of his discussion was upon the two-fold division of the tabernacle.
Translation. And over it the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, concerning which we
cannot now speak in detail.

(3) Its priesthood temporary (vv. 6–10).

(9:6) The word “ordained” is the translation of kataskeuazo (êáôáóêåõáæï) which means “to furnish,
equip, prepare, make ready.” The word is in the perfect tense, speaking of an action completed in past
time, having present results. That is, these articles of furniture in the tabernacle having been arranged so as
to properly furnish it, and continuing to be so arranged, the priests went day by day into the Holy Place,
accomplishing the service of God. The word “accomplishing” is the translation of epiteleo (¦ðéôåëåï),
which was used in Herodotus of the performing of religious services. The word itself refers to the act of
completing something.

In this verse, the writer, in preparation for what follows, emphasizes the inaccessible sacredness of the
inner tent, the Holy of Holies as compared to the constant openness of the outer tent, and the mysterious
closeness of the former.

Translation. But these things having been thus arranged, into the first tent continually there enter the
priests, fulfilling the service of God.

(9:7) Regarding the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, the Mosaic law (Lev. 16:2, 34)
forbad his entering daily, and commanded him to enter once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the tenth
day of the seventh month. On that day he entered at least three times, first with the incense, then with the
blood of the bullock which atoned for his own sins and those of his house, and finally with the blood of
the goat for the sins of the people. The word “errors” is the translation of agnoema (•ãíïåìá), a sin
committed through ignorance or thoughtlessness. The word “for” is the translation of huper (ßðåñ), a
preposition which speaks of substitution. It means “for the sake of, in behalf of.” It speaks of the
substitutionary character of the atonement. For instance, “it is expedient for you that one man should die
instead of the people” (John 11:50), or, “He gave Himself in behalf of us” (Titus 2:14). Here the blood is
offered as a type pointing to the atonement of our Lord.

Translation. But into the second once a year, alone, the high priest entered, not without blood which he
offers in behalf of himself and in behalf of the sins of ignorance of the people.

(9:8) The writer states that the Holy Spirit is both the divine Author of the Levitical system of worship and
its interpreter. 14 The first tabernacle is the Holy Place. As long as that part of the Levitical institution was
still in effect, Israel was to understand that the way into the presence of God had not yet been opened. The
division of the tabernacle into the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies showed the limitations of the
Levitical system, and kept the people from coming directly to God. The Holy Place barred both priests and
people from the Holy of Holies.

When the new order of things was brought into being by the death of Messiah on the Cross, thus fulfilling
the typical sacrifices, God rent the inner veil of the temple which separated the Holy Place from the Holy
of Holies, making of the two rooms, one. There was, therefore, no more “within the veil.” This was God’s
object lesson to the Aaronic priesthood that its ministry was now over, that the temple was to be closed,
that a new Priest had arisen after the order of Melchisedec. But, Israel in its apostasy, repaired the veil,
kept on offering sacrifices, until God in His wrath, sent Rome to destroy the city of Jerusalem and scatter
His chosen people to the ends of the Roman empire.
The way into the Holiest of all, into heaven itself and the presence of God, had been opened at the Cross.
God made it impossible for the high priest in Israel to enter within the veil, all of which was enough to
show Israel that the true High Priest, the Messiah, had entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, and that the
earthly one was to be a thing of the past.

Translation. The Holy Spirit all the while making this plain, that not yet was made actual the road into
the Holiest while still the first tabernacle had standing (i.e., remained a recognized
institution).

(9:9) The word “which” refers back to the word “tabernacle,” namely, the Holy Place or the first division
of the tabernacle as such. The Greek word is hetis (©ôéò), referring not only to a particular thing but also
emphasizing quality or nature. The idea is “which was of such a nature that it was such and such a thing.”
“Figure” is the translation of parabole (ðáñáâïëå) which comes into our language in the word “parable”.
The Greek word means “that which is thrown alongside of something else” to explain it. Thus, the
tabernacle was an object lesson used to explain spiritual truth. As long as it remained an object lesson,
thus a recognized institution, it was clear that the actual tabernacle to which it pointed was not yet in use.
The tabernacle in Israel, and later, the temple, remained that object lesson during the history of Israel, until
the veil of the temple was rent.

The words “in which” do not refer back to the tabernacle but to the word “figure.” It was according to the
prescribed details of the Levitical ritual that the sacrifices were offered.

These gifts and sacrifices could not make the worshipper perfect so far as his conscience was concerned.
The word “perfect” is teleios (ôåëåéïò) which does not mean sinless, but complete, finished. The word
described that which needed nothing to make it what it should be, complete. The Levitical ritual as such
did not touch the conscience. No ritual in itself ever does. There was nothing in it that could deal with
conscience. Only the working of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God and the efficacy of the blood of
the Messiah could do that. The Holy Spirit did in Old Testament times deal as He does today with the
consciences of men, but the salvation which He applied under the Levitical system found its source in the
New Testament Sacrifice, the Lord Jesus. Therefore, while operating under the jurisdiction of the First
Testament, God was giving salvation to the First Testament believer by virtue of that which was
accomplished through the New Testament. Since the First Testament could not do that which the New
Testament did, it was set aside in favor of the New Testament. And this is the argument of the Book of
Hebrews.

Translation. Which (tabernacle) was of such a nature as to be an explanation for the ensuing time,
according to which both gifts and sacrifices are being offered which are not able to make
complete the one who offers them, so far as the conscience is concerned.

(9:10) The word translated “in” is epi (¦ðé), which means literally “upon.” The thought of the writer is that
the Levitical system found its operating basis in meats and drinks and divers washings. The word “meats”
is broma (âñïìá) which means “food.” The English word “meat” meant just that in 1611 a.d., when the
Authorized Version was made. Today the word is confined almost entirely to the meaning of edible
animal flesh. In regard to drinks, the Levitical law laid down no prescriptions except as to abstinence in
the case of a Nazarite vow, and of the priests when they were to officiate. Alford says that the writer had
in mind both the legal and the Talmudic conditions imposed upon the worshippers.
The writer describes these as carnal ordinances. The word “carnal” is sarx (óáñî) which refers here to
humanity. The ordinances were such as had to do with human conditions of life, food, drink, cleanliness.
These were imposed upon Israel until the time of reformation. The Greek word translated “imposed” does
not carry with it necessarily the idea in the English word, that of an imposition, something laid upon one
as a burden. The word is epikeimai (¦ðéêåéìáé), which means merely “to lay upon.”

The word translated “reformation” is interesting and important. It is diorthosis (äéïñèïóéò), from the verb
diorthoo (äéïñèïï). The word means in its physical sense the making straight, the restoring to its natural
and normal condition, something which in some way protrudes or has gotten out of line, as for instance
broken or misshapen limbs. It means “to set things to rights.” In the LXX it is used of mending one’s ways
(Jer. 7:3, 5), and of setting up or establishing (Isa. 16:5). The word in its context here means “to bring
matters to a satisfactory state.” It refers to the introduction of the New Testament which latter displaces
the First Testament. The First Testament never was satisfactory, so far as offering a sacrifice that could
pay for sin was concerned. It could not actually in itself save the believer.

Translation. Which (the Levitical system) had its basis only in food and drink and various washings,
ordinances befitting human beings, enjoined until the time of bringing matters to a
satisfactory state.

b. New Testament actual (vv. 11–15).

(1) The reality better than the type (v. 11).

(9:11) In verses 1–10 the writer has spoken of the typical significance of the First Testament, and its
transitory use. Now, in verses 11–15, he speaks of the New Testament, and its ability to do that which the
sacrifices of the First Testament could not do, namely, make atonement for the lost sinner. The little word
“but” is the pivot upon which this argument swings. He speaks of Messiah “being come.” The word is
paraginomai (ðáñáãéíïìáé), which means “to become alongside,” thus, “to arrive upon the scene,” here
the human scene. It speaks here of an advent. Messiah was not a mere human being born in the midst of
humanity. He came from outside of humanity and incorporated Himself with humankind through the
virgin birth. He came from another world.

The words “of good things to come,” are the translation of a rejected reading. The best texts read, “of the
good things realized,” referring not as the rejected reading, to merely prophetic blessings or objects of
hope, but also to blessings already attained, free approach to God, the better covenant, personal
communion with God, and the purging of the conscience.

Messiah arrives upon the scene of human sin and sorrow as a High Priest whose work of providing a
salvation for the lost is “by a greater and more perfect tabernacle.” The word “by” is the translation of dia
(äéá), the preposition of intermediate agency. That is, the kind of tabernacle the priest officiates in,
determines the quality of his work. If he ministers in a tabernacle that is a mere type, his work is not
efficacious so far as actual salvation is concerned, but only typical. If he on the other hand, serves in the
actual tabernacle of which the other tabernacle is only a type, his work of salvation is actual and
meritorious.
In the case of Messiah, the heavenly tabernacle was the sanctuary in which He served. It is described as
the greater and more complete tabernacle. The definite article is used with the word “tabernacle,” pointing
out a particular and individual one. It is further described as not being made with hands, and this
description is further defined by the phrase, “not of this building.” The word “building” in the Greek text
is ktisis (êôéóéò), “creation.” That is, the tabernacle in which Messiah serves, does not belong to the
natural creation, the material universe.

Translation. But Messiah having appeared upon the scene, a High Priest of good things realized,
through the instrumentality of the greater and more complete tabernacle not made by
hands, that is to say, not of this creation.

(2) The sacrificial blood better (vv. 12–15).

(a) It was His own blood (v. 12).

(9:12) But not only were the tabernacles different. The blood offered was different. In the case of the
Aaronic priests, it was the blood of goats and calves. In the case of Messiah, it was His own blood. The
words “His own” are the translation of idios (Æäéïò). Had the personal pronoun autos (áÛôïò) been used,
the reference would be merely to the fact that it was by means of His blood that He entered the Holy of
Holies. But the word idios (Æäéïò) speaks not merely of ownership, but of a personal, private, unique
ownership. For instance, John in his Gospel (5:18) states the fact that the Jews tried to kill our Lord
because He had said that God was His personal, unique Father. Had John used autos (áÛôïò), there would
have been no justification for their accusation, for each one of these Jews claimed God as his Father. John
used idios (Æäéïò), reporting the Lord Jesus as saying that God was His private, unique Father. God was
His Father in a different sense from that in which He might be the Father of others. Our Lord claimed
unique Sonship, and, therefore, Deity. And these Jews recognized that fact.

Now, the efficacy of our Lord’s blood rested, not in the fact that it was human blood, but that it was
human blood of a unique kind. It flowed in the veins of One who was as to His humanity, sinless, and as
to His Person, Deity. And the combination of these two, sinless humanity, and Deity, made it unique,
efficacious. It was the only sacrificial blood that could be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat in the heavenly
Holy of Holies, the only blood which the High Court of Heaven would accept as atonement for human sin.
It was this blood poured out on Calvary’s Cross that gave Messiah access as High Priest into the Holy of
Holies of heaven.

However, we are not to understand that our Lord took His blood into heaven. That precious blood was
poured out on the Cross and dripped into the earth. But it was by virtue of that fact that He entered
heaven, having accomplished salvation by the sacrifice of Himself. It was in that bloodless, glorified
human body which is an eternal testimony that sin is paid for, that our blessed Lord entered heaven.
He entered in once into the Holy of Holies. The word is ephapax (¦öáðáî), “once for all,” in distinction to
the Aaronic high priest who entered into the earthly Holy of Holies annually. By entering thus into the
Holy of Holies, the writer says that Messiah obtained eternal redemption for lost sinners. The word
“obtained” is the translation of heurisko (åßñéóêï). The writer could have used lambano (ëáìâáíï) which
is the general word for the idea of obtaining or procuring something. But he uses a specialized word.
Heurisko (©õñéóêï) means “to find, to come upon, to find a thing sought, to discover.” In the middle voice
it means “to find for one’s self, to acquire, obtain, procure.” The word thus speaks of the act, not merely
of obtaining something, but of seeking for something, of finding it, and then of appropriating it.
The problem of how a just God could require that justice be satisfied in the case of the human breaking of
His law, and mercy be offered the evil doer, was solved by the substitutionary atonement. The Judge in
this case steps down from His judgment throne to take upon Himself the guilt and penalty of the sinner. In
this way justice was satisfied, His government maintained, and the flood gates of mercy opened, resulting
in the righteous bestowal of salvation. The Messiah found and procured salvation by means of His
outpoured blood. This is also told us in the Greek word translated “redemption,” lutrosis (ëõôñïóéò). The
verbal form of this word means “to release on receipt of ransom, to redeem or liberate by payment of a
ransom.” The word “ransom,” lutron (ëõôñïí), was used of the ransom-money that was paid in freeing a
slave. Sinners are slaves of sin and Satan. Messiah by His sacrifice on the Cross, paid for their liberation,
the ransom-money, His blood, for the wages of sin is death, and death means outpoured blood. Thus, the
primal necessity of the Cross was in satisfying the claims of outraged justice, of paying the penalty of
man’s sin. The sinner, having placed his faith in Messiah as his High Priest, is liberated forever from sin’s
penalty. This is given us in the word “eternal.” The believing sinner saved by the blood of Jesus, is saved
for time and for eternity. He can never be lost. The Lord Jesus by His outpoured blood, procured for man,
not a probation but a salvation.

Translation. Nor even through the intermediate instrumentality of the blood of goats or calves, but
through that blood of His own, He entered once for all into the Holies (the Holy of Holies),
having found and procured eternal redemption.

(b) Animal blood cleanses from ceremonial defilement (v. 13).

(9:13) The writer in this verse speaks of the unclean Israelite, the person who was rendered ceremonially
unclean by contact with a dead body, or by entering a house where a corpse was lying, or by touching a
bone or a tomb. If he should enter the tabernacle while thus defiled, he was cut off from Israel.
Ceremonial defilement was not in itself sin, but a type of sin. Hence the blood of animals could cleanse
away this defilement. It was only the flesh of the person which was defiled by contact with the dead. It
was likewise only the flesh that was cleansed. Thus, defilement and cleansing were both symbolic.

The word “unclean” in the Greek text is koinoo (êïéíïï) which means “to make common, to render
unhallowed, profane.” The word “sanctify” is hagiazo (ãéáæï) which means “to set apart for God.” Thus,
the word “unclean” means here “that which is common, profane, unhallowed, not related to or connected
with God.” The unclean Israelite was, therefore, “out of bounds,” so to speak, so far as participation in the
tabernacle service of Israel was concerned, and also his service to God. When he fulfilled the Levitical
ritual that had to do with his position and his restoration to a participation in the worship of Israel, he was
sanctified, that is, set apart for God again.

Translation. For if, as is the case, the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling
those who are in a state of uncleanness, set that person apart with reference to the purity
of the flesh.

(c) Jesus’ blood cleanses from actual sin (v. 14).

(9:14)The writer now makes a comparison between the efficacy of the blood of animals and that of the
blood of Messiah. The former could cleanse ceremonial defilement, but the latter can cleanse from actual
sin. And the reason why the blood of Messiah is so much more efficacious, is stated by the writer in the
words, “Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” The word “through” is dia
(äéá), the preposition of intermediate instrumentality. There is no definite article before the word “Spirit.”
The translation thus reads: “Who through the instrumentality of eternal Spirit.” We cannot do better than
give Alford’s words on this difficult statement: ”The animals which were offered, had no will, no pneuma
(ðíåõìá) (spirit) of their own, which could concur with the act of sacrifice. Theirs was a transitory life, of
no potency or virtue. They were offered through law rather than any consent, or agency, or counteragency,
of their own. But Christ offered Himself, with His own consent assisting and empowering the sacrifice.
And what was that consent? the consent of what? of the spirit of a man? such a consent as yours or mine,
given in and through our finite spirit whose acts are bounded by its own allotted space of time and its own
responsibilities? No: but the consenting act of His divine Personality—His pneuma aionion (ðíåõìá
áÆïíéïí) (eternal spirit), His Godhead, which from before time acquiesced in, and wrought with, the
redemption—purpose of the Father … Pneuma aionion (Ðíåõìá áÆïíéïí) (eternal Spirit) is not the Spirit
of the Father dwelling in Christ, nor is it the Holy Spirit given without measure to Christ, but it is the
divine Spirit of the Godhead which Christ Himself had and was in His inner Personality. And I conclude
with Delitzsch as to the relevancy of such a clause here: the eternal spirit is absolute spirit, divine spirit,
and thus self-conscious, laying down its own course purely of itself unbound by conditions, simply and
entirely free: so that Christ’s offering of Himself through eternal Spirit is, as such, a moral act of absolute
worth.” This is what gave efficacy to the blood of Messiah. It was owned and offered by a Person eternal
in His Being, infinitely and absolutely worthy in moral and spiritual character, and offered voluntarily.
But not only was it the fact that Messiah’s offering of Himself was a voluntary one and by Himself as
Deity, that made His blood infinitely efficacious. It was also because of the fact that He in His Person was
spotless, absolutely holy, perfectly righteous. The animals for sacrifice under the Levitical code, were
physically unblemished according to ceremonial standards. He was unblemished in respect to His Person
and His character.

The superior nature of Messiah’s sacrifice is seen in its deeper effect. While the Levitical ritual
accomplished only formal ritual expiation, and left the inner man untouched, the sacrifice of Messiah
reaches the very center of the moral and spiritual being of the individual. It cleanses the conscience of
dead works, in that it changes the character of the works done by the individual. Before salvation, the
sinner did so-called good works in the strength of his own sinful nature. They were dead works. After
salvation has wrought its mighty transformation within the individual, the good works are motivated,
empowered, and produced by the Holy Spirit. They are, therefore, living works. Thus, the person serves
the living God.

Translation. How much more shall the blood of Messiah, who by virtue of (His) eternal Spirit offered
Himself spotless to God, purge your conscience from dead works to the serving of the
living God.

(d) Therefore, He is the Priest of a better Testament (v. 15).

(9:15) After comparing the relative merits of the blood of the First Testament and that offered under the
New Testament, and showing that the blood of Messiah cleansed from actual sin, whereas the blood of
animals could only cleanse from ceremonial defilement, the writer arrives at his conclusion, namely, that
that was the reason why Messiah became the mediator of the New Testament. The word “mediator” is the
translation of mesites (ìåóéôåò) which refers to one who intervenes between two, either to make or restore
peace and friendship, to form a compact, or to ratify a covenant. Here the Messiah acts as a go-between or
mediator between a holy God and sinful man. By His death on the Cross, He removes the obstacle, sin,
which caused an estrangement between man and God. When the sinner accepts the merits of Messiah’s
sacrifice, the guilt and penalty of his sin is his no more, the power of sin in his life is broken, he becomes
the recipient of the divine nature, and the estrangement between himself and God, both legal and personal,
disappears.
Messiah became the Mediator not only in order that He might pay the penalty of sinners who live since the
Cross, but also that He might do so for those who lived before the Cross. Sinners who were saved under
the First Testament were actually saved, not by it or by any sacrifice offered under its jurisdiction, but
through the atoning work of Messiah under the New Testament.

Translation. And because of this, of a new testament He is a mediator, in order that, a death having
taken place for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, those who
have been called might have the promise of the eternal inheritance.

3. It is made effective with better blood (9:16–10:39).

a. The heavenly Testator Himself dies (9:16–22).

(1) A last will or testament operative at testator’s death (vv 16, 17).

(9:16, 17) Before presenting the exegesis of the section 9:16–22, it is necessary to study the word diatheke
(äéáèåêå) which is throughout the Authorized Version of the New Testament translated either by the word
“covenant” or “testament,” the former appearing twenty times, the latter, thirteen. The word itself is from
diatithemi (äéáôéèåìé), the root meaning of dia (äéá) being “two,” and the meaning of tithemi (ôéèåìé)
being “to place,” the total meaning of the word being literally “to place between two.” The word in
classical Greek meant “to arrange each in their several places, to distribute, to dispose of, arrange as one
likes, to dispose of one’s property, devise it by will, to make a will, to arrange or settle mutually.” The
noun diatheke (äéáèåêå) meant “disposition of property by a will, a testament, a compact, a covenant, a
disposition.”

In the papyri and the inscriptions, Moulton and Milligan 15 say that the word diatheke (äéáèåêå) meant
testament, will, “with absolute unanimity, and such frequency that illustration is superfluous.” They report
the instance where this word was so used of the instrument by which King Attulus of Pergamum devised
his country to Rome, also where a woman bequeathed houses and gardens to Aphrodite Urania. They cite
another instance which shows that the Jews used the word in this sense. These scholars say that the word
suntheke (óõíèåêå) which is not used in the New Testament “is to the last word for a compact just as
diatheke (äéáèåêå) is always and only the word for will.” They say that diatheke (äéáèåêå) was used by the
Jews with the meaning of covenant in the sense of a compact, but that that usage is not limited to the
Jews, for it appears in Aristophanes in that sense. This proves, they say, that diatheke (äéáèåêå) means “an
arrangement made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot
alter.” To quote them again: “A will is simply the most conspicuous example of such an instrument,
which ultimately monopolized the word just because it suited its differentia so completely. But it is
entirely natural to assume that in the period of the LXX this monopoly was not established, and the
translators were free to apply the general meaning as a rendering for the Hebrew word meaning a
covenant. For this course there was an obvious motive. A covenant offered by God to man was no
‘compact’ between two parties coming together on equal terms. Diatheke (Äéáèåêå), in its primary sense
as described above, was exactly the needed word.” The conclusion to which Moulton and Milligan come
with reference to the use of diatheke (äéáèåêå) in the New Testament, is that while in the LXX the word
meant a covenant in the sense of disposition made by one party to another on specified terms that must be
acceded to, that a Hellenist like the writer to the Hebrews “or even a Jew like Paul with Greek language in
the very fibre of his thought, could never have used diatheke (äéáèåêå) for covenant without the slightest
consciousness of its ordinary and contemporary meaning. He would use the ‘Biblical’ word—‘Biblical’ in
this case being synonymous with ‘Archaic’—but always with the possibility of a play on the later meaning
of the word. This is what comes in Hebrews 9:15.”
In addition to this data, we will add some words of Alford. He says that diatheke (äéáèåêå) is used in the
LXX in the sense of a covenant or arrangement between two parties of equal status such as that made
between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:27), and also in the sense of a disposition where one party
promises to another a certain disposition, as in the case of God and Noah (Gen. 6:18).

With the foregoing in mind, the present writer offers the following with reference to the usage of diatheke
(äéáèåêå) in the Book of Hebrews: In every place except 9:16, 17, diatheke (äéáèåêå) refers either to the
Levitical sacrificial system or to the sacrifice of the Messiah. The word refers to the disposition of eternal
life to the recipient on the basis of his acceptance of the atoning merits of the latter sacrifice. In the sense
that the word diatheke (äéáèåêå) refers to the act of God as one party making a disposition to another on
specified terms, the word means “a covenant.” But when the substitutionary death of the One making the
disposition is brought into the picture, the idea of a covenant is merged with that of a will or testament.
Since the new covenant was made effective through the death of the Testator, the Messiah, and since the
first covenant is typical of the new, both covenants take on themselves the idea of a last will or testament.
The present writer has, therefore, translated diatheke (äéáèåêå) uniformly in Hebrews by the word
“testament” in the sense which the writer to the Hebrews gives it in 9:16, 17.

The word “inheritance” in 9:15 leads the inspired penman to define the content of diatheke (äéáèåêå) as it
is used in this epistle. An inheritance involves the idea of someone making a disposition of his property,
the heir receiving same at the death of the testator. Just as in human relationships, where a will or
testament is of force only after the one who makes the will is dead, so in the case of God bequeathing
salvation to the lost sinner, the bequest is only operative by reason of His death. Thus, in verse 15, the
writer speaks of the Messiah as the Mediator of the New Testament who made that Testament effective
through His death, and in that way, lost sinners who accept salvation on the terms of the will or testament
come into their inheritance.

Translation. For where a testament is, a death must of necessity be brought in, the death of the testator,
for a testament is of force after men are dead, since it has no strength when the testator is
living.

(2) First Testament made operative by death of animal (vv. 18–22).

(9:18) In view of the fact that a testamentary disposition requires the death of the testator to make it
effective, the writer says that it was necessary for the First Testament to be inaugurated with blood, that is,
by a death.

Translation. From whence it follows that neither was the first testament inaugurated without blood.

(9:19, 20) The Testator of the First Testament was God, for it was God who was the source of salvation
for believers in Old Testament times. But God was not yet ready to come in the Person of His Son and die
on the Cross for man. Therefore, He provided a substitute which would typically represent Him in death, a
death that would make the First Testament effective. This substitute was an animal. The emphasis in these
verses is that everything connected with the testament bears the mark of blood, death.

Translation. For after every commandment was spoken by Moses to all the people, 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 enjoined to you.
(9:21, 22) The word “almost” in the Greek text is prefixed to the entire clause. The idea is “I may almost
say,” or, “one may almost say.” The exception to the rule that cleansing is by blood, is in the case where
water was used for cleansing from certain pollutions.

Translation. Moreover, the tabernacle and all the instruments of the service with blood he likewise
sprinkled. And one may almost say that with blood all things are cleansed according to the
law. And without bloodshedding, there is no remission.

b. The better tabernacle purified with better blood (vv. 23, 24).

(1) Earthly tabernacle cleansed with animal blood (v. 23).

(9:23) “The patterns of things in the heavens” refer to the earthly tabernacle. This needed cleansing from
the defilement it incurred by reason of its presence in the midst of a sinful people. This rite was observed
on the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:16). The word “these” refers to the animal sacrifices. Thus, the
sacrificial blood of animals was used to cleanse the tabernacle in Israel from the defilement it contracted
by reason of its position in the camp of Israel.

Likewise, the writer says, that the heavenly tabernacle needs to be cleansed, but with better blood than that
of animals, namely, the blood of Messiah.

The question at once arises as to why heaven itself needed to be cleansed? We will quote some of our
authorities on this difficult problem. Vincent quotes Delitzsch as follows: “If the heavenly city of God,
with its Holy Place, is conformably with the promise, destined for the covenant-people, that they may
there attain to perfect fellowship with God, then their guilt has defiled these holy things as well as the
earthly, and they must be purified in the same way as the typical law appointed for the latter, only not by
the blood of an imperfect, but a perfect sacrifice.” Expositor’s says: “The earthly tabernacle, as God’s
dwelling, might have been supposed to be hallowed by His presence and to need no cleansing, but being
also His meeting-place with men it required to be cleansed. And so our heavenly relations with God, and
all wherewith we seek to approach Him, need cleansing. In themselves things heavenly need no cleansing,
but as entered upon by sinful men they need it. Our eternal relations with God require purification.”

Alford says: “The heaven itself needed, and obtained, purification by the atoning blood of Christ. And if
we inquire how this could be, we may find an answer in reflecting on the consequence of man’s sin on the
mind and aspect of God towards Him. That unclouded benignity wherewith the Creator contemplated His
creation (Gen. 1:31), had become overcast by the divine anger on account of sin, but was restored by Him
in whom the Father was pleased, the darkness being by His blood turned into light, the frown into an
eternal smile.”

Translation. It was therefore necessary on the one hand, that the representations of the things in the
heavens should be cleansed with these, but on the other hand, the heavenly things
themselves with better sacrifices than these.

(2) Heavenly tabernacle cleansed with blood of Messiah (v. 24).

(9:24) This verse is in explanation of the statement in the previous verse to the effect that the heavenly
things had to be purified by blood superior to animal blood, and that Messiah did not enter the Holy of
Holies on earth as High Priest, but the Holy of Holies of heaven itself. The word “figure” in the Greek text
is antitupon (•íôéôõðïí) which here speaks of the earthly tabernacle as a type which prefigures the
heavenly and corresponds to it. The word “true” is the translation of alethinos (•ëåèéíïò) which means
“true” in the sense that the thing described is in its character, all that is expected of it. In short, the thing
described measures up to the specifications which such a thing demands for itself. The heavenly Holy of
Holies is everything that could be expected of such a place.

The word “now” speaks of Messiah’s present ministry in the New Testament dispensation as contrasted
with the old, typical economy, and also refers to a continually present manifestation of Himself in the
heavenly Holy of Holies. The Greek word translated “to appear” deserves careful treatment. Vincent
translates, “to be manifested.” He says this word “exhibits the manifestation of Christ as something
brought about as the result of a new and better economy, and distinctly contemplated in the institution of
that economy. Christ is made openly manifest before the face of God. The Levitical priest was compelled
to shroud the ark and the shekinah with incense-smoke, that he might not look upon God face to face.”
Expositor’s says that, “the darkness and clouds of incense in the old sanctuary were meant as much to veil
the unworthiness of the priest from God as the glory of God from the priest. Now Christ appears before
God face to face with no intervening cloud. Perfect fellowship is attained by His perfect and stainless
offering of Himself. All is clear between God and man. For it is ‘for us’ He enters this presence and
fellowship; not that He alone may enjoy it, but that we may enter into the rest and blessedness that He
won for us.”

Translation. For not into handmade holy places did Messiah enter, which are the types of the true (holy
places), but into heaven itself, now to be manifested before the face of God on behalf of us.

c. The once for all sacrifice of Messiah better than all the sacrifices of the First Testament (9:25–10:39).

(1) He suffered once on the Cross (vv. 25, 26); He appears in heaven as High Priest now (v. 24); He
will come in His second Advent to Israel (vv. 27, 28). Notice, if you will, the three appearings of Messiah
here. These correspond to and are the fulfillment of the three appearings of the high priest on the Day of
Atonement in Israel.

(9:25) The word “offer” does not refer here to Messiah offering Himself on the Cross, but to His entrance
into the Holy of Holies. Vincent says: “The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was
not compelled to renew often His presentation of Himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary
for Him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.” His was a
once-for-all entrance, based upon and given efficacy and merit by virtue of His precious blood, as against
the annual entrance of the high priest in Israel who came into the earthly tabernacle by virtue of the blood
of sacrificial animals.

Translation. Nor yet (did He enter) in order that He might offer Himself often, even as the high priest
enters into the holy places every year with blood belonging to another.
(9:26) Expositor’s says of this verse: “If Christ’s one offering of Himself were not eternally efficacious, if
it required periodical renewal, then this demanded periodical sacrifice. It was ‘not without blood’ that the
entrance was made, and if the entrance required repetition, so must the sacrifice be repeated.” Davidson is
quoted by Expositor’s as follows: “If His offering of Himself were not independent of time and valid as a
single act, if it were valid only for the generation for whom it was immediately made, then in order to
benefit men in the past, He must have suffered often, indeed in each generation of the past.” Vincent says:
“For, from the foundation of the world, sin required atonement by sacrifice; and, therefore, if Christ had
been a victim like others, which must be offered repeatedly, He would have had to suffer repeatedly from
the foundation of the world. If His sacrifice, like the animal atonements, had availed for a time only, He
would have been obliged to repeat His offering whenever that time expired; and, since His atonement was
designed to be universal, it would have been necessary for Him to appear repeatedly upon earth, and to die
repeatedly from the foundation of the world.”

The words “in the end of the world” are in the Greek text, “in the consummation of the ages.” Messiah
appeared on earth to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself “when the former ages had reached their
moral consummation under the old Levitical economy.” 16 Expositor’s says; “If there was to be one
sacrifice for all generations, the occurrence of that sacrifice itself marked the period as the consummation.
It closes the periods of symbolism, expectation and doubt.”

The word “appeared” is the translation of phaneroo (öáíåñïï), a verb in the perfect passive, meaning
here, “He has been manifested.” This appearance of Messiah at the Cross, corresponds to the appearance
of the high priest at the Brazen Altar on the Day of Atonement where the animal for sacrifice was slain.
This is Messiah’s first appearance. He puts away sin. His second appearance, recorded in verse 24, is in
the Holy of Holies of heaven, His present appearance. There He appears in the presence of God for us who
are saved. His presence there, brings believers into the presence of God.

Translation. Since then would He have been under constant obligation to suffer often since the
foundation of the universe. But now at this very time, once in the consummation of the ages
for the putting away of sin through His sacrifice has He been manifested.

(9:27, 28) Vincent, commenting on verse 27 says; “That there is no place for a repeated offering of Christ
is further shown by reference to the lot of men in general. The very idea is absurd; for men die once, and
judgment follows. Christ was man, and Christ died. He will not come to earth to live and die again. Christ
died, but judgment did not follow in His case. On the contrary, He became judge of all.”

The act of Messiah in bearing the sins of humanity, refers to His first appearance upon earth, to His first
Advent. The words “shall He appear the second time,” refer to His second Advent. The words “unto them
that look for Him,” refer to Israel. The disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus and said, “Art thou He
that should come, or look we for another?” (Matt. 11:3). The Rapture is not in view here, neither the
Church. This is Jewish. The expression refers to the second Advent of Messiah to Israel for the
Millennium. The first appearance of the high priest on the Day of Atonement was at the Brazen Altar
where the sacrifice was slain. This corresponds to Messiah’s first appearance on earth to die on the Cross.
The second appearance of the high priest was in the Holy of Holies. This corresponds to Messiah’s present
appearance before God in heaven now. The third appearance of the high priest was out the gate of the
court surrounding the tabernacle, to Israel, having in a symbolic way accomplished salvation. This
corresponds to Messiah’s appearance upon earth in the second Advent to Israel, having actually
accomplished salvation. His return will be apart from sin in that He settled the sin question the first time
He came. Now He comes with salvation for the one who puts his faith in Him.
Translation. And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this judgment, thus also the
Messiah once was offered for the purpose of bearing the sins of many; a second time apart
from sin shall He be manifested to those who wait for Him, resulting in salvation.

Notes:

14 The word “ghost” is an obsolete English word for “spirit.” The Greek word is the same in the case
of both translations.
15 Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
16 Vincent.
Chapter 10

(2) Blood of animals cannot take away sin (10:1–4).

(10:1) The word “for” indicates that the writer engages in a further explanation of the finality of Messiah’s
one sacrifice and thus of its superiority to the sacrifices of the law. Expositor’s says in this connection:
“The explanation consists in this that the law had only ‘a shadow of the good things that were to be, not
the very image of the things.’ Skian (Óêéáí) (shadow) is in the emphatic place, as that characteristic of the
law which determines its inadequacy. ‘A shadow’ suggests indefiniteness and unsubstantiality; a mere
indication that a reality exists. Eikon ( éêïí) (image) suggests what is in itself substantial and also gives a
true representation of that which it images. The eikon (åÆêïí) (image) brings before us under the
conditions of space, as we can understand it, that which is spiritual’ (Westcott) … The contrast is between
a bare intimation that good things were to be given, and an actual presentation of these good things in an
apprehensible form. It is implied that this latter is given in Christ; but what is asserted is, that the law did
not present the coming realities in a form which brought them within the comprehension of the people.”
The fact that the sacrifices were constantly renewed, shows that the law possessed no more than a mere
shadow of the coming good which was exhibited in those sacrifices. Expositor’s quotes Davidson as
saying in this connection; “No repetition of the shadow can amount to the substance.”

The words “make perfect” are the translation of teleioo (ôåëåéïï) which means “to bring to a state of
completeness.” The idea here is that the ceremonial law could not actually save the believer. Its work was
always short of completeness.

Translation. For the law having a shadow of the good things about to be, and not the image itself of the
actual things, is never able by means of these sacrifices which they are offering year after
year, continually to make those who come to it complete.

(10:2) Concerning this verse, Expositor’s has a helpful note: “The constant renewal of the yearly round
sacrifices proves that they were inefficacious, for had the worshippers once been cleansed they would
have had no longer any consciousness of sins and would, therefore, have sought no renewal of sacrifice …
So far from these Old Testament sacrifices once for all cleansing the conscience and thus perfecting the
worshippers, ‘by and in them there is a yearly remembrance of sins,’ that is, of sins not yet sufficiently
atoned for by any past sacrifice … The remembrance was not of sins previously atoned for but of sins
committed since the previous sacrifice.”

While this was the viewpoint of the Old Testament worshipper, yet actually, the Jew who would come to
the tabernacle, present his animal for sacrifice, look ahead in faith to the God appointed Lamb who would
some day bear his sins, was saved in Jesus’ precious blood and saved forever. This, of course is from
God’s viewpoint. The blood of Jesus was just as powerful to save and keep saved for time and eternity
before the Cross as since the Cross, for we have a God who takes things that are not in existence to bring
to naught the things that are.

Translation. Since then would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers once
cleansed, would not be having any longer even one compunction of conscience with
respect to sins.
(10:3) The word “remembrance” is the translation of anamnesis (•íáìíåóéò) which speaks of “a calling to
mind.” The memory of sins committed, is revived by the continual repetition of the yearly sacrifice on the
Day of Atonement. The sacrifices themselves did not satisfy the consciences of the worshippers. They
knew that these sacrifices did not pay for sin.

Translation. But in them (the sacrifices) there was a calling to mind of sins year by year.

(10:4) The truth of this statement is so obvious that it hardly needs proof. There is no relation between the
physical blood of animals and man’s moral offence.

Translation. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins.

(3) In view of that fact, Messiah volunteers to become the sacrifice. In so doing He sets aside the First
and establishes Second Testament (vv. 5–10).

(10:5) The contents of this verse confirm the statement of verse 4. In view of the fact that the blood of
sacrificial animals cannot take away sin, the Messiah, when He became incarnate in humanity to perform
His priestly work of offering a sacrifice that would pay for sin, did not offer animal sacrifices, but instead,
Himself in His physical body gotten through virgin birth from Mary.

The reference is to Psalm 40:7–9, the theme of which is that deliverance from sin is not obtained by
animal sacrifices, but by fulfilling God’s will. Vincent says, “The course of thought in the Psalm is as
follows: ‘Thou, O God, desirest not the sacrifice of beasts, but thou hast prepared my body as a single
sacrifice, and so I come to do thy will, as was predicted of me, by the sacrifice of myself.’ Christ did not
yield to God’s will as authoritative constraint. The constraint lay in His eternal spirit. His sacrifice was no
less His own will than God’s will.” This reminds one of the words in 9:14, “who through eternal Spirit
offered Himself without spot to God.”

Expositor’s says; “In the Psalm, indeed, sacrifice is contrasted with obedience to the will of God. A body
is prepared for Christ that in it He may obey God. But it is the offering of this body as a sacrifice in
contrast to the animal sacrifices of the law, which the writer emphasizes … The passage in the epistle is
far from saying that the essence or worth of Christ’s offering of Himself lies simply in obedience to the
will of God. It does not refer to the point wherein lies the intrinsic worth of the Son’s offering, or whether
it may be resolved into obedience unto God. Its point is quite different. It argues that the Son’s offering of
Himself is the true and final offering for sin, because it is the sacrifice, which according to prophecy, God
desired to be made” (Davidson).

Translation. Wherefore, when coming into the world He says, Sacrifice and offering thou didst not
desire, but a body thou didst prepare for Me.

(10:6) The point is not that God took no pleasure in the offering of the Levitical sacrifices. These offerings
were according to His will, and He did take pleasure in the fact that they were offered, since the act of
offering them was in obedience to His will. But when it came to the place where they failed to pay for sin,
God took no pleasure in them.

Translation. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou didst take no pleasure.
(10:7) The words “In the volume of the book it is written of Me,” speak of the fact that in the Old
Testament are written instructions regarding the divine will for the Messiah.

Translation. Then I said, Behold I come, in the volume of the book it stands written concerning Me, to
do thy will, O God.

(10:8, 9) “Above” refers back to verse 5. The writer shows the incompetence of animal sacrifices to
satisfy the will of God, and the setting aside of the same in order that room might be made for that
Sacrifice which will permanently satisfy His holy requirements. When Messiah offers Himself as the
sacrifice, God takes away the First Testament and brings in the second or the New Testament. And this is
the argument of the Book of Hebrews.

Translation. Above, when saying, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings also for sin thou didst not
desire nor even have pleasure in, which were of such a nature as those offered according
to law, then He said, Behold, I come to do thy will. He takes away the first in order that He
may establish the second.

(10:10) The word “will” refers here to the will of God which Messiah came to do. The will of God which
the First Testament sacrifices could not accomplish was the sanctification of men. This was accomplished
through the sacrifice of Messiah. The Greek word “to sanctify,” hagiazo (ãéáæï), means “to set apart for
God.” Here the work of sanctification refers to the placing of the believing sinner into the status of a saved
person, with all the accompanying blessings and enablements which that act includes. The words “we are
sanctified” are in the Greek text a perfect participle and a finite verb, showing in the strongest way the
permanent and continuous state of salvation into which the believer is brought and in which he lives. The
words “once for all” are to be taken with “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ,” not here with the act
of sanctifying, although verse 14 speaks of the latter fact. The context here is contrasting the many
offerings under the Levitical system with the once for all offering of our Lord.

Translation. By means of which will we stand permanently sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all.

(4) Notwithstanding the fact that the First Testament had been set aside by God, and the New
Testament had been brought in, the Aaronic priests still offered animal sacrifices (v. 11).

(10:11) The priests were still ministering in the temple at Jerusalem, which fact shows that the book was
written before a.d. 70, at which date Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. The standing position of the
priests is set in vivid contrast to the seated posture of Messiah (v. 12), indicating the fact that the work of
the former was never finished and that of the latter was complete. This was apostasy on the part of the
leaders of Israel. They had had an unmistakable demonstration of the fact that the First Testament was
annulled and fulfilled, and thus set aside by the New Testament (9:7, 8). Yet in defiance of the clear will
of God, they kept on offering sacrifices.

Translation. And indeed every priest has stood and as a result continues to remain in that position, day
by day performing his service and often offering the same sacrifices which are of such a
nature that they cannot take away sins.
(5) The New Testament Priest procured a finished salvation (vv. 12–14).

(10:12) The word “man” is not in the Greek text. The demonstrative pronoun in the masculine gender
occurs, and grammatically is related to the word “priest” of verse 11. It is “this priest.” Greek authorities
are divided as to whether the word “forever” is to be construed with the offering of one sacrifice, or to the
act of Messiah sitting down on the right hand of God. Both facts are true. His offering of Himself on the
Cross was an act that has never-ending results and that needs no repetition. This is in contrast to the
oft-repeated offerings of the Levitical priests. It is also true that our Lord seated Himself forever at the
right hand of God. This is in contrast to the perpetual standing posture of the First Testament priests.
Without insisting upon his opinion, the present writer leans toward the latter meaning, since the word
“one” modifying the word “sacrifice,” is enough to contrast Messiah’s one sacrifice with the many
offerings of the Aaronic priests.

Translation. But this priest, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity on the right
hand of God.

(10:13, 14) The word “perfected” is the translation of teleioo (ôåëåéïï) which means “to bring to a state of
completion.” Here, the completeness of the state of salvation of the believer is in view. Everything
essential to the salvation of the individual is included in the gift of salvation which the sinner receives by
faith in Messiah’s sacrifice. The words “for ever” here are to be construed with “perfected.” It is a
permanent state of completeness in salvation to which reference is made. The words “them that are
sanctified” are descriptive of the believer. He is one set apart for God.

Translation. From henceforth expecting until His enemies be set down as a footstool for His feet, for by
one offering He has brought to completion forever those who are sanctified.

(6) The Holy Spirit through Jeremiah bears witness to the New Testament (vv. 15–18).
(10:15) The writer now quotes the prophet Jeremiah again as to the finality of the New Testament. He
places the Jewish recipients of this letter in the position where they will either accept their prophet and
thus the New Testament, or in rejecting the New Testament, they will be rejecting their own prophet. He
declares the inspiration of the Old Testament, for he says that the Holy Spirit spoke the words. Jeremiah
was only His penman.

Translation. Moreover, there testifies also to us the Holy Spirit, for after having said,

(10:16–18) The writer now quotes Jeremiah on the New Testament which God was going to inaugurate. A
distinctive feature of the new one was to be the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit who would be caused
to take up His permanent abode in the believer under the New Testament dispensation. Heretofore, He had
come upon or in individuals in order to equip them for a certain ministry, and then would leave them
when the time of that ministry was over. He did not personally indwell them for purposes of
sanctification. The Old Testament saint was regenerated, thus becoming a partaker of the divine nature,
and thus had that impetus to the living of a holy life. The New Testament saint has both the advantages of
regeneration and the personal indwelling and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, under the First
Testament God wrote His laws on stone, whereas under the New Testament He writes them upon the
heart.
The other distinctive feature of the New Testament is the fact that God remembers sins and iniquities no
more. The constant repetition of the sacrifices demonstrated that the sin question was not settled. The once
for all offering of the Messiah shows that sin is paid for and put away.

The writer now draws an important conclusion to all this. He says that in view of the fact that sin has been
paid for, there is no more need of the constant repetition of sacrificial offerings. And that is exactly what
the writer is attempting to instill into the minds and hearts of his readers, namely, that the New Testament
in Jesus’ blood is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood.

Translation. This is the testament which I will make with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put
my laws upon their hearts, and upon their minds I will write them. And their sins and their
iniquities I will positively not remember any more. Now where a putting away of these is,
no longer is there an offering for sin.

(7) The unsaved professing Hebrew exhorted to place his faith in the High Priest of the New Testament
(vv. 19–22).

(10:19, 20) When a Gentile like the Philippian jailor is dealt with about his soul, the approach is “Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). When a Jew is appealed to, the approach
is in terms of First Testament typology as we have it in these two verses. The exhortation to enter into the
Holy of Holies of heaven by the blood of Jesus would bring to the Jewish reader’s mind the picture of the
high priest in Israel on the Day of Atonement entering the tabernacle for him. He stood in the Holy of
Holies, not actually, but in the person of the high priest. The high priest’s presence in the Holy of Holies
meant his presence there too, for the high priest had offered sacrifice first for his own sins and was thus
accepted with God, and then for the people’s sins. The individual Israelite who trusted Jehovah for his
salvation, that Jehovah who would some day offer a sacrifice which would pay for his sins, thus stood
symbolicly in his high priest for salvation, but actually in the coming Messiah who would some day be the
real High Priest.

The writer makes it plain that he does not have reference to the earthly Holy of Holies. In the first place, it
is by means of the blood of Jehoshua, his Jehovah-Saviour that he is to enter, not by means of the blood of
animals. In the second place, he calls the road into the Holy of Holies, “a new and living way.” The Greek
word translated “way” is hodos (Òäïò), “a road.” The order in the Greek text is, “Having therefore,
brethren, boldness for the entering of the holiest by means of the blood of Jesus, which He inaugurated for
us, a road, a freshly-slain one, a living one.” The order of the words in the Authorized Version, makes the
word “which” in verse 20 refer back to the word “way,” but as the above shows, it goes back to the words
“to enter,” namely, “the entering.” It was the entrance into the Holy of Holies of heaven which Messiah
consecrated for us. The word “consecrated” is the translation of egkainizo (¦ãêáéíéæï) which means “to
dedicate, to innovate, to initiate.” The word is used in the LXX of the inauguration of a house, kingdom,
temple, altar.

The word “new” in the Greek text is very interesting. It is prosphaton (ðñïóöáôïí), made up of pros
(ðñïò) meaning “near to,” and phatos (öáôïò) from pephamai (ðåöáìáé) the perfect of phenein (öåíåéí)
“to kill.” The original meaning of the total word is “newly-slain.” Here the contrast is between the
“old-slain road” of the earthly tabernacle where the high priest would sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial
animal seven times on the ground as he approached the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies (Lev. 16:14), and
the freshly-slain road into the Holy of Holies of heaven, sprinkled with the blood of the Lamb of God.
 Over this latter road is the Jewish recipient of this letter urged to come. The old road to the mercy seat of
the tabernacle in Israel was a dead road. There was no life there. It was all symbolism, an index-finger
pointing to the reality with which this first-century Jew was then faced. In the new road was life.
This entering into the Holy of Holies which the Messiah inaugurated for sinners was by way of a
freshly-slain and living road, and this road went “through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.” The inner veil
of the tabernacle separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. It barred man’s access to God. When
the high priest in Israel went into the Holy of Holies, he brushed aside that veil. The writer speaks of
Messiah’s humanity, as the veil through which the entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies was made.
As the veil in the tabernacle of Israel while it was not rent, barred man’s access to God, so Messiah’s
humanity, before it was rent on the Cross, barred man’s access to God. An uncrucified Saviour is no
Saviour. When the Messiah died on the Cross, the veil of the temple was rent by the unseen hand of God,
showing Israel two things, that the Messiah had now provided the actual entrance for the sinner into the
presence of God, and that the symbolic sacrifices were to be discontinued, for the Reality to whom they
pointed had come (9:7–10). The unsaved Jew of the first century who had made a profession of Messiah
but had not placed a heart faith in Him for salvation, is now exhorted to do the latter, the writer using
Jewish terminology and typology in his exhortation.

Translation. Having therefore, brethren, boldness in the entering into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus,
which (entrance into) He inaugurated for us, a road freshly-slain and living, through the
veil, namely, His flesh.

(10:21, 22) The Authorized Version gives us “an high priest”; the Greek text has “a priest, a great one.”
Not only is Messiah now a high priest, but He is a great one, and His greatness is shown by the fact that
He is the priest over the actual house of God, the One who by His death on the Cross saves all those who
belong to the house of God in all dispensations. The Jew is exhorted to draw near to the mercy seat as a
believer-priest. He is to do so with a true heart. The word “true” is alethinos (•ëåèéíïò), which means
“true” in the sense of “genuine,” and speaks of that which measures up to or consists of all that would
make that person or thing that which is expected of him or it. Vincent says, “A true heart is required to
enter the sanctuary. The phrase means more than in sincerity. Sincerity is included, but with all that enters
into a right attitude toward God as revealed in our Great High Priest,—gladness, freedom, enthusiasm,
bold appropriation of all the privileges of sonship.”

He is to draw near to God in full assurance of faith. The very thing which this Jew lacked was faith. And
because he had no faith, he had no assurance of salvation. He should draw near in the attitude of full
assurance which faith produces.

The words “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water”
speak of the Levitical ceremonies with reference to the preparation of the priests for their priestly service.
Vincent puts this very succinctly: “This qualification for a right approach to God is stated typologically.
As the priests were sprinkled with the sacrificial blood and washed with water before ministering, so do
you who have now the privilege and standing of priests in approaching God, draw near, priestlike, as
sharers in an economy which purges the conscience (ch. 9:14), having your consciences purged. Your own
hearts must experience the effects of the great sacrifice of Christ,—pardon, moral renewal, deliverance
from a legal spirit.” Regarding the words “bodies washed with pure water,” Vincent says that most
expositors refer that to water baptism. But the present writer agrees with Vincent when he says that they
“indicate generally the thoroughness of the cleansing process undergone by one who surrenders himself,
soul, body, and spirit, to God.”
Translation. And having a priest, a great one, over the house of God, let us keep on drawing near with a
genuinely true heart in full assurance of faith, having had our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience and having had our bodies washed with pure water.

(8) He is exhorted to hold fast his profession and not waver between the desire to go on to faith in
Messiah or to go back to the sacrifices (v. 23).

(10:23) The words “hold fast” are the translation of katecho (êáôå÷ï) which means literally “to hold
down.” It speaks here of a firm hold which masters that which is held. “Profession” is the translation of
homologia (Òìïëïãéá), the verb form of this word being homologeo (Òìïëïãåï) which means, “to say the
same thing” as another, thus “to agree with the statement of another,” thus “to confess one’s faith in the
statements of another.” Here the confession is that of the recipient’s professed faith in the Messianic
sacrifice of the New Testament, on the part of some, a heart faith, on the part of others, a mere intellectual
assent. It was this latter class which the writer was especially desirous of reaching. Under stress of
persecution, these were wavering, the Authorized Version says.

The word “wavering” is the translation of aklines (•êëéíåò). The word is made up of klino (êëéíï) “to
incline, bow,” thus “to lean towards,” and Alpha privative, which when prefixed to a word makes it mean
the opposite to what it meant originally. The writer urges the recipients not to lean back towards the First
Testament. Like the generation which left Egypt, who in their hearts were returning to that place of
slavery, so these unsaved Jews under stress of persecution were leaning back in their hearts to the First
Testament. The Holy Spirit was leading them on toward the act of faith in the Lord Jesus, while at the
same time there was that tug of the evil nature urging them to return to the temple sacrifices and escape
the persecution. Thus, they were wavering between two things, either to go on to the act of faith in
Messiah or to go back to the First Testament.

The writer exhorts his readers to hold fast the profession of their faith. The Greek word in the best
manuscripts is “hope,” not “faith.”

Translation. Let us constantly be holding fast our confession of the hope, doing so without being moved,
for faithful is He who promised.

(9) Exhorted to continue attendance upon the New Testament assembly (vv. 24, 25).

(10:24) “Consider” is the translation of katanoeo (êáôáíïåï) which speaks of attentive, continuous care.
The exhortation is to take careful note of each other’s spiritual welfare. The purpose of this attentive,
continuous care is to provoke each other to the exercise of love and good works. The word “provoke” is
the translation of paroxusmos (ðáñïîõóìïò) which means “an inciting, incitement, a stimulation.” The
word is used also in a bad sense, for instance, “irritation.” Here it is used in its good sense, that of a
stimulation. Vincent says: “The new economy demands mutual care on the part of the members of the
Christian community … They must stir up each other’s religious affections and ministries.”

Translation. And let us constantly be giving careful attention to one another for the purpose of
stimulating one another to love and good works.
(10:25) The word “forsaking” is the translation of egkataleipo (¦ãêáôáëåéðï) which means “to let down, to
abandon.” “Assembling” is the translation of episunagoge (¦ðéóõíáãïãå). The word is a compound of ago
(•ãï) “to go,” sun (óõí) “with,” and epi (¦ðé). Sun (Óõí) and ago (•ãï) come over into English in the
word “synagogue,” the meeting place of the Jews other than the temple at Jerusalem. Alford suggests two
reasons for the addition of epi (¦ðé). It was used by the writer to take away the Judaistic sound of sunagoge
(óõíáãïãå). Or, it might point to the individual meeting places of the various assemblies. Some of the
recipients of this letter were, under stress of persecution, absenting themselves from the Christian
assemblies. They are exhorted not to egkataleipo (¦ãêáôáëåéðï), that is, let down in their attendance upon
these meetings, or abandon them. They are, on the other hand to exhort each other to continued
attendance, and in view of the fact of the approach of the time when the Lord would come.

Translation. Not letting down on the assembling of ourselves together, even as the custom of certain is,
but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day drawing near.

(10) Warned not to sin wilfully in renouncing his professed faith in Messiah and going back to the
sacrifices (v. 26).

(10:26) This wilful sin must be defined in its context. It will not do to ignore the historical background of
this book and its analysis, and then put an arbitrary meaning upon the words. That is not exegesis, namely,
taking out of the text what is there, but eisegesis, putting into the text what is not there. The sin which the
book warns against is that of a Jew of the first century who left the temple sacrifices, identified himself
with the visible Church and made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, renouncing that profession and
returning to the temple sacrifices. This sin is spoken of in 2:1 as letting New Testament truth slip away, in
3:7, 8 as hardening the heart against the Holy Spirit, in 6:4 as falling away and crucifying the Son of God,
in 10:26 as a wilful sin, and is analyzed in 10:29 as the three-fold sin against the three Persons of the
Triune God. This sin could only be committed in the first century while the temple was still standing and
only by an unsaved Jew or proselyte to Judaism. In this case, there can be no secondary application to
present day circumstances or individuals.

This sin is described as a wilful sin. The word is hekousios (©êïõóéïò), which means, “voluntarily, of
one’s own accord.” It is opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or weakness. The
Greek has it, “If we go on sinning wilfully,” stress being placed upon the habitual aspect of the sin. The
immediate context defines that sin as one of the continued forsaking of the means of grace at the services
of the Christian assemblies, and the habitual commission of the sin defined in 10:29.

The word “knowledge” is not the simple word gnosis (ãíïóéò), but the stronger word epignosis
(¦ðéãíïóéò). Alford quotes Delitzsch as saying: “When epignosis (¦ðéãíïóéò) is used, there is the
assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so
that we may speak of a false gnosis (ãíïóéò), but not of a false epignosis (¦ðéãíïóéò). And the Writer, by
the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about
the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union
with itself.” Thus it is clear that the Jew who committed this sin, was fully informed by the Holy Spirit of
the issues involved between the First Testament and the New Testament, and also of the meaning and the
implications of the New Testament, (6:4, “who were once enlightened”) and therefore, he sinned with his
eyes wide open.
Should he commit this sin, there would remain no more sacrifice for sin. Expositor’s quotes Delitzsch as
follows: “The meaning is not merely that the Jewish sacrifices to which the apostate has returned have in
themselves no sin-destroying power, nor even that there is no second sacrifice additional to that of Christ,
but further that for a sinner of this kind the very sacrifice of Christ itself has no more atoning or
reconciling power.” Alford, commenting upon this same thing says: “There is but One true sacrifice for
sins: if a man, having availed himself of that One, then deliberately casts it behind him, there is no second
left for him. It will be observed that one thing is not, and need not be, specified in the text. That he has
exhausted the virtue of the one sacrifice, is not said: but in proportion to his willing rejection of it, has
ceased to operate for him. He has in fact, as Delitzsch observes, shut the door of repentance behind him,
by the very fact of his being in an abiding state of willing sin.” All of which means that this abandonment
of the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah, and the return to the abrogated sacrifices of the First
Testament, was not a snap judgment on the part of this first century Jew, but a confirmed state of heart.

Translation. For if we go on sinning wilfully after having received a full knowledge of the truth, no
longer for sins does there remain a sacrifice.

(11) For the one who would go back, there remains only judgment (v. 27).

(10:27) Instead of a sacrifice for sin awaiting this apostate, there awaits him a certain fearful looking for
of judgment and fiery indignation. The Greek could be rendered, “a kind of fearful expectation.”

Translation. But a kind of fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which is about to be
devouring the adversaries.

(12) The one who rejected the First Testament was punished (v. 28).

(10:28) Alford says: “We must not take this as a general assertion, as true of whoever in any way broke
the Mosaic law: but as an alleging of a well-known fact, that in certain cases a breaker of the law was
subject to the penalty following. The form of the sentence might be changed thus, ‘If Moses’ law could
attach to violations of it the inexorable doom of death,’ etc.… The reference is especially to Deuteronomy
17:2–7, where the punishment of death is attached to the same sin as here in question, namely, apostasy.”

Translation. Anyone who has set aside Moses’ law, without mercy, upon the evidence of two or three
witnesses, dies.

(13) The one committing the three-fold sin against the three Persons of the Triune God would be
punished more severely (vv. 29–31).

(10:29) The words “of how much” do not qualify “sorer,” but the entire clause. It is “by how much think
ye shall he be thought worthy of sorer punishment.”
Treading under foot the Son of God, is a sin against God the Father who gave the Son to become the
Sin-offering (John 3:16). Counting the blood of the New Testament an unholy thing, is a sin against God
the Son who shed His blood. The word “counted” in the Greek text refers to a conscious judgment resting
on deliberate weighing of the facts. Here it implies a deliberate, contemptuous rejection of the Messianic
sacrifice of the Son of God. The word “unholy” is the translation of koinos (êïéíïò), the fundamental idea
of which is “shared by all, public.” From this comes the idea of “not sacred” that is, “not set apart for
God’s use.” The idea here is that the apostate regarded Messiah’s blood as common, having no more
sacred character or specific worth than the blood of any ordinary person.

The words “wherewith he was sanctified” in connection with the identity of the person who committed
this sin, might trouble the reader when he remembers that the historical background and analysis of the
book show that that person is an unsaved person. But the difficulty disappears when we remember that the
writer is addressing himself to the professing Christian church, made up of saved and unsaved, and that
the idea here is, “wherewith he professed to be sanctified.”

Doing despite to the Spirit of grace is a sin against God the Holy Spirit. “Despite” in the Greek text has
the idea of insulting. It refers to the act of this professed Hebrew, who after allowing the Holy Spirit to
lead him along in His pre-salvation work of convicting him of sin and of energizing him to the act of
repentance, now turns away from His further ministration of imparting faith, back to the temple sacrifices.
This verse gives us the three-fold analysis of this sin of apostasy spoken of in this book.

Translation. By how much think ye shall he be thought worthy of sorer punishment who has trodden
under foot the Son of God, and has considered the blood of the testament a common thing
by which (the blood) he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace.

(10:30) The certainty of the punishment is assured by the word of God. Vincent says that the word
“vengeance” is “an unfortunate translation, since it conveys the idea of vindictiveness which does not
reside in the Greek word. It is the full meting out of justice to all parties. The quotation is an adaptation of
the LXX of Deut. 32:35. The second citation is literally from LXX of Deut. 32:36.”

Translation. For we know the One who said, The meting out of full justice belongs to Me. I will
recompense. And again, The Lord will judge His people.

(10:31) This verse must be understood in its context. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God when one is an apostate.

Translation. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

(14) The recipients are urged to remember the persecutions they endured for their testimony to
Messiah, and not let them go for naught by returning to the sacrifices (vv. 32–37).

(10:32) The words “call to remembrance” are the translation of anamimesko (•íáìéìåóêï) which Alford
says is stronger than the simple verb, and means “call over in your minds, one by one,” the present tense
implying constant habit. The word “fight” is the translation of athlesis (•èëåóéò), which was used by the
Greeks to speak of an athletic contest or combat. This word was used in the next generation, of
martyrdom. It refers to a terrific struggle. “Afflictions” in the Greek text is pathema (ðáèåìá) which
speaks of suffering.
The writer now turns from his solemn warnings against apostasy, to a word of encouragement arising
from the conduct of his readers in the past. Their firmness under persecution did not look likely to end in
apostasy. So he cheers and invigorates them by recalling to their memories their past afflictions because of
their testimony to the crucified risen, ascended Messiah. These persecutions came from the adherents of
Judaism. Just as a Jew who receives the Lord Jesus is bitterly persecuted today by his brethren after the
flesh, so it was in the first century.

Translation. But constantly be recalling the former days, in which after being enlightened, ye endured
much conflict with sufferings.

(10:33) In this verse we are given two forms in which the persecution was aimed at the recipients of this
letter. They were made a gazingstock. The latter word is the translation of theatrizo (èåáôñéæï) from which
we get our word “theatre,” and which means “to bring upon the stage, to set forth as a spectacle, expose to
contempt.” This was literally true in the case of the Roman Empire exposing Christians to the wild beasts
in the amphitheatre. But in the case of apostate Judaism in its treatment of its former adherents who
became converts to the New Testament truth, it was not by means of lions but by means of reproaches and
afflictions. The word “reproaches” is the translation of oneidismos (Ïíåéäéóìïò). The verb of the same
root means “to upbraid, to revile, to cast in one’s teeth.” It is used of unjust reproach. Here the word refers
to a bitter invective hurled at the Jews for having forsaken the temple sacrifices and having embraced the
New Testament truth. “Afflictions” in this verse is the translation of a different word than appears in verse
32. It is thlipsis (èëéøéò). The word means “a pressing together,” thus, “oppression, affliction, tribulation,
distress, straits.” All this was the result of the persecution.

But these Jews were not persecuted only because they had renounced Judaism and embraced the New
Testament, but because they became companions of their fellow-Jews who were being persecuted.
“Companions” is the translation of koinonia (êïéíïíéá) which means “co-sharers in, partakers with
someone else.” These became co-sharers with other persecuted Jews in the sense of 6:10, where the writer
is speaking of the saved among his readers who ministered to the saints. That is, they helped others in a
financial way when they lost their earthly belongings by reason of persecution. The writer exhorts to the
same thing in 13:3. For this they were persecuted, for sympathizing with others who were persecuted.

Translation. On the one hand, this, while ye were being made a spectacle as in a theatre by means of
both revilings and distresses, and on the other hand, this, while ye made yourselves
fellow-partakers of those who fared thus.

(10:34) This verse explains the significance of the words of the previous verse, “ye became companions.”
The “companionship,” (koinonia (êïéíïíéá)) took the form of compassion. The latter word is the
translation of sunpatheo (óõíðáèåï), “to sympathize with, to feel for.” This sympathy went to the length
of ministering to the saints (6:10) as noted in the previous verse.

The words “of me” are the translation of a corrupt text. Vincent says that this corrupt reading has
furnished one of the stock arguments for the Pauline authorship of the epistle. He says in this connection:
“ ‘Who wrote the Epistle God only knows.’ Such was the verdict of Origin, and modern criticism has
gotten no farther.” That being the case, this present writer will waste no time with the question. The
Nestle Greek text has, “Ye had compassion on those in bonds.” The bonds here are evidently the bonds of
affliction caused by the persecution.
The word “spoiling” is the translation of harpazo (ñðáæï) which here refers to the violent, unjust seizure
of the property of these who were being persecuted. “Took” is the translation of prosdechomai
(ðñïóäå÷ïìáé) which means “to receive to one’s self, to accept.” These Jews accepted the unjust seizure
of their goods with joy. That takes grace. That which enabled them to do so with joy was the
consciousness that they had possessions which could not be taken away. The words “in heaven” are not in
the best texts. It is, of course, heavenly possessions that are meant.

Translation. For ye both sympathized with those in bonds and accepted with joy the plundering of your
goods, knowing that ye yourselves have a better and an enduring possession.

(10:35) The word “confidence” is the translation of parresia (ðáññåóéá) which is a compound of pan (ðáí)
(all) and resis (Õåóéò) (speech). The word means “freedom in speaking, unreservedness in speech, free and
fearless confidence, cheerful courage, boldness, assurance.” The writer exhorts the Jewish recipients of
this letter not to throw away that cheerful courage, that boldness, that free and fearless confidence which
they were displaying while they were enduring this persecution referred to in verses 32–34. If they would
persist in it, and go on to the act of faith in Messiah as High Priest, they would receive salvation. If they
shrank away in fear and returned to the temple sacrifices, they would be committing apostasy, an act from
which there would be no recovery, and because of which they would be doomed to everlasting banishment
from the presence of God.

Translation. Do not throw away, therefore, your courage and boldness, which is of such a nature that it
has great recompense of reward.

(10:36) The word “receive” is the translation of komizo (êïìéæï) which means “to receive and carry away
for use and enjoyment.” Endurance is spoken of by the writer as a necessary prerequisite to receiving the
promise of God, namely, salvation through faith in the blood of Messiah. The word “patience” is the
translation of hupomene (ßðïìåíå) which means literally “to remain under.” That is, these Jews are
exhorted to remain under the persecutions and not seek to escape them by renouncing their professed faith
in Messiah. Those that remained under the persecution and thus under the chastening hand of God,
maintaining their faith in the Messiah, were true sons of God (12:7). Those who did not remain under this
persecution, but renounced their profession to return to the sacrifices, were only unsaved professed
believers (12:8).

Translation. For ye have need of patience (of remaining under), in order that, having done the will of
God, ye might receive the promise.

(10:37) The exhortation to patience is strengthened by the promise of the soon coming of Messiah. The
expression is very much stronger in the Greek text. Expositor’s translates it: “For yet a little—a very
little—while and He that cometh will come and will not delay.” Another translates it: “For yet a
little—ever so little—while.” The expression comes from Habakkuk 2:3. Vincent says: “In the Hebrew
(Hab. 2:3), the subject of the sentence is the vision of the extermination of the Chaldees. ‘The
vision—will surely come.’ As rendered in the LXX either Jehovah or Messiah must be the subject. The
passage was referred to Messiah by the later Jewish theologians, and is so taken by our writer.” The
disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus, “Art thou He that should come or look we for another?” The
expression “He that should come” is Jewish and refers to Messiah.

Translation. For yet a little—a very little while, and He that cometh will come and will not delay.
(15) They are urged to obtain justification through placing their faith in Messiah, and not draw back to
perdition (vv. 38, 39).

(10:38) The writer now quotes the words of Habakkuk 2:4, “The just shall live by faith,” repeated by Paul
in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. This was the divine spark that lit the Reformation when Martin
Luther, an Augustinian monk, found them in his Greek New Testament, illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
That is, the justified person is justified by God upon the basis of and in answer to his faith in the Lord
Jesus.

After stating again the terms of salvation, a personal faith in Messiah as High Priest, the writer warns
those among his readers who only made a profession of faith, that if any draw back to the temple
sacrifices, renouncing their professed faith in Messiah, his soul shall have no pleasure in that person. The
words “any man” are not in the Greek text. The translation should read “If he.” We must keep in mind that
this letter is written to the professing Church which is made up of true believers and of unbelievers. Here
the writer is thinking of the one who professes to be justified but who has only an intellectual faith, not a
heart trust (Acts 8:13, 21). The verb translated “draw back” means “to shrink in fear.” The persecution
would be that which is feared in this case.

Translation. Now, the just shall live by faith. But if he draw back in fear, my soul shall have no pleasure
in him.

(10:39) The pronoun in its intensive force is used here, contrasting the writer and possibly those who are
associated with him as true believers, with that hypothetical Jew who is in danger of drawing back to the
sacrifices. It is, “But as for us, we are not of the shrinking back kind.” The words “of them who draw
back” are the translation of one word in the Greek text which is not preceded by the definite article, all of
which means that character or nature are stressed.

The “shrinking back” ones are said to be shrinking back to perdition. The word “perdition” is the
translation of apoleia (•ðïëåéá) which means “utter destruction,” and in this context means “the
destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life; eternal misery, perdition,” which is the lot of those
who would renounce their professed faith in Messiah as High Priest and return to a dependence upon the
abrogated sacrifices for salvation. The Word of God is very clear in its statements to the effect that a
person once saved can never be lost. Therefore, this person who draws back to perdition must be an
unsaved person.

The writer informs his readers that he is of the believing kind whose faith is answered with the gift of
salvation.

Translation. But as for us, we are not of the shrinking back kind who draw back to perdition, but of the
believing kind who believe to the end of the saving of the soul.
Chapter 11

III. Faith, not works, the way of salvation, as proved by instances of First Testament saints (11:1–12:2).
Note This brings us to another major analytical division of this epistle. In the first ten chapters, the writer
has proved just one statement to be true, namely, that “The New Testament in Jesus’ blood is superior to
and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood.” He has proved this proposition twice, first, by
comparing the relative merits of the founders of the covenants, arguing that a superior workman turns out
a superior product (1:1–8:6), and second, by comparing the relative merits of the Testaments themselves
(8:7–10:39). Now, having proved this proposition to the first-century Jew, the latter, if his heart is ready to
accept salvation, would endeavor to appropriate it. But how would he do so? And there’s the rub. He
would attempt to merit the salvation wrought out on the Cross by Messiah, by the performance of good
works. That is the only method he knows. A study of the Gospels discloses the fact that the Judaism of the
first century was not the supernatural system given by God whereby the sinner was given a salvation in
answer to his faith in the Offering for sin which God would some day set forth, the animal sacrifice he
offered being an outward testimony of his inward faith in the Sacrifice it symbolized. The Judaism of that
day was an ethical cult. It taught salvation by works. The sacrifices were a mere form on the altars of
Judaism.

It was therefore necessary for the writer to prove to this Jew that salvation was by faith, not works. He
does this in 11:1–12:2, basing his proof on the Old Testament Scriptures this Jew professed to believe. He
first defines faith (11:1–3). Then he illustrates the efficacy of faith by using examples of First Testament
saints (11:4–40). Finally, he exhorts to the act of faith (12:1, 2).

1. Faith defined (11:1–3).

(11:1) The mention of a faith that is answered by salvation (10:39), leads the writer to speak about it now
in detail. The word “faith” occurs without the article here, indicating that it is treated in its abstract
conception, not particularly as New Testament faith. Vincent says, “It is important that the preliminary
definition be clearly understood, since the following examples illustrate it. The key is furnished by verse
27, as seeing him who is invisible. Faith apprehends as a real fact what is not revealed to the senses. It
rests on that fact, acts upon it, and is upheld by it in the face of all that seems to contradict it. Faith is real
seeing.”

The word “substance” deserves careful treatment. It is hupostasis (ßðïóôáóéò), made up of stasis (óôáóéò)
“to stand,” and hupo (ßðï) “under,” thus “that which stands under, a foundation.” Thus it speaks of the
ground on which one builds a hope. Moulton and Milligan 17 report its use as a legal term. They say that it
stands for “the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’s property, deposited in
archives, and forming the evidence of ownership.” They suggest the translation, “Faith is the title-deed of
things hoped for.” The Holy Spirit energized act of faith which a believer exercises in the Lord Jesus is the
title-deed which God puts in his hand, guaranteeing to him the possession of the thing for which he trusted
Him. In the case of this first-century Jew, his act of faith in Messiah as High Priest would be the title-deed
which God would give him, guaranteeing to him the possession of the salvation for which he trusted God.
Thus, he would have assurance. Vincent translates, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” He says
that “It is the firm grasp of faith on unseen fact.”
The word “evidence” is the translation of elegchos (¦ëåã÷ïò) which means, “a proof, that by which a thing
is proved or tested.” Thayer in commenting on its use here defines it as follows: “that by which invisible
things are proved and we are convinced of their reality.” His second definition of the word is
“conviction.”

Vincent says: “Observe that hupostasis (ßðïóôáóéò) and elegchos (¦ëåã÷ïò) are not two distinct and
independent conceptions, in which case kai (êáé) (and) would have been added; but they stand in
apposition. Elegchos ( ëåã÷ïò) is really included in hupostasis (ßðïóôáóéò), but adds to the simple idea of
assurance, a suggestion of influences operating to produce conviction which carry the force of
demonstration. The word often signifies a process of proof or demonstration. So von Soden: ‘a being
convinced. Therefore not a rash, feebly-grounded hypothesis, a dream of hope, the child of a wish.’ ”
The word “things” is the translation of pragma (ðñáãìá), “a thing done.” Vincent says that it introduces a
wider conception than “things hoped for.” It embraces not only future realities, but all that does not fall
under the cognizance of the senses, whether past, present, or future.

Translation. Now faith is the title-deed of things hoped for, the conviction of things which are not being
seen.

(11:2) The word “for” introduces proof of the preceding statement regarding the nature of faith. The
words “by it” are in the Greek text en tautei (¦í ôáõôåé), literally, “in this,” that is, “in the sphere and
exercise of faith.” The locative of sphere, “in this,” approaches in meaning the instrumental of means, “by
means of.” “Faith has power to see and realize the unseen, for the experience of the fathers proves it.” 18
The word “elders” used here instead of the more common expression, “the fathers,” refers to the saints of
the Old Testament dispensation, many of whose names are recorded in this chapter. The words “obtained
a good report” are the translation of martureo (ìáñôõñåï) which means “to bear witness to.” Here the verb
is in the passive voice. Literally “for by it the elders were borne witness to.” God bore witness to them that
their faith gained victory for them over all obstacles. It is well to notice that the statement in this verse
does not begin the list of examples which starts in verse four, but is still attached to the definition of faith
in verse one, and is a justification of it.

Translation. For by means of it the elders had witness borne to them.

(11:3) This verse does not begin the list of instances where faith was exercised in Old Testament times. It
is still part of the exposition of faith found in verses 1–3. It shows that in its earliest and most general
expression, belief that the visible universe was created by God, is a conviction of something not
apprehensible by the senses.

The word “understand” is the translation of noeo (íïåï) which means “to perceive with the reflective
intelligence.” It is distinguished from the mere physical act of seeing. It is the perception of the mind
consequent upon seeing. In the New Testament it is never used of mere physical sight. Vincent says:
“Here is meant the inward perception and apprehension of the visible creation as the work of God, which
follows the sight of the phenomena of nature.”

The word “worlds” is the translation of aion (áÆïí). While the context speaks of created things, yet it does
not seem that the meaning of aion (áÆïí) should be limited to the material universe alone. It includes that
here, but embraces more. It refers to the created universe and the periods of time as administered by God.
Alford says that the expression “includes in it all that exists under the conditions of time and space,
together with those conditions of time and space themselves, conditions which do not bind God, and did
not exist independently of Him, but are themselves the work of His word.”
The words “were framed” are the translation of katartizo (êáôáñôéæï) which means “to fit out or equip, so
that person or thing thus equipped or fitted out might subserve the purpose for which it was made.” It
speaks of a wise adaptation of part to part and of the whole to its purpose, in this case, of the created
universe and the periods of time, by the Word of God. Expositor’s says: “The Word of God is an invisible
force which cannot be perceived by sense. The great power which lies at the source of all that is does not
itself come into observation; we perceive it only by faith which is (v. 1) ‘the evidence of things not seen.’
”
The word “word” is not the translation of logos (ëïãïò) as in John 1:1, logos (ëïãïò) being a designation
of the Son of God as the Word of God in the sense that He is in Himself all that deity is, deity expressing
itself not in words as parts of speech, but in the revelation of a Person. It is the translation of hrema (Õåìá)
which speaks of articulate utterance. This word is never used as a designation of God the Son. It is the
Word of God to which reference is made here, not the Son of God. God spoke the word, and a universe
sprang into existence.

Since the universe was framed by the word of God, it follows, the writer argues, that that which is seen
was not made out of that which is visible. Expositor’s says: “Had the visible world been formed out of
materials which were subject to human observation, there would have been no room for faith. Science
could have traced it back to its origin. Evolution only pushes the statement a stage back. There is still an
unseen force that does not submit itself to experimental science, and this is the object of faith.”

Translation. By means of faith we perceive that the worlds were framed by God’s word, and it follows,
therefore, that that which we see did not come into being out of that which is visible.

2. Faith illustrated (11:4–40).

(11:4) It is significant that the writer chooses Abel as the first example of what faith can do for the one
who exercises it. In the case of Abel, it was the matter of his personal salvation which was in view, as was
also the case with the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews. If Abel’s appropriation of salvation was by
means of faith, that would mean that if the first-century Jew wanted to be saved, he would have to
exercise faith. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. That which made Abel’s
sacrifice more excellent than Cain’s, was not its quantity but its quality. Its quality inhered in the fact that
it was the offering which God had prescribed, a blood offering. Abel had learned this from his father
Adam.

The word “which” could refer grammatically either to the sacrifice or the faith. The context decides. God
testified of his gifts, namely, the sacrifice. All of which means that it was by means of the blood sacrifice
that he obtained witness that he was righteous. Though Abel is dead, yet “by it” (the sacrifice) he yet
speaks, telling to all that live after, that salvation is through sacrificial blood. In 12:24, the statement is
made that Jesus’ blood speaks better things than the blood of Abel. It is not Abel’s own blood which is in
view here, but the blood of the offering Abel presented to God. This is shown by the historical
background and analysis of the epistle, the argument of which is that “The New Testament in Jesus’ blood
is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood.” The blood of Abel’s offering
spoke symbolically of a Sacrifice for sin that God would one day offer. But Jesus’ blood is the actual
sacrifice, and speaks of the salvation which He procured for us on the Cross. It was the blood offering
which Abel presented to God through which he was declared righteous. This is in accord with Pauline
doctrine where the great apostle speaks of “being now justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9).
Cain followed his reason and ignored revelation. He argued that his own good works as manifested by the
produce which he had grown, would please God rather than a blood sacrifice. Abel accepted revelation
instead, and had faith in the divine acceptability of the offering prescribed by God. His own reason may
have argued otherwise, but his faith in what God had said, won the day. Here was the example which this
first-century Jew should follow in his appropriation of the salvation which Messiah procured for him on
the Cross, not the way of Cain, which he had been taught by the first-century religious leaders in Israel.

Translation. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which
(sacrifice) it was testified that he was righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts, and
through it (the sacrifice), though he is dead, yet he speaks.

(11:5) Enoch was translated. The word is metatithemi (ìåôáôéèåìé). The verb tithemi (ôéèåìé) means “to
place,” the prefixed preposition meta (ìåôá) signifying a change, the compound word meaning “to
transpose” (two things, one of which is put in place of the other). This word is used in Acts 7:16 of the
transporting of the remains of Jacob and his sons to Shechem, in Gal. 1:6 of the sudden change of the
doctrinal position of the Galatian Christians, and in Heb. 7:12, of the change of the law of the priesthood,
a new regulation being instituted in place of the old. In the case of Enoch, the word speaks of his sudden
transference from earth to heaven. It refers to a change of position. It was one thing put in the place of
another, heaven for Enoch rather than earth.

Now, in the transference of believers from earth to heaven, that operation is effected usually by death. But
in the case of Enoch, it was apart from death. He departed this earthly scene without dying.
This verse does not teach that Enoch had faith to be translated. God translated him because he lived a life
in which He was pleased. It was by faith that he lived that life. The Mosaic commentary on his life is in
the words “Enoch walked with God” (Gen. 5:22). Vincent says when commenting on this: “Faith creates a
close personal relation.”

Translation. By faith Enoch was translated, with the result that he did not have a glimpse of death, and
he was not found because God translated him. For before his translation, he had witness
borne (to him), that testimony still being on record, to the effect that he pleased God.

(11:6) Now the writer lays down an axiomatic truth. He uses the aorist tense in the infinitive “to please.”
The statement is universal in its application and timeless. The idea is, “Without faith it is impossible to
please Him at all.”

The one who comes to God, must believe two things, first that He exists, and second, that He rewards
those who diligently seek Him. The first verb “is” is the translation of estin (¦óôéí) which speaks of
existence. The second verb “is” is the translation of ginomai (ãéíïìáé). The idea is not merely that God
exists as a rewarder, but that He will prove Himself to be a rewarder of that person who diligently seeks
Him. As Vincent puts it: “He who approaches God has, through faith, the assurance that his seeking God
will result in good to himself.”

The words “diligently seek” are literally “seek Him out,” the prefixed preposition being local in its force
in this translation. But those who seek Him out are diligently seeking Him, and here we have the
perfective use of the preposition. Vincent says in this connection: “God’s beneficent will and attitude
toward the seeker are not always apparent at the first approach. In such cases there is occasion for faith, in
the face of delay, that diligent seeking will find its reward. One is reminded of Jesus’ lessons on
importunity in seeking God (Luke 11:5–10, 18:1–8).”
 “He hides himself so wondrously
As though there were no God;
He is least seen when all the powers
Of ill are most abroad.
Or He deserts us at the hour
The fight is almost lost.
And seems to leave us to ourselves
Just when we need Him most.
It is not so, but so it looks;
And we lose courage then;
And doubts will come if God hath kept
His promises to men.”
Faber.

Translation. But without faith it is impossible to please Him at all. For he who comes to God must of
necessity in the nature of the case believe that He exists, and that He becomes a rewarder
of those who diligently seek Him out.

(11:7) The words “of God” are not in the best texts. The word “fear,” gives one the erroneous impression
that Noah acted under the influence of fright. The Greek word is eulabeomai (åÛëáâåïìáé), which means
“to act cautiously, circumspectly, to reverence, stand in awe of” in this context. Noah acted with “pious
care, a reverent circumspection with regard to things enjoined by God, and as yet unseen, yet confidently
expected on the strength of God’s word” (Vincent). The things not seen were the contents of God’s
revelation to Noah regarding the flood (Gen. 6:13–22). The word “prepared” is the translation of
kataskeuazo (êáôáóêåõáæï) “to equip, prepare, make ready.” Noah built and equipped the ark. “Ark” is in
the Greek text, kiboton (êéâïôïí), originally, a wooden chest. Same word is used of the ark of the
covenant.

The word “which” goes back to “faith” for its antecedent. Noah condemned the world by his faith. There
are two interpretations of this statement, depending upon which meaning one takes for the word “world”
(kosmos (êïóìïò)). If kosmos (êïóìïò) refers to the physical earth, then the sentence is to be interpreted
as follows: Noah by acting in faith when building the ark, announced the condemnation of the earth to
destruction. If we take kosmos (êïóìïò) as referring to the fallen, human race, the meaning is that Noah
condemned the conduct of his contemporaries by the contrast which his own faith presented. We have
examples of the same thing in Matt. 12:41, Rom. 2:27. However, Weiss objects to this interpretation and
says that in this epistle kosmos (êïóìïò) is not used to denote the world of men. But the question arises as
to what God judged in the flood, the physical earth or the sinful race? It seems, therefore, that the first
interpretation is the correct one. Noah threw into bold relief by his faith, the unbelief of the human race.
Not only did he condemn the human race by his faith, but he became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith. The words “became heir” in the Greek text here mean merely “became owner” or “became
partaker,” although there is underneath the word the idea familiar to the Jewish mind, that spiritual
blessings are a heritage bestowed by God. We must be careful to note here that this righteousness is not
justifying righteousness, but experimental righteousness, righteousness in conduct. In Genesis the warning
of God was given Noah because he was righteous. In Hebrews we are told that Noah wrought
righteousness in his life by faith. He is one of those who as in 11:33 wrought righteousness.
Translation. By faith Noah having been warned concerning things not seen, with reverential care
prepared an ark to save his household; by means of which (faith) he condemned the world,
and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

(11:8) Abraham exhibits that faith which is defined in the opening verses of this chapter as “that assurance
and conviction of unseen things which caused him to rely confidently upon the future fulfilment of the
divine promises.”

The words “When he was called” are the translation of a present participle which speaks of action going
on at the same time as that of the leading verb, which is “obeyed.” The translation is “Abraham, while he
was being called, obeyed.” It indicates Abraham’s immediate obedience to God’s call. The words “to go
out” are to be construed, not with “called” but “obeyed.” They specify that in which his obedience was
shown. The idea is, “when he was called, obeyed to go out” The word “knowing” is the translation, not of
ginosko (ãéíïóêï) or oida (ïÆäá), the usual words for knowing, but of epistomai (¦ðéóôïìáé) which means
“to put one’s attention on, to fix one’s thoughts on, to know.” Abraham’s faith was so great, that he was
not particularly concerned as to what the nature of the country was. His faith displaced all worry as to his
future in that country. He did not trouble to think upon the matter.

Expositor’s says: “The faith of Abraham appeared in his promptly abandoning his own country on God’s
promise of another, and the strength of this faith was illustrated by the circumstance that he had no
knowledge where or what that country was.… It was, therefore, no attractive account of Canaan which
induced him to forsake Mesopotamia, no ordinary emigrant’s motive which moved him, but mere faith in
God’s promise. ‘Even still the life of faith must be entered on in ignorance of the way to the inheritance,
or even what the inheritance and rest in each one’s particular case will be, and of the experiences that the
way will bring. This is true even of ordinary life’ (Davidson).”

Translation. By faith, Abraham while he was being called, obeyed to go out into a place which he was
about to receive as an inheritance, and he went out, not troubling his mind as to where he
was going.

(11:9) The words “he sojourned” are the translation of paroikeo (ðáñïéêåï). The word means literally “to
dwell beside or among.” It speaks of a foreigner dwelling in a state without rights of citizenship. The
preposition “in” is the translation of eis (åÆò), a preposition of motion. Here we have, therefore, a verb of
rest used with a preposition which signifies motion. This combination speaks of the fact that Abraham
went into the land and dwelt there. The definite article occurs in the Greek text before the word
“promise.” It is “the land of the promise,” speaking of a particular promise, the one in Gen. 12:7, 13:15, in
which God gave Abraham the land between the Nile River on the south and west, to the Euphrates on the
north and east. The word “strange” is the translation of allotria (•ëëïôñéá), a land other than his own. The
word “tabernacles” is the translation of skene (óêåíå), the Greek word for “tent” Vincent says, “The three,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned because they cover the entire period of the sojourn in Canaan.
Faith inspired these to endure patiently their unsettled life, since it assured them of a permanent home in
the future.”

Translation. By faith he dwelt as a foreigner without rights of citizenship in the land of the promise as
in a land not his own, having settled down to live in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, joint-heirs
with him of the promise, the same one.
(11:10) Both the words “city” and “foundations” are preceded by the definite article in the Greek text.
Abraham looked for the city which had the foundations. It was a particular city with particular
foundations. He was looking for the heavenly Jerusalem. The idea of the heavenly Jerusalem was familiar
to the Jews. See Heb. 12:22, 13:14; Gal. 4:26. But we must not confuse this city, namely, the heavenly
dwelling of the saved to which Abraham was looking forward, with the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev. 3:12,
21:2, which is the home of the Bride of Christ, the Church. The word “builder” is the translation of
technites (ôå÷íéôåò), “an artificer, a craftsman, architect.” The word “maker” is in the Greek text
demiourgos (äåìéïõñãïò), which meant originally “a workman for the public (demos (äåìïò)), generally, a
framer, builder.”

Translation. For he was constantly waiting for and expecting the city having the foundations, the
architect and builder of which is God.

(11:11) The intensive use of the pronoun “herself” emphasizes the fact that it was Sarah, the former
unbelieving one, who received strength to conceive. The latter expression is in the Greek text eis
katabolen spermatos (åÆò êáôáâïëåí óðåñìáôïò). The word katabolen (êáôáâïëåí) means originally “a
throwing down,” hence, here the depositing of the male seed in the womb. The sentence may be explained
either, “received strength as regards the deposition of seed,” to fructify it, or, “received strength for the
foundation of a posterity.” The words “and was delivered of a child,” are not in the text.

Translation. By faith Sarah herself received power as regards the deposition of seed, and that when she
was past age, because she considered Him faithful who promised.

(11:12)

Translation. And therefore there sprang from one, and that a dead man, even as the stars of the heaven
in multitude and as the sand beside the lip of the sea (seashore) innumerable.

(11:13) The words “in faith” are in the Greek text kata pistin (êáôá ðéóôéí), literally, “according to faith.”
That is, “they died according to faith, inasmuch as they did not receive. They died under the regime of
faith, and not of sight” (Vincent). The word “embraced” is the translation of aspazomai (•óðáæïìáé)
which means “to greet or salute.” Vincent says that the word “embraced” is a sort of inferential rendering
of the original sense of this word. He offers the translation, “having seen them from afar and greeted
them:” and adds this comment, “as seamen wave their greeting to a country seen far off on the horizon, on
which they cannot land.” In confessing that they were strangers and pilgrims, “they admitted and accepted
the fact with the resignation of faith, and with the assurance of future rest” (Vincent). In the anonymous
Epistle to Diagnetus, probably of the second century, there occur these words concerning Christians:
”They inhabit their own country, but as sojourners: they take part in all things as citizens, and endure all
things as aliens: every foreign country is theirs, and every country is foreign.”

Translation. These all died dominated by faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them
afar off and greeted them, also confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the
earth.

(11:14)

Translation. For they who say such things as these declare plainly that they are seeking a fatherland.
(11:15) The words “been mindful” have the idea in the Greek text of “habitually remembered.” The
meaning here is “that if, in their declaration (v. 14) that they were seeking a country, they had called to
mind the country from which they came out, they could have returned thither, so that it is evident that they
did not mean that country” (Vincent). Thus, when they were seeking a home-country, a fatherland, they
were not thinking of Mesopotamia from which they had come.

Translation. And if indeed they had been remembering that country from which they had gone out, in
that case they would have had constant opportunity to bend their way back again.

(11:16) The word “now” is logical here, not temporal. The idea is “as the case now stands.” God is not
ashamed to be called their God, because they have commended themselves to God by their faith. The
expression “to be called their God” is most interesting in the Greek. The word “called” is epikaleisthai
(¦ðéêáëåéóèáé), the simple verb meaning “to be called,” the preposition meaning “upon.” Thus the
compound word means “to be called upon.” The idea is, therefore, that of adding an additional name to
the one which one already has, namely, a surname. God was not ashamed to be surnamed their God. He is
called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And this is shown by the fact that He has prepared for them
a city, introducing them into the perfection of social life, fellowship with Him.

Translation. But now as the case stands, they are reaching out in their desires for a better (country),
that is, a heavenly one, because of which God is not ashamed of them to be surnamed their
God, for He prepared for them a city.

(11:17–19) The word “tried” is the translation of peirazo (ðåéñáæï) which means “to put to the test.” Here
it refers to the act of God putting Abraham to the test in order to prove his character and the steadfastness
of his faith. The construction in the Greek makes it clear that while the testing of Abraham was still in
progress, he had already offered up his son, that is, before the trial had come to an issue, by the act of his
obedient will, through faith in God. Abraham met the test through faith before there was any visible
evidence of God’s intervening hand. Abraham fully expected to offer his son as a sacrifice, and as fully
expected God to raise his body from the dead out of the ashes of the burnt sacrifice. He reasoned that
since God promised him a line of ancestry through Isaac, He would have to do that. And he had faith to
believe that God would do so. Vincent explains the words “Also he received him in a figure,” as follows:
“Since the sacrifice did not take place as a literal slaughter, there could not be a literal restoration from
death. There was a real offering in Abraham’s will, but not a real death of Isaac. Isaac’s death took place
symbolically, in the sacrifice of the ram: correspondingly, the restoration was only a symbolic restoration
from the dead.”

Translation. By faith Abraham offered up Isaac while being put to the test; even he who received the
promises, offered up his only begotten, with reference to whom it was said, In Isaac shall
your seed be called, counting upon the fact that God also was able to raise him out from
amongst the dead, because of which fact (namely, that Isaac only passed through the
likeness of death) he also received him back in a figure.

(11:20) The Authorized Version omits the Greek word for “and” which gives emphasis to the following
words. It is, “Isaac pronounced a blessing, and that concerning things to come,” namely, things beyond the
lifetime of Jacob and Esau. The blessing was an act of faith.

Translation. By faith, and that concerning things to come, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau.
(11:21) “Both” is the translation of hekaston (©êáóôïí) “each.” Each son received a separate and distinct
blessing. This shows discernment of faith on Jacob’s part, as in the precedence Isaac gave to his younger
son Jacob. The expression, “leaning on the top of his staff” is a quotation from Gen. 47:31. Vincent
explains that according to the vowel-points, the same Hebrew word means either staff or bed. The LXX
chose the former meaning, and the writer to the Hebrews quoted from that version.

Translation. By faith, Jacob when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped upon his
staff.

(11:22) “Made mention” is the translation of emnemoneuo (¦ìíåìïíåõï) “to remember.” Joseph on his
death-bed remembered the promise of God to give the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:7,
13:5, 15:7), and also the prediction that Abraham’s descendants should spend 400 years in bondage in a
strange land, and should afterward be brought out thence (Gen. 15:13, 14).

Translation. By faith, Joseph when near his end, remembered the exodus of the sons of Israel and so
gave a command concerning his bones.

(11:23) The word “proper” is the translation of asteion (•óôåéïí) “comely.” This word is used in Acts
7:20 where Stephen says that Moses was “comely to God.” The Authorized Version translates
“exceedingly fair.” The construction in the Greek text is a dative of respect. He was comely with respect
to God. That means that in the sight or estimation of God, Moses was comely. The Greek word meant “of
the city, of polished manners, genteel, elegant of body, fair.” The latter two definitions would apply here
to the infant Moses. The faith of Moses’ parents was shown in their concealing him for three months after
his birth and thus evading the law that male children were to be killed. The word “commandment” is the
translation of diatagma (äéáôáãìá), namely, “a mandate.” We might say in passing, that the children of
God are by God obligated to obey the laws of the country in which they reside, and disobedience to these
laws is sin against God. But they are obligated to obey these laws only up to the point where obedience to
these laws would mean disobedience to God. The parents of Moses were entirely within their rights in this
case, for the reigning Pharaoh was violating the law of God which forbids murder. In view of the fact that
Moses was such a handsome, well-favored child, the parents naturally looked forward to a great destiny
for him, an exceptional career, and that God would use him for an outstanding service. They had faith that
God would thus save him from the mandate of the king.

Translation. By faith, Moses having been born was hid three months by his parents, because they saw
that he was a comely child. And they did not fear the mandate of the king.

(11:24–26) With respect to the action of Moses in renouncing his relationship to Pharaoh and his court,
and choosing to cast his lot with Israel, we cannot do better than quote Expositor’s: “The significance and
source of this refusal lay in his preferring to suffer ill-usage with God’s people rather than to have a
short-lived enjoyment of sin … It was because they were God’s people, not solely because they were of
his blood, that Moses threw in his lot with them. It was this which illustrated his faith. He believed that
God would fulfil His promise to His people, little likelihood as at present there seemed to be of any great
future for his race. On the other hand there was the hamartias apolausis (ìáñôéáò •ðïëáõóéò) (the
pleasure of sin), the enjoyment which was within his reach if only he committed the sin of denying his
people and renouncing their future as promised by God. For ‘the enjoyment to be reaped from sin,’ does
not refer to the pleasure of gratifying sensual appetite and so forth, but to the satisfaction of a high
ambition and the gratification of his finer tastes which he might have had by remaining in the Egyptian
court.
Very similarly Philo interprets the action of Moses, who, he says, ‘esteemed the good things of those who
adopted him, although more splendid for a season, to be in reality spurious, but those of his natural
parents, although for a little while less conspicuous to be true and genuine’.… That which influenced
Moses to make this choice was his estimate of the comparative value of the outcome of suffering with
God’s people and of the happiness offered in Egypt.… ‘He considered the reproach of Christ greater
riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he steadily kept in view the reward.’ The reproach or obloquy and
disgrace, which Moses experienced is called “the reproach of the Christ because it was on account of his
belief in God’s saving purpose that he suffered … The writer uses the expression … with a view to his
readers who were shrinking from the reproach of Christ (13:13).”

Translation. By faith, Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
having chosen for himself rather to be suffering affliction with the people of God than to be
having sin’s enjoyments temporarily, since after weighing and comparing the facts in the
case, he considered the reproach of the Messiah, greater wealth than Egypt’s treasures,
for he looked away (from the treasures of Egypt) to the recompense.

(11:27) Moses’ act of forsaking Egypt referred to here is not that connected with the Exodus, but is his
flight consequent upon his killing the Egyptian. The writer states that he did not fear the wrath of Pharaoh.
But Ex. 2:15 states that fear was the motive of his flight. This seeming contradiction is cleared up by
Expositor’s in the following: “But what is in the writer’s mind is not Pharaoh’s wrath as cause but as
consequence of Moses’ abandonment of Egypt. His flight showed that he had finally renounced life at
court, and in thus indicating by this decisive action that he was an Israelite, and meant to share with his
people, he braved the king’s wrath. This he was strengthened to do because he saw an invisible monarch
greater than Pharaoh. Vaughan seems to be the only interpreter who has precisely hit the writer’s meaning:
‘the two fears are different, the one is the fear arising from the discovery of his slaying the Egyptian, the
other is the fear of Pharaoh’s anger on discovering his flight. He feared and therefore fled: he feared not,
and therefore fled. Having fled and so cutting himself off from all immediate opportunity of helping his
people, ekarteresen (¦êáñôåñåóåí) (he endured), ‘he steadfastly bided his time,’ because he saw the
Invisible … The aorist gathers the forty years in Midian into one exhibition of wonderful perseverance in
faith.” It was during those forty years in Midian that Moses kept before himself his great destiny, that of
leading God’s people out of Egypt, and kept trusting God in spite of his flight from Egypt and his
enforced absence from that land, that He would yet bring him back there and effect the deliverance of the
Chosen People.

Translation. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king, for he was staunch and
steadfast, as seeing the Invisible One.

(11:28) The word “kept” is the translation of poieo (ðïéåï) “to make,” which in this context means “to
institute.” This verb is in the perfect tense which speaks here of the continued significance of the service
of the Passover to the time of the writing of this epistle, not that the Passover is looked at here as a
permanent institution, for it was not, being only typical and therefore transitory in its nature, in operation
only until the Reality to which it pointed, appeared. But its significance, namely, that of a type of the
sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, that is of permanent value. The word “sprinkling” is proschusis (ðñïó÷õóéò),
the verb form meaning “to pour on,” the noun, “an affusion.” While the blood was in the case of the first
Passover, sprinkled on the door-posts and lintels, in the case of the post-Exodus legislation, it was poured
upon the altar.
Translation. By faith he instituted the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, in order that the
destroyer of the first born should not touch them.

(11:29)

Translation. By faith they passed through the Red Sea, of which the Egyptians having taken trial, were
drowned.

(11:30)

Translation. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been encircled seven days.

(11:31) The word translated “believed not” is not the simple word for “faith,” but apeitheo (•ðåéèåï)
which means “to be disobedient.” It speaks of disbelief manifesting itself in disobedience. The word here
speaks of the failure on the part of the inhabitants of Jericho, to be persuaded that God had given the land
to the Israelites, and the consequent refusal to surrender Jericho. Rahab’s faith is shown in that she
harbored the spies. The word “received” is dechomai (äå÷ïìáé), which was used in the sense of the
friendly reception of a guest. The words “with peace” speak of the act of Rahab in receiving the spies
without enmity, and in not allowing them to suffer harm from others.

Translation. By faith, Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, having received
the spies with peace.

(11:32)

Translation. And what shall I say yet? For the time will fail me telling of Gideon, Barak, Samson,
Jepthae, and both David and Samuel and the prophets.

(11:33) The word “subdued” is katagonizomai (êáôáãïíéæïìáé) which means literally “to fight down,”
thus, “to struggle against, to overcome.” The word signifies a desperate contest. The words “wrought
righteousness” refer not only to their personal virtues, but also to the public exercise of these men as
leaders. Faith was evident in the association of righteousness in their lives with the power they wielded.

Translation. Who through faith overcame kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped
the mouths of lions.

(11:34)

Translation. Quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made
strong, became mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens.

(11:35) The word “tortured” is tumpanizo (ôõìðáíéæï) “to torture with the tumpanum.” The latter seems
to have been a wheel-shaped instrument of torture, over which criminals were stretched as though they
were skins, and then horribly beaten with clubs or thongs. The word “deliverance” is preceded by the
article. It was the deliverance offered at the price of denying their faith, that was refused. They did this in
order that they might attain to a better resurrection than the one mentioned above, namely, a mere
continuation of life on earth. These were looking forward to the resurrection that would be unto glory.
Translation. Women received by resurrection their dead, and others were tortured, not accepting the
deliverance, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection.

(11:36) The word “others” is the translation of heteros (©ôåñïò) which means “another of a different
kind.” This word introduces a different class of victories achieved by faith, although mockings and
scourgings were endured by the martyrs just mentioned. The words “yea, moreover” (eti de (¦ôé äå)) are
used commonly to express a climax. Such imprisonment as was endured by Jeremiah (38:9), was certainly
to be dreaded even more than scourging.

Translation. And still others of a different nature, received a trial of mockings and scourgings, yes,
moreover, of bonds and imprisonment.

(11:37) Stoning was a characteristic Jewish punishment. Tradition has it that Isaiah was sawn asunder
with a wooden saw by Manasseh. The fact of being tempted, appearing in the midst of these terrible
tortures, has given expositors some surprise. They have various solutions, taking it out of the text entirely
as a spurious reading, or substituting some other Greek word somewhat like it and of a different meaning.
It is probably best to leave it as it is, and suggest that one of the most fiendish tortures was not that of the
body but of the conscience, when the torturer would offer the victim opportunity to recant and thus obtain
his freedom. The Greek has it that they “died by sword-slaughter,” indicating mass-slaughters. Examples
of this abound in the Maccabean period. The dress of sheepskin, and that of the still rougher material, that
of goatskins, was worn, not as a professional uniform, but because they had no other material for clothing.
The word “afflicted” is the translation of thlibo (èëéâï) “to press hard upon.” Thus, the idea is that they
were hard pressed by their foes. “Tormented” is the translation of kakoukeo (êáêïõêåï), “to maltreat,
oppress, plague.”

Translation. They were stoned, tempted, sawn asunder; they died, slaughtered by the sword; they
wandered around in sheepskins and goat skins; being destitute, hard pressed, maltreated.

(11:38) The word “world” (kosmos (êïóìïò)) does not refer here to the corrupt world system, but to the
world considered as an economy which was unworthy of these, because it was an economy ruled by sense,
the world of the martyrs being an economy ruled by faith. The plane of life of the martyrs was higher.
Expositor’s quotes Davidson: “The world drove them out, thinking them unworthy to live in it, while in
truth it was unworthy to have them living in it.” The word “caves” is the translation of ope (Ïðå) which
means “a hole,” primarily a place through which one can see. It is used in the LXX of the cleft in the rock
in which God placed Moses (Ex. 33:22).

Translation. Men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering over deserts and mountains, and in
caves and holes of the earth.

(11:39, 40) Expositor’s has a good note on these verses: “ ‘And these all,’ that is, those who have been
named in this chapter, ‘although they had witness borne to them through their faith,’ as has been recorded
(vv. 2–38), ‘did not receive the promise,’ that is, as already said in verse 13, they only foresaw that it
would be fulfilled and died in that faith. But this failure to obtain the fulfilment of the promise was not
due to any slackness on the part of God nor to any defect in their faith; there was a good reason for it, and
that reason was that ‘God had in view some better thing for us, that without us they should not be
perfected.’
The ‘better thing’ is that which this Epistle has made it its business to expound, the perfecting
(teleiothosin (ôåëåéïèïóéí)) of God’s people by full communion with Him mediated by the perfect
revelation (1:1) of the Son and His perfect covenant (8:7–13), and His better sacrifice (9:23). And the
perfecting of the people of God under the Old Testament is said to have been impossible, not as might
have been expected ‘apart from the Son,’ but ‘without us,’ because the writer has in view the history of
the Church, the relation of the people of God in former times to the same people in Messianic times.”
Alford adds: “The Advent and work of Christ has changed the estate of the Old Testament fathers and
saints into greater and perfect bliss; an inference which is forced on us by many other places in Scripture.
So that their perfection was dependent on our perfection: their and our perfection was all brought in at the
same time, when Christ ‘by one offering perfected forever those who are sanctified.’ So that the result
with regard to them is, that their spirits, from the time when Christ descended into Hades and ascended up
into heaven, enjoy heavenly blessedness, and are waiting with all who have followed their glorified High
Priest within the veil, for the resurrection of their bodies, the Regeneration, the renovation of all things.”

Translation. And these all, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not receive
the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, in order that they without us
should not be made perfect.

Notes:

17 Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.

18 Vincent.
Chapter 12

3. Faith exhorted (12:1, 2).

(12:1) The “wherefore” (toigaroun (ôïéãáñïõí)) reaching back and gathering together all the heroes of
11:4–40, their faith, and their exploits, is an emphatic particle, strongly affirming the facts on which the
following exhortation is based. The words “we also” are not to be construed with “are compassed about,
etc.,” but with “let us run.” The Nestle Greek text so punctuates. The Old Testament saints, the witnesses
of chapter 11, were not compassed about with a cloud of witnesses. They are the witnesses of whom the
writer is speaking.

The word “cloud” here is not nephele (íåöåëå) which is a detached and sharply outlined cloud, but nephos
(íåöïò), a great mass of cloud covering the entire visible space of the heavens, and therefore without
definite form, or a single large mass in which outlines are not emphasized or distinguished. The use of
“cloud” for a mass of living beings is familiar in poetry. Homer speaks of “a cloud of footmen, a cloud of
Trojans.” Themistocles, addressing the Athenians, says of the host of Xerxes, “we have had the fortune to
save both ourselves and Greece by repelling so great a cloud of men.”

The question to which we must now address ourselves is as to just how we must regard these witnesses?
The word is martus (ìáñôõò), “one who testifies, or can testify, to what he has seen or heard or knows by
any other means.” It is used in a legal way in the papyri in the sense of witnesses to a contract or legal
document. In an ethical sense it was used in the early Church to designate those who have proved the
strength and genuineness of their faith in the Lord Jesus by undergoing a violent death. The word does not
include in its meaning, the idea of a person looking at something. Peter uses it of himself (I Pet. 5:1) as a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, that is, one who has been retained and commissioned to testify to the
sufferings of Christ which he has seen. The heroes of faith of 11:4–40 are the cloud of witnesses,
testifying to the efficacy of the faith way of salvation and victory. The writer calls them, so to speak, to the
witness stand to bear testimony to what they have seen and heard and felt as to what faith could and did do
for them, so that this first century Jew might become convinced that the salvation which Messiah wrought
out on the Cross, must be appropriated by faith, not works.

As to the idea of these Old Testament saints looking down from heaven and watching the lives of the
saints on earth, the following might be said: Vincent teaches it, Alford insists upon it, and Expositor’s
says that if the idea is there at all, which is very doubtful, it is only introduced by the words “running” and
“race.”

The writer visualizes a great host of people encircling these first century readers, and then speaks of a race
(agona (•ãïíá), a Greek athletic term speaking of a contest). The natural and correct inference is that he is
thinking of the Greek games here, the spectators in the tiers upon tiers of seats, the athletes competing in
the stadium, the latter speaking of the Christian life as a contest and a race, and the former, of the saints of
chapter eleven. Vincent and Alford see these saints looking down from heaven observing the lives of
those on earth. The present writer cannot bring himself to go that far. Rather than seeing the witnesses as
spectators looking at this earthly scene from heaven, it would seem nearer the correct interpretation here
to think of these first century readers running their Christian race, not having in mind the witnesses of
11:4–40 as spectators, but rather their testimony as examples urging them on to faith in Messiah as High
Priest.
The recipients are exhorted to lay aside every weight. The word is ogkon (Ïãêïí) “bulk, mass,” hence, “a
swelling, superfluous flesh.” The allusion, therefore, is to the training period preparatory to a race in
which encumbering superfluity of flesh is reduced. Expositor’s says: “The Christian runner must rid
himself even of innocent things which might retard him. And all that does not help, hinders. It is by
running he learns what these things are. So long as he stands he does not feel that they are burdensome
and hampering.” Thus, the word “weight” has the idea of “encumbrance.”

Not only are the readers to lay aside every general encumbrance which would slacken their speed in the
Christian race, but also any particular, specific one. The words “easily beset” are the translation of
euperistatos, eu (åÛðåñéóôáôïò, åÛ) meaning “readily, deftly, cleverly,” and the verbal form of the rest of
the word, “to place itself around.” It speaks of a sin which readily or easily encircles the Christian runner,
like a long, loose robe clinging to his limbs. The sin may be any evil propensity. Here the context suggests
the sin of unbelief which was the thing keeping the unsaved recipients of this letter from putting their faith
in Messiah as High Priest. The Greek word “patience” (hupomone (ßðïìïíå)) includes both passive
endurance and active persistence. The specific word for a race (dromos (äñïìïò)) is not used, the general
term for an athletic contest (agon (•ãïí)) being chosen. The words “set before us” (prokeimai
(ðñïêåéìáé)) give one the idea that a certain type of race is placed before the Christian. The idea in the
word prokeimai (ðñïêåéìáé) is that of something lying before one. It is like a road that stretches out before
one’s gaze.

Translation. Therefore also as for us, having so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, having put
off and away from ourselves every encumbrance and that sin which so deftly and cleverly
places itself in an entangling way around us, with patience let us be running the race lying
before us.

(12:2) Having presented a catalog of Old Testament witnesses to the efficacy of faith, the writer now
speaks of Messiah, the Jehoshua of the Old Testament, the Jesus of the New, God Himself incarnate in
human flesh. He uses Him as the supreme example to which his readers should look as they run life’s
race.

The word “looking” is aphorao (•öïñáï) “to turn the eyes away from other things and fix them on
something.” The word also means “to turn one’s mind to a certain thing.” Both meanings are applicable
here, the spiritual vision turned away from all else and together with the mind, concentrated on Jesus.
What a lesson in Christian running technique we have in that little preposition “off, away from,” which is
prefixed to this verb. The minute the Greek runner in the stadium takes his attention away from the race
course and the goal to which he is speeding, and turns it upon the onlooking crowds, his speed is
slackened. It is so with the Christian. The minute he takes his eyes off of the Lord Jesus, and turns them
upon others, his pace in the Christian life is slackened, and his onward progress in grace hindered.
Messiah is called the author of our faith. The word “author” is the translation of archegon (•ñ÷åãïí).
Vincent says that the Authorized Version is misleading and narrows the scope of the passage. The word is
made up of ago (•ãï) “to lead,” and arche (•ñ÷å), “the first.” The compound word means “the chief
leader, one that takes the lead in anything and thus furnishes the example.” In our passage it describes
Jesus as the One “who in the pre-eminence of His faith far surpasses the examples of faith commemorated
in chapter 11” (Vincent). The word “faith” has the article before it in the Greek text. It is the faith of
which the writer is speaking as exhibited in the examples of chapter eleven and in the Lord Jesus. It is not
the Christian Faith as such, but faith absolutely. Christ is the archegon (•ñ÷åãïí), the chief leader of this
faith in that He “furnished the perfect development, the supreme example of faith, and in virtue of this He
is the leader of the whole believing host of all time.”
He is also the finisher of the faith spoken of in these chapters. The word is teleioo (ôåëåéïï) which means
“to carry through completely, to finish, to make perfect or complete.” Our Lord in His life of faith on
earth, became the perfect or complete example of the life of faith. Thayer speaks of our Lord as “one who
has in his own person raised faith to its perfection and so set before us the highest example of faith.”
The words “who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross,” are usually interpreted as meaning that the
Lord Jesus endured the cross in order that He might obtain certain joy which was placed before Him as a
reward for His sufferings. But this interpretation is based upon an erroneous use of the preposition “for.”
The Greek preposition is anti (•íôé), the predominant use of which in the first century was “instead of.” It
is so used in Luke 11:11 where we have, “If he asked a fish, will he for (anti (•íôé), instead of) a fish give
him a serpent?” The word “set” is the translation of prokeimenes (ðñïêåéìåíåò) literally “lying before.”
Vincent says, “The joy was the full, divine beatitude of His preincarnate life in the bosom of the Father;
the glory which He had with God before the world was. In exchange for this He accepted the Cross and
the shame. The contrast is designed between the readers (v. 1), and the joy which was already present to
Christ. The heroic character of His faith appears in His renouncing a joy already in possession in exchange
for shame and death. The passage thus falls in with Philippians 2:6–8.” He despised the shame attendant
upon a death by crucifixion, namely, the fact that that kind of a death was meted out upon malefactors.
The words “is set down” are in the perfect tense in the Greek text, the idea being that He, after His work
of providing a salvation was finished, sat down, and remains seated. He need never arise and repeat His
work on the Cross for sinners. It is a finished work. He is not only seated, but He occupies the position of
preeminence, at the right hand of God.

Translation. Looking off and away to Jesus, the preeminent leader and perfecter of this aforementioned
faith, who instead of the joy then present with Him endured the Cross, despising the
shame, and has sat down at the right hand of God.

IV. Final Warnings and Exhortations (12:3–13:25).

1. If these Jews remain under the chastening hand of God, and do not seek to escape persecution by
renouncing their professed faith in Messiah, that is an evidence that they are saved. But if they do the
opposite, that shows they have never been saved (12:3–17).

(12:3) Now, the writer, having called attention to the fact that Messiah is the preeminent example of the
life of faith, exhorts his readers to consider Him. The word is analogizomai (•íáëïãéæïìáé), “to reckon
up, to consider by way of comparison.” The word “for” introduces the reason for the exhortation to look
off and away to Jesus. When considering Him, the readers will see how much more He had to endure than
they. Their sufferings, the result of the persecutions which they are enduring, would seem but insignificant
compared to His. “Contradiction” is antilogia (•íôéëïãéá) in the Greek text, the Greek word meaning
literally, “to speak against, gainsaying.” It sometimes refers to opposition in act. The word “contradiction”
here refers, therefore, to the opposition Messiah endured from the human race in word and act. These
persecuted Jews, mistreated by their brethren after the flesh who were still clinging to the temple
sacrifices, are exhorted to thus contrast this opposition which they were meeting, with that endured by
Messiah, and to do this in order that they would not be weary, fainting in their souls.

Translation. For consider by way of comparison, the One who endured opposition by sinners against
Himself, in order that you do not become weary, fainting in your souls.
(12:4) The readers are reminded of the fact that the persecutions they were enduring, had not yet entailed
the shedding of their blood, as was the case of Messiah, who became obedient to God the Father to the
extent of death, yes, to such a death as that upon a cross. Their striving against sin was their battle against
the temptation of renouncing their professed faith in Messiah in order that they might be relieved of the
persecution which they were enduring. His striving against sin was His submitting to the death of the
Cross, with all that that involved, His becoming sin for us, the breaking for the time of the fellowship
between the Father and the Son, and all the intense and awful physical agony of crucifixion. The word
“resist” is antikathistemi (•íôéêáèéóôåìé) “to stand against.” The word “striving” is antagonizomai
(•íôáãïíéæïìáé) “to fight agonizingly against.” It speaks of a terrific fight.

Translation. Not yet have you withstood to the extent of blood, struggling against sin.

(12:5, 6) The writer now quotes from Proverbs 3:11, 12, exhorting his readers to take these persecutions
as allowed of God for the purpose of chastening them. The latter word is paideia (ðáéäåéá), which was
used of the whole training and education of children. It speaks also of whatever in adults cultivates the
soul, especially by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions. It speaks also of instruction which aims
at the increase of virtue. The word does not have in it the idea of punishment, but of corrective measures
which will eliminate evil in the life and encourage the good. Here, the persecutions were used of God in
an effort to clarify the spiritual vision of the readers as to the relative merits of the First Testament and the
New Testament, warning them against returning to the temple sacrifices and urging them on to faith in the
Messiah as High Priest. The readers, in their action of leaning back towards the First Testament and by
their avowed purpose of returning to it in order to escape the persecution, had forgotten the lesson of
Proverbs.

Translation. And you have completely forgotten the exhortation which was of such a nature as to speak
to you as to sons, My son, stop making light of the Lord’s chastening. Stop fainting when
you are being rebuked by Him. For the one whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and He
scourges every son whom He receives in His heart and cherishes.

(12:7) The Authorized Version follows a faulty Greek text in the word “if.” The Greek here is “it is for
chastening that ye are enduring.” The word “endure” is hupomeno (ßðïìåíï), literally, “to remain under.”
That is, the recipients of this letter are exhorted to remain under the chastening hand of God, for the
purpose of this chastening is disciplinary. “Dealeth” is the translation of prosphero (ðñïóöåñï) which in
its passive voice as it is used here means “to behave toward, to deal with.” That is, the afflictive dealing of
God with the recipients is an evidence that they are sons of God. We must keep in mind that this letter is
written to the professing Christian Church made up of saved and unsaved. Both classes were the recipients
of the persecution, because both classes had left the temple sacrifices and had identified themselves with
the visible church. But only those who would remain under the chastening hand of God would prove
themselves to be true sons of God. Those who would renounce their profession of Messiah as High Priest
and return to the sacrifices in order to escape the persecution, would show by that, that they had never
been saved.

Translation. It is for the purpose of chastening that you are enduring. As those who by nature are sons,
is God dealing with you. For what son is there whom the Father does not chasten?
(12:8) In the Old Testament, Israel was taught to regard any visitation of God’s disciplinary measures such
as drought and famine or enemy attack, as a sign of His displeasure with His people because of their sins.
Hence, these Hebrews in the first-century Church would naturally regard this persecution in the same
light. The writer hastens to assure them that instead of this chastening being an indication that they were
not right with God, it was a proof of their sonship, for all sons are partakers of chastening. Those among
them who would not submit to this chastening were, therefore, unsaved.

Translation. But if you are without chastisement of which all (sons) have been made partakers, it
follows, therefore, that you are bastards and not sons.

(12:9) The word “furthermore” (eita (åÆôá)) here introduces a new phase of the subject under discussion.
“Up to this point the sufferings of Christians have been explained by God’s fatherly relation to them. Now
the emphatic point is that their fathers, with whom God is compared, were only earthly human parents”
(Vincent). In the words “Shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live,”
“the comparison is between the respect paid to a fallible, human parent, which may grow out of the natural
relation, or may be due to fear, and the complete subjection to the divine Father” (Vincent). The phrase,
“Father of spirits” is contrasted to “fathers of the flesh.” Vincent says: “Their relation to us is limited: His
is universal. They are related to us on the fleshly side: He is the Creator of our essential life. Our relation
to Him is on the side of our eternal being. The words “and live,” are not limited in their application to the
future life, but refer to this present existence. The idea is, “have true life.”

Translation. Furthermore, we have been having indeed fathers of our flesh as chasteners, and we have
been in the habit of giving them reverence. Shall we not much rather put ourselves in
subjection to the Father of spirits and live?

(12:10) A comparison is now drawn between the character and end of the earthly father’s discipline and
that of the heavenly Father. There are two things that indicate the imperfection of the discipline of the
former, namely, it is during the brief period of youth, and it must cease when manhood is reached,
whether or not it has accomplished its end; and then again, the human parents are short-sighted, fallible.
They are sometimes moved by passion rather than by sound judgment, with the result that they are often
mistaken in their disciplinary methods. The thing that seemed good to them was not always best for us.
This latter consideration is brought out in the Greek word translated “pleasure.” The word is dokeo
(äïêåï), which has the following meanings: “to be of opinion, to think, suppose.” It is used of a subjective
judgment which may or may not conform to the fact. Thus, the word indicates that the judgment of the
parents on matters of discipline is based on opinion, conjecture, supposition. It is, therefore, not infallible
as is the case of the judgment of the heavenly Father. Such methods of discipline as those of our earthly
parents, while right at times, must sometimes have hindered rather than promoted true growth. But in the
case of the discipline of the heavenly Father, the results in our lives are to our advantage. Such discipline
results in the believer becoming a partaker of God’s holiness in his experience.

Translation. For on the one hand, they chastened us for a few days upon the basis of that which seemed
good to them, but He chastens us for our profit, to the end that we might partake of His
holiness.

(12:11) The word “no” in the Greek text does not negate “chastening,” but “seemeth.” The idea is, “all
chastening does not seem.” The emphasis is upon the fact that every kind of chastening, whether human or
divine, does not seem joyous. The words “for the present” do not merely mean “during the present,” but
speak of the present regarded as the time in which the chastening is necessary and good for one.
The word “yieldeth” is the translation of apodidomi (•ðïäéäïìé) which often means “to give back.”
Vincent says in this connection, “perhaps with a suggestion of recompense for the longsuffering and
waiting.” The word “exercised” is the translation of gumnazo (ãõìíáæï) which was used of Greek athletes
exercising in connection with their athletic games. It means also “to exercise in any way, either the body
or the mind.” Here it refers to the spiritual exercise which the recipients went through as a result of the
persecutions which in the last analysis were the chastening hand of God. That spiritual exercise consisted
of the struggles of the soul, the battle between the determination to go back to the temple sacrifices and
thus escape the persecutions, or to go on to faith in the High Priest of the New Testament in spite of them.

Translation. In fact, all chastening for the time being does not seem to be joyous but grievous; yet
afterward it yields a return of the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who are
exercised by it.

(12:12) The word “wherefore,” introducing the exhortation in this verse, refers also to the subject matter
in the preceding one. The idea is, “Because chastening is thus necessary, and serves for a wholesome
discipline, and issues in holiness” (Vincent), therefore “lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble
knees.” The word “lift up” is anorthoo (•íïñèïï) which means “to restore to straightness or erectness, to
reinvigorate.” It was used by medical writers of the act of setting dislocated parts of the body. The
Authorized Version translation “lift up,” is inappropriate to paralyzed knees which need to be set right,
braced, reinvigorated.

The word “hang” is in the Greek text pariemi (ðáñéåìé) which meant originally “to let pass, disregard,
neglect,” then “to relax, loosen.” The recipients of this letter were neglecting prayer. The word “feeble” is
the translation of the same word rendered “sick of the palsy” (Matt. 8:6). It is paraluo (ðáñáëõï) “to loose
on one side, to loose or part things placed side by side, to loosen, dissolve, to weaken, enfeeble, suffering
from the relaxing of the nerves, weak of limb.” Our word “paralytic” is the transliteration of this word.

Translation. Wherefore, the hands which are relaxed and the knees which have become paralyzed,
reinvigorate.

(12:13) The word “paths” is troichia (ôñïé÷éá), literally, “a wheel-track.” “Straight” is the translation of
orthos (Ïñèïò). Here the Greek word is used, not in the sense of straight as distinguished from crooked,
but more generally in the sense of right or plain, and by implication, even or smooth. The exhortation is
“exert yourselves to make the course clear for yourselves and your fellow-Christians, so that there be no
stumbling and laming” (Vincent). The word “lame” is cholon (÷ïëïí), “lame, halting.” It is found only in
the Synoptics and Acts, and is used mostly in the literal sense. It is used here metaphorically. In I Kings
18:21 where the Authorized Version has “How long halt ye between two opinions?” the LXX has, “How
long do ye go lame (cholaino (÷ïëáéíï)) on both your hams (ignua (Æãíõá), the part behind the thigh and
knee)?” The word here speaks of a spiritual limping, and in particular, to those among the recipients who
were most seriously affected by the persecutions, and who were on the verge of going back to the temple
sacrifices.

The exhortation is to the born-again Jews who had left the temple, to live such consistent saintly lives, and
to cling so tenaciously to their new-found faith, that the unsaved Jews who had also left the temple and
had outwardly embraced the New Testament truth, would be encouraged to go on to faith in Messiah as
High Priest, instead of returning to the abrogated sacrifices of the Levitical system. These truly born-again
Jews are warned that a limping Christian life would cause these unsaved Jews to be turned out of the way.
These latter had made a start towards salvation by leaving the temple and making a profession of Messiah.
But they needed the encouraging example and testimony of the saved Jews. The words “turned out of the
way” are the translation of another medical term, ektrepo (¦êôñåðï), “to turn or twist out.” Thayer treats
the use of this word in our passage; “lest it be wrenched out of (its proper) place.” Vincent says that “there
is nothing strange in the use of this word in a medical sense by our writer, whose work bears the stamp of
Alexandria.” This city in Africa was a great center of medicine. In 163 a.d., the medical school there was
the most famous in the world. Vincent suggests the rendering “be put out of joint.” These unsaved Jews
bore a certain relation to the New Testament truth as mentioned above. Now, if the saved Jews would
exhibit a weak and limping testimony, the unsaved would be in danger of being wrenched out of joint so
far as that position was concerned. The literal picture of all this is given by Vincent in the words, “Make
the paths smooth and even, so that the lame limb be not dislocated by stones or pitfalls.”

Translation. And be making smooth paths for your feet, in order that that which is limping may not be
wrenched out of joint, but rather that it be healed.

(12:14) The word “follow” is the translation of dioko (äéïêï) “to run swiftly in order to catch some person
or thing, to run after, to press on.” It is used of one who in a race runs swiftly to reach the goal (Phil. 3:12
“follow after”). Used in a metaphorical sense it means ”to pursue, to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavor
to acquire.” The word is seen, therefore, to have a sense of urgency about it, of intensity of purpose.

The exhortation to earnestly seek after peace, has its rise in the historical background here. Expositor’s
says: “The circumstances of the Hebrews were fitted to excite a quarrelsome spirit, and a feeling of
alienation towards those weak members who left the straight path. They must not suffer them to be
alienated but must restore them to the unity of the faith, and in endeavoring to reclaim them must use the
methods of peace, not of anger or disputation.” The exhortation is thus addressed to the saved among the
recipients of this letter, and in relation to their attitude towards the unsaved Jews who were in danger of
renouncing their professed faith in Messiah and of returning to the temple sacrifices. The holiness spoken
of here is defined in the context and by the historical background of the letter. Expositor’s says: “The
holiness which this epistle has explained is a drawing near to God with a cleansed conscience (10:14, 22),
a true acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice as bring the worshipper into fellowship with God.”

Translation. Constantly be eagerly seeking after peace with all, and holiness, without which (holiness)
no one shall see the Lord.

(12:15) The words “looking diligently” are episkopeo (¦ðéóêïðåï). The simple verb means “to look.” The
prefixed preposition epi (¦ðé) has a perfective use, intensifying the already existing idea in the verb, the
Authorized Version treating it as such, and a local use, adding an additional meaning to the verb, “looking
over,” thus “overseeing.” The same word is used in I Peter 5:2 where the elders are exhorted to take the
oversight of the local church. The noun form is used in Acts 20:28 where Paul calls the elders, overseers.
The idea here is that these Jews should exercise oversight over their lives to the end that they do not fail of
the grace of God.

The word “fail” is hustereo (ßóôåñåï) “to come late or too tardily.” In Heb. 4:1 it means “to be left behind
in the race and so fail to reach the goal, to fall short of the end.” It is used here with the preposition apo
(•ðï) which means “off, away from,” and means “to fall back from,” implying a previous attainment. The
participle is in the present tense and thus speaks of something in progress. The translation is “lest any one
be falling back.”
This exactly describes the situation of this unsaved Jew who has allowed himself to be led along by the
Holy Spirit in His pre-salvation work of convicting the sinner of sin, and of bringing him to the place of
repentance (Ch. 6). These Jews were thus the recipients of the grace of God up to this point. The writer is
concerned that they might fall back from this grace to the temple sacrifices again, and thus be irrevocably
lost (Ch. 6). It should be clear that the writer is not here speaking of the Jew who had already put his faith
in Messiah as High Priest. That person could not fall back to the sacrifices (6:9). He has been the recipient
of the work of the Spirit by whom he was regenerated, baptized into Jesus Christ as his Head and into the
Body of Christ, and permanently indwelt, and sealed with the Spirit by God the Father until the
glorification of his body.

The word “root” is riza (Õéæá). It is used in I Macc. 1:10 of a person. In the LXX (Duet. 29:18), it is used
of an evil person in Israel. In Matt. 13:21 it is used of one who has but superficial experience of divine
truth, has not permitted it to make its way into the inmost recesses of his soul. In our passage here, it
refers to the first century Jew who is disposed to apostatize and induce others to commit the same offence.
The words “springing up” are a present participle which pictures the springing up in progress. The root is
gradually revealing its pernicious character. The word “many” in the Greek text has the definite article
before it. It is “the many,” the majority in the church.

Translation. Exercising oversight (over yourselves) lest anyone be falling back from the grace of God,
lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and through this the many be defiled.

(12:16, 17) The recipients of this letter are exhorted to exercise oversight over themselves and the
churches, lest there be those guilty of fornication. The word “fornication” is to be taken in its literal sense
here. Expositor’s says that fornication was one of the dangers to which these Hebrews were exposed. The
word is not to be taken here as descriptive of Esau, however. He is described as a profane person. The
Greek word is bebelos (âåâåëïò). The word means first of all, “accessible, lawful to be trodden,” used of
places. Thus it means “profane, unhallowed, common.” It has the opposite meaning to hagios (ãéïò)
“holy, set apart, consecrated.” It speaks of the secular, the non-religious, as contrasted to that which is
associated with the worship of deity.

The profane character of Esau manifested itself in his act of selling his birthright to satisfy a physical
appetite, that of hunger. The birthright consisted of the honor and privilege of being the next family priest
at the death of the father. Esau had no appreciation of the spiritual side of life. His life centered about the
gratification of the desires of the body. Thus, in parting with his religious privileges, he declared himself a
non-religious person. He is, therefore, an appropriate warning to these Hebrews. They were in danger of
selling their birthright, the offered salvation which would be theirs in answer to their faith, for freedom
from the persecution which they were enduring, as Esau sold his birthright for the gratification of his
physical appetite. But note, how exact the analogy is. The birthright had been given by God to Jacob. Esau
knew of this, but in spite of it all, he claimed it and professed to have it. He sold what he did not possess,
but only professed to have, for a mess of pottage. These Hebrews who were in danger of apostatizing,
were not saved, but professed faith in Messiah. They were in danger of selling what they did not have but
only professed to have, salvation, for a mess of pottage, freedom from the persecution they were enduring.
After having despised the birthright to which he laid claim, and after having sold it for the gratification of
a physical desire, Esau, finding that Jacob had received it, desired it. But he was disqualified (rejected,
adokimazo (•äïêéìáæï)).
The reason why he was disqualified is that he found no place of repentance. There are two words
translated “repent,” metameleomai (ìåôáìåëåïìáé) and metanoeo (ìåôáíïåï). The former means “regret
or remorse for one’s actions because of the evil consequences entailed.” It is used of Judas (Matt. 27:3).
The latter means “a change of mind consisting of a reversal of moral purpose.” While these distinctions
are not observed in every occurrence of these words, yet Thayer says that metanoeo (ìåôáíïåï) is the
fuller and nobler term, expressive of moral action and issues. Here the word for repentance, metanoeo
(ìåôáíïåï), is used advisedly. While Esau could bring himself to the place where he was filled with
remorse because of his action, yet he could not get himself to repent of it in the sense that he was sorry for
it because it was wrong. The word “it” by the rules of Greek syntax, refers back to the word “repentance.”
Esau again is seen to be a warning to the Hebrew recipients of this letter. If they renounced their professed
faith in Messiah as High Priest and returned to the temple sacrifices, it would be impossible to renew them
again to repentance. They should take a warning from the case of Esau who could not get himself to
repent of his misdeed. We might observe in passing that there are just two sins spoken of in the New
Testament, the commission of which puts the performer in a place where he is incapable of being saved,
the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22–32), and the sin of Hebrews 6:6, neither of which can
be committed today, since the conditions existent in the first century do not obtain today. In the case of the
sin against the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus is not here in humiliation performing miracles as a divine
attestation of His mission, and in the case of the falling away of Hebrews 6:6, the temple sacrifices are not
being offered in Jerusalem. Both of these sins render the heart so hard that the person is impervious to the
pleadings of the Holy Spirit. All of which means that there is no person today who is beyond the reach of
the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. We can, therefore, preach and teach with the confidence that the
Holy Spirit and the Word can reach any sinner with whom we are dealing.

Translation. Lest there be a fornicator, or an unhallowed person such as Esau, who in exchange for one
bit of food, gave up his birthright. For ye know that after that, when desiring to inherit the
blessing, he was disqualified, for he did not find a place of repentance (room to repent),
even though he sought it (repentance) with tears.

2. When they come to New Testament truth, they come, not to the thunders of Sinai, but to the grace of
Calvary (vv. 18–24).

(12:18) The mention of Esau and his rejection in the previous verse, leads the writer to speak of the
judgments of the First Testament, and to compare them with the blessings of the New Testament. The
symbol of the First Testament and its picture is Sinai. The writer speaks of the latter as “the mount that
might be touched.” The word is spelaphao (óðåëáöáï), which does not necessarily imply contact with an
object, but sometimes only the movements of the hands feeling after something. It is appropriate here as
speaking merely of superficial contact. The word is a present participle, speaking of action continuously
going on. The expression means simply that the mountain was something material and tangible. The
Greek words “blackness” (gnophos (ãíïöïò)), and “darkness” (zophos (æïöïò)) signifying half-darkness,
gloom, nebulousness, as the darkness of evening or the gathering gloom of death. It is a darkness which
does not entirely conceal color. The word “tempest” is thuella (èõåëëá) “a sudden storm, a tempest, a
whirlwind.” It comes from thuein (èõåéí) “to boil or foam.” It is a brief, violent, sudden, destructive blast,
sometimes working upward and carrying objects into the upper air. Such is the description of Sinai which
the writer to the Hebrews gives as a picture of the First Testament. He assures them that his readers, in
drawing near to Messiah and His Cross, are not approaching such a place as Sinai.

Translation. For ye have not come to the mount which might be touched, and that has been set on fire,
and to blackness and darkness and tempest.
(12:19) Here the writer enumerates more of the things attendant upon the revelation of the law at Sinai, to
accentuate the material and terrifying character of that revelation upon which the First Testament was
founded. He is urging these Hebrews not to go back to that dispensation of God’s dealings with sinful
man, but on to the New Testament which emphasizes grace.

Translation. And to a sound of a trumpet, and to a sound of uttered words, concerning which sound
those who were hearing, made supplication that there should not be spoken an additional
word to them.

(12:20) The word “touch” here is thiggano (èéããáíï) “to touch, handle.” It implies a touching or a
grasping which affects the object. In classical Greek it is often used of touching or handling some sacred
object which may be desecrated by the one who lays hands on it. Here, to touch the mountain, was to
profane it. The words “or thrust through with a dart,” are not in the best texts.

Translation. For they could not bear that which was commanded. And if a wild beast touch the
mountain, it shall be stoned.

(12:21) The word “fear” is intensified as to its meaning by the prefixed preposition. It is ekphobos
(¦êöïâïò), literally, I am “frightened out or away.”

Translation. And so terrible was its appearance, that Moses said, I am terrified and trembling.

(12:22–24) Instead of returning to Mount Sinai, the readers are urged to continue their approach to Mount
Sion, the spiritual mountain and city where God dwells and reigns. Paul in Galatians 4:19–31 contrasts the
First Testament with the New Testament by speaking of Sinai and the Jerusalem which is above. The
writer here defines what he means by Mount Sion in the words “even unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem.” The angels are introduced here because they are the usual accompaniment of God’s
glory and ministers of His will. The words “general assembly” are the translation of paneguris
(ðáíåãõñéò), “a festal gathering of the whole people to celebrate public games or other solemnities”
(classical meaning). Here it refers to a festal gathering of the holy angels, and to the saints of God, living
and dead. The word “church” is the translation of ekklesia (¦êêëåóéá) which means “a called-out body of
people, an assembly.” The words “spirits of just men made perfect” refer to the saints in heaven. The
festal character of this great company is set in sharp contrast to the sombre, terrible appearance of Sinai.
Thus, does the writer warn his readers not to go back to the First Testament, to Sinai, and judgment, and
exhorts them to go on to the New Testament and join this vast multitude composing this festal gathering.
But best of all, the readers, if they place their faith in Messiah as High Priest, come to Jesus, the mediator
of the New Testament. They come also to the blood of sprinkling, Jesus’ blood, which speaks better things
than the blood of the sacrificial animal which Abel offered. It is not Abel’s own blood which is compared
here with Jesus’ blood, for the historical background and the analysis of the book show that the purpose of
the writer is to prove that Jesus’ blood of the New Testament is better than and takes the place of the
animal blood shed under the First Testament. Our exegesis of this verse, therefore, is in line with the
analysis of the letter. Again, the writer confronts his readers with the superiority of Jesus’ blood as over
against that of the Levitical sacrifices.
Translation. But ye have come to Mount Sion, even to the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable multitude of angels, to a festal gathering, and to the assembly of the
first born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just
men who have been made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of the new testament, and to
the blood which speaks better things than that of Abel.

3. They are warned not to refuse the Lord Jesus, for those who refused Moses were punished (vv.
25–29).

(12:25) “See” is the translation of blepo (âëåðï) which as used here, has the idea of “see to it.” The verb is
in the present imperative which speaks of continuous action. The idea is “ever keep a watchful eye open,”
thus, “ever be seeing to it that you refuse not him that speaketh.” The word “refuse” is the translation of
paraiteomai (ðáñáéôåïìáé), “to deprecate, to prevent the consequences of an act by protesting against and
disavowing it, to decline, refuse, avoid.” The word “speaketh” shows durative action in the original,
denoting something that is going on. The phrase “Him that speaketh” refers back to Jesus, the mediator of
the New Testament whose blood speaks of better things than the sacrificial blood which Abel shed. It is
Messiah speaking to these first-century Jews by means of His blood.

The “they” refers to the Jews of the Exodus. They refused (same word) God who spake on earth at Sinai
through His angels (Acts 7:38, 53). “Spake” is the translation of chrematizo (÷ñåìáôéæï). This word was
used in the classics of the response given those who consulted an oracle. In the Bible it is used of the act
of giving a divine command or admonition, or of the act of teaching from heaven. It refers here to the act
of God in admonishing and warning the people. The words “if we turn away” are a present participle,
speaking of action then going on. It speaks of the turning away of some of these Hebrews from the
Messiah, back to the temple sacrifices, which was in progress at the time of the writing of this letter. God
spoke on earth at Sinai in the sense that He spoke through angels who had been sent by Him. He speaks
from heaven in that He speaks through His glorified Son.

Translation. Constantly be seeing to it that ye do not disavow Him who is speaking. For if, as is the
case, those did not escape who disavowed Him that warned (them) upon earth, much
rather shall not we escape who are turning away from the One who is speaking from
heaven.

(12:26) The pronoun “whose” refers to God whose voice at Sinai at that time shook the earth, but who
since Calvary, is speaking, not through angels but through His Son. But a future time will come when God
will not only shake the earth but the heavens. The writer quotes the prophecy of Haggai (2:6). This will be
fulfilled during the Great Tribulation period at which time the movements and functions of the heavenly
bodies will be disorganized (Rev. 6:12–17, 8:12), and an earthquake will shake the entire earth, occurring
at the moment the Messiah’s feet touch the Mount of Olives at the close of the Great Tribulation (Zech.
14:4, 5; Rev. 6:12, 11:13, 16:18, 18:).

Translation. Whose voice then shook the earth: But now He has promised, this promise being on record,
saying, Yet once (more) I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven.

(12:27) The writer calls the attention of his readers to the words “yet once more.” They are specially
significant because they indicate that the shaking predicted by Haggai is to be final. It precedes the new
heaven and the new earth (Rev. 21:1).
The word “removing” is the translation of metatithemi (ìåôáôéèåìé) which means “to transfer to a new
basis, to transpose, to change.” It refers to the act of God transferring to a new basis, this present universe
which is under the curse of Adam’s sin, that new basis being a new and perfect universe. John speaks of
this in the words “I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed
away” (Rev. 21:1). The universe was created by God, but will be made to pass away, and to be substituted
by a new universe which will exist forever. Thus, transitory, perishable things must pass away, in order
that the eternal things may appear in their abiding value. The writer is pointing out that the passing away
of perishable things only emphasizes the eternal. One of these is mentioned in the next verse, an eternal
kingdom, the kingdom of God’s rule over the saved of the human race on a new earth all through eternity.
The old earth will pass away and a new earth will be made so that the saints might have a fit place of
habitation throughout the eternal ages.

Translation. And this word, yet once more, makes evident the transposition upon a new basis of the
things that are shaken as of things made, in order that the things that are not shaken might
remain.

(12:28, 29) The writer exhorts his readers to appropriate the enabling grace of God (4:16, 12:15) so that
they may serve Him so as to be well-pleasing (acceptable) in His sight. The word “reverence” is eulabeia
(åÛëáâåéá) which means “caution, circumspection, discretion,” thus, in a context such as this “pious care.”
The words “godly fear” are the translation of deos (äåïò), the fundamental idea of which is “timid
apprehension of danger,” as over against phobos (öïâïò) which speaks of the terror which seizes one
when danger appears. Here deos (äåïò) speaks, not of a slavish, cringing apprehension, but of a
wholesome regard for a holy God and His standards and requirements, which if a person violates, he must
suffer the consequences. The words, “our God is a consuming fire” are derived from Deuteronomy 4:24.
Expositor’s says: “The fire and smoke which manifested His presence at Sinai (v. 18) were but symbols of
that consuming holiness that destroys all persistent inexcusable evil. It is God Himself who is the fire with
which you have to do, not a mere physical, material, quenchable fire.” The historical background of this
last statement here is that of the apostate Jew who having left the temple sacrifices, and having made a
profession of faith in Messiah as High Priest, now renounces that professed faith and returns to the
Levitical system. To that person, God is a consuming fire.

Translation. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us be having grace, by means
of which we might be serving God, well pleasing to Him, doing this with pious care and
fear, for our God is a consuming fire.
Chapter 13

4. General exhortations (13:1–17).

(13 :1) The words “brotherly love” are the translation of philadelphia (öéëáäåëöéá). The word agapao
(•ãáðáï) which speaks of God’s love (John 3:16), of the love produced in the heart of the yielded believer
by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), and the love defined by Paul in I Corinthians 13, is not used here. The one
the writer uses is phileo (öéëåï), which speaks of human affection, fondness, a non-ethical, though
perfectly legitimate, form of love. Expositor’s labels these exhortations (vv. 1–3) as exhortations to social
manifestations of the Christianity of the recipients of this letter. The same authority says: “In the general
decay of their faith, tendencies to disown Christian fellowship had become apparent (10:24, 25).” The
word “brother” in the Greek, adelphos (•äåëöïò), means “from the same womb.” Thus, the basis of their
Christian fondness and affection for each other, the source of their Christian fellowship, was the fact that
they all came from the same source, having one Father God.

Translation. Let brotherly affection continue.

(13:2) This tendency to the neglect of Christian fellowship would lead to failure to recognize the needs of
Christians coming from a distance. Hospitality should be shown such, especially to those who because of
their profession of the Messiah had suffered persecution (10:32–34).

Translation. Of hospitality, be not forgetful, for through this (namely, hospitality) some have shown
hospitality to angels unawares.

(13:3) Writing to these first-century Jews who were enduring the persecution of their brethren after the
flesh who had not left the temple, the writer exhorts them to be mindful of their fellow-believers when
they suffer imprisonment and adversity, remembering that each of them is still in the physical body, and
thus subject to persecution.

Translation. Be mindful of those in bonds as bound with them, of them who are suffering ill-treatment
as also yourselves being in a body.

(13:4) This verse is hortatory in character, in keeping with the context in which it is found. The verb of
being is omitted frequently in the Greek text, as it is here, and is supplied by the translators. The problem
is as to whether it is the present indicative that is to be supplied, which would make the contents
declarative in nature, or the present imperative, which would make them hortatory. The context decides
for the latter. It is, “Let marriage be held in honor among all” (Expositor’s), or “Let your marriage be held
in honor in all things” (Alford). The word “honor” is timios (ôéìéïò) which means, “held as of great price,
esteemed, especially dear.” Alford then translates, “And your marriage bed be undefiled.” Expositor’s
says: “As a natural result of holding marriage in honor, its ideal sanctity will be violated neither by the
married nor by the unmarried.” Expositor’s translates, “And thus let the bed be undefiled.”

Translation. Let your marriage be held in honor in all things, and thus let your marriage-bed be
undefiled, for whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
(13:5, 6) The word “conversation” today is limited in its meaning to converse between two or more
persons. In 1611 a.d., when the Authorized Version was translated, it meant what the Greek word means,
“manner of life, behavior.” The words “without covetousness” are the translation of aphilarguros
(•öéëáñãõñïò), made up of phileo (öéëåï) “to be fond of,” arguros (•ñãõñïò) “silver,” and Alpha
prefixed, the total word meaning “without fondness for silver.” The exhortation is against covetousness in
the form of love of money.

The word “content” is the translation of arkeo (•ñêåï) “to be possessed of unfailing strength, to be strong,
to suffice, to be enough,” finally, “to be satisfied, contented.” The underlying thought is that one should be
satisfied with that which meets our need, and not desire a superfluity. The cognate noun of this verb is
compounded with the personal pronoun “self” in Philippians 4:11 to mean “self-sufficient.” This latter
word was used by the Stoics to express the favorite doctrine of the sect, that man should be sufficient to
himself for all things, able by the power of his will to resist the shock of circumstance. Paul was
self-sufficient because he was Christ-dependent. The word “content,” therefore, in our Hebrew passage
means more than “satisfied.” It refers to the ability of the Christian dependent upon the Holy Spirit, to be
independent of outward circumstances. The words “such things as ye have” are the translation of tois
parousin (ôïéò ðáñïõóéí), literally, “the things which are at present around one,” namely, one’s
circumstances.

The reason why the child of God can and should obey these admonitions, is now given. The words “He
hath said,” are intensive in the Greek text, “He Himself hath said.” The following promise and guarantee
was spoken by God Himself. The word “leave” is not the usual word which means “to leave,” leipo
(ëåéðï), but aniemi (•íéåìé) “to send back, to relax, to loosen, not to uphold, to let sink.” It is preceded by
two negatives in the Greek text which in English make a positive, but which in Greek only serve to
strengthen the negation. It is “I will not, I will not cease to sustain and uphold thee.” The word “forsake”
is a compound of three Greek words, egkataleipo, eg (¦ãêáôáëåéðï, ¦ã) meaning “in,” kata (êáôá)
meaning “down,” and leipo (ëåéðï) meaning “to leave.” Leipo (Ëåéðï) has the idea of forsaking one, kata
(êáôá) suggests rejection, defeat, helplessness, and eg (¦ã) refers to some place or circumstance in which a
person may find himself helpless, forsaken. The meaning of the word is that of forsaking someone in a
state of defeat or helplessness in the midst of hostile circumstances. The word in its totality means “to
abandon, desert, leave in straits, leave helpless, leave destitute, leave in the lurch, let one down.” There
are three negatives before this word, making the promise one of triple assurance. It is, “I will not, I will
not, I will not let thee down, leave thee in the lurch, leave thee destitute, leave thee in straits and helpless,
abandon thee.” All of which means that our God will come to our rescue when we find ourselves in
difficult circumstances.

As a consequence we may boldly say, “The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto
me.” The Greek text is literally, “So that, being of good courage, we say.” The writer now quotes the LXX
of Psalm 118:6. The word “what” in the Greek text is not a relative pronoun but an interrogative. It
introduces a question. It is, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What shall man do to me?” The
first word in the quotation is “Lord,” the last word, “man,” as it is in the Greek text. These are brought out
in strong contrast. The Greek word for Lord is kurios (êõñéïò), the word used by the LXX to translate the
Hebrew word Jehovah.

Translation. Let your manner of life be without love of money, being satisfied with your present
circumstances. For He Himself has said, and the statement is on record, I will not, I will
not cease to sustain and uphold you. I will not, I will not, I will not let you down. So that,
being of good courage, we say, The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What shall man do to
me?
(13:7) The writer is still mindful of the danger which many of the Jewish recipients of this book were in,
namely, that of renouncing their professed faith in Messiah, and of returning to the abrogated sacrifices of
Judaism. He exhorts them to remember those which have the rule over them. The word “remember” is
mnemoneuo (ìíåìïíåõï), “to be mindful of.” Here it means “to think of and feel for a person.” The
exhortation is, “Remember, with a view to observing the admonitions of those who have the rule over
you.” The word “follow” is the translation of mimnisko (ìéìíéóêï) “to imitate.” The word “considering”
is anatheoreo (•íáèåïñåï) “to observe attentively.” The words “end of their conversation” are more
clearly, “the outcome or issue of their manner of life.” The exhortation is to remember their deceased
leaders, persons of such a nature that they spoke the Word of God to them (2:3, 4:2). Some of these had
probably gone to heaven by way of martyrdom. They are urged to imitate their faith while they at the same
time observe attentively the kind of lives they lived and the outcome and issue of their lives. They were to
imitate their lives where the latter tallied with what they preached. Thus, they would be guarded against
forsaking Messiah and going back to the temple sacrifices.

Translation. Be constantly remembering those ruling over you, especially as they are those who spoke
to you the Word of God, whose faith imitate as you closely observe the outcome of their
manner of life.

(13:8) This verse as it is commonly translated and interpreted, teaches that Jesus Christ is the same,
yesterday, today, and forever. And yet, in the light of the historical background of this book, the
unchangeableness of Jesus Christ cannot be the subject of the faith of its recipients, although that doctrine
is true. The thought of the writer is “Jesus is Christ, the same, yesterday, today, and forever.” The word
“Christ” is the transliteration of the Greek word meaning “anointed,” which in turn is the translation of the
Hebrew word meaning “Messiah.” That is, the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus of Nazareth of
the New. And that Person is the Messiah, the unchangeable One. Those who had the rule over the
recipients of this letter, those who had spoken the Word of God to them, they were the ones who had lived
and died in the faith that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah).

Translation. Jesus is Messiah, yesterday and today the same and forever.

(13:9) “Be not carried about” is the translation of me paraphero, (ìå ðáñáöåñï,) the present tense
indicating that this was a present and an active danger. It is “Stop being carried away.” “Divers and
strange doctrines” refer to the various phases of one radical error; the denial of the Messiahship of Jesus,
and of His Messianic sacrifice as superseding Judaism. The Greek text has “Stop being carried away.” Not
only was the danger present, but some were being carried away.

In the words “It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace not with meats,” the writer points
out the fact that the meats (the system of ceremonial observances), emphasizes externalism, whereas the
New Testament insists upon the purification of the heart and conscience.

Translation. Stop being carried away with variegated and strange teachings. For it is good when the
heart is established by grace, not with foods, in the which they who walked were not
profited.

(13:10) The writer now makes it clear that those Jews who persist in adhering to the First Testament
sacrifices can have no part in the blessings of the New Testament. The two testaments are mutually
exclusive. He uses the phraseology of the Jewish sacrificial ritual and the figure of eating a sacrificial
meal.
On the word “altar,” Vincent has a helpful note. “It is a mistake to try to find in the Christian economy
some specific object answering to altar—either the cross, or the eucharistic table, or Christ Himself.
Rather the idea of approach to God-sacrifice, atonement, pardon and acceptance, salvation—are gathered
up and generally represented in the figure of an altar, even as the Jewish altar was a point at which all
these ideas converged. The application in this broader and more general sense is illustrated by Ignatius: ‘If
one be not within the altar … (the sacred precinct), he lacketh the bread of God … Whosoever, therefore,
cometh not to the congregation … he doth thereby show his pride, and hath separated himself’… Ignatius
here uses the word, not of a literal altar, but of the church.” Vincent quotes Ignatius again as follows:
“Hasten to come together as to one temple, even God; to one altar, even to one Jesus Christ.”

The figure of eating at this altar, that is, of partaking of the blessings of the New Testament among which
was fellowship with God made possible by the blood sacrifice He offered at Calvary and the sinner’s
acceptance of the same, is taken from the peace offering in which the worshipper partakes of part of the
flesh of the sacrificial victim as a guest in God’s house, God showing His friendship and good-will toward
the worshipper by reason of the fact that He put away his sin at the Cross and the worshipper put his faith
in the Messiah as his High Priest.

The word “right” is the translation of exousia (¦îïõóéá) which has the idea of delegated right or authority.
It was a technical term used in the law courts, of a legal right. The expression “they … who serve the
tabernacle” refers, not only to the priests, but includes also the people who worshipped at the tabernacle,
for the whole drift of the discussion contrasts the privileges of the entire body of believers in the New
Testament with those under the First Testament. The tabernacle refers here to the entire Levitical economy
which was then being observed.

Translation. We have an altar from which they have no right to eat who are serving the tabernacle.

(13:11) In the previous verse, the writer states that the adherents of the First Testament are excluded from
the privileges of the New Testament. He proves this statement to be true by using an illustrative argument
drawn from the ceremonies of the Great Day of Atonement. Neither the people nor the priests were
allowed to eat of the sacrificial victims offered on that occasion. Even the bodies of the slain animals were
burned outside the camp of Israel. Expositor’s has a helpful note on this matter. “Sacrificial meals are also
shown to be irreconcilable … with the Christian approach to God, for our (Christian) altar is one from
which neither worshippers nor priests have any right to eat. The point he wishes to make is, that in
connection with the Christian sacrifice there is no sacrificial meal. As in the case of the great sacrifice of
the Day of Atonement, the High Priest carried the blood into the Holy of Holies, while the carcase was not
eaten but burned outside the camp; so the Christian altar is not one from which food is dispensed to priest
and worshipper.”

Translation. For the bodies of those living creatures whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the
high priest on account of sin, are burned outside the camp.

(13:12) As the carcases of the sacrificial animals mentioned in verse 11 were burned outside the camp of
Israel, so Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem. Expositor’s says: “The suffering outside of the
gate is equivalent to the shame of 12:2; the ignominy of the malefactor’s death was an essential element in
the suffering. The utmost that man inflicts upon criminals He bore. He was made to feel that He was
outcast and condemned. But it is this which wins all men to Him.”
Jerusalem was the center of the apostate Judaism that crucified its Messiah and continued the temple
sacrifices in defiance of God’s plainly revealed will (9:8). When the Jew would leave the temple sacrifices
in order to place his faith in their fulfilment, the crucified, risen Messiah, he would necessarily be
separated, thus, set apart from that Judaism which he had formerly espoused. The word “sanctify” in the
Greek means “to set apart for God.” Thus, our Lord by becoming a sacrifice under the jurisdiction of the
New Testament and as an outcast from Israel, set apart from the First Testament, and Israel, the Jew who
placed his faith in Him, and consecrated that person to God. It was with His own blood He did this.

Translation. Wherefore, also Jesus, in order that He might set apart for God the people through His
own blood, suffered outside the gate.

(13:13, 14) The writer now exhorts his first-century readers to leave apostate Judaism and the temple
sacrifices, and placing their faith in the Messiah as High Priest, bear His reproach, the reproach of
exclusion from the Jewish commonwealth. This exhortation was addressed, of course, to those Jews who,
while they had outwardly left the temple, yet had not placed their faith in Messiah, and were in danger of
going back to the sacrifices.

On the words, “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come,” Vincent says: “Here, on
earth. Continuing city. Let us go forth without the gate to Jesus; for the system which has its center in
Jerusalem, the Holy City, is no more ours. We are excluded from its religious fellowship by embracing the
faith of Him who suffered without the gate. The city itself is not abiding. As a holy city, it is the center
and representative of a system of shadows and figures (ch. 8:5; 9:9, 23, 24; 10:1), which is to be shaken
and removed, even as is the city itself (12:27); 8:13; 9:10; 10:9, 18.”

Translation. Therefore, let us be going out to Him outside of the camp, bearing His reproach, for we do
not have here an abiding city, but we are seeking that one which is to come.

(13:15, 16) The believer-priests of the New Testament are to offer, not animal sacrifices as did the
Aaronic priests, but the sacrifices of praise. The Rabbins had a saying, “in the future time all sacrifices
shall cease; but praises shall not cease.” Philo says: “They offer the best sacrifice who glorify with hymns
the Saviour and benefactor, God.”
But the recipients are cautioned that their obligations as priests are not exhausted with praise. Good deeds
must also be included. The Greek word translated “communicate,” koinoneo (êïéíïíåï), in this context
means “to make one’s self a sharer or partner” with someone else in his poverty or need. That is, the saints
are exhorted to share what they have of earthly goods with their fellow-saints who, undergoing
persecution, have been brought to a state of poverty by reason of the fact that their persecutors have
confiscated their goods (10:34).

Translation. Through Him, therefore, let us be offering sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is,
the fruit of lips which make confession of His Name. But to do good and to share with
others do not keep on forgetting, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
(13:17) Expositor’s note on this verse is so illuminating, that we quote it in its entirety. “Having exhorted
the Hebrews to keep in mind their former rulers and adhere to their teaching, the writer now admonishes
them, probably in view of a certain mutinous and separatist spirit, (10:25) encouraged by their reception of
strange doctrines, to obey their present leaders, and yield themselves trustfully (hupeikete (ßðåéêåôå)) to
their teaching—an admonition which, as Weiss remarks, shows that these teachers held the same views as
the writer. The reasonableness of this injunction is confirmed by the responsibility of the rulers and their
anxious discharge of it. They watch, like wakeful shepherds (agrupnousin (•ãñõðíïõóéí)), or those who
are nursing a critical case, in the interest of your souls (huper ton psuchon humon (ßðåñ ôïí øõ÷ïí ßìïí))
to which they may sometimes seem to sacrifice your other interests. They do this under the constant
pressure of a consciousness that they must one day render to the Chief Shepherd (v. 20) an account of the
care they have taken of His sheep (hos logon apodosontes (Òò ëïãïí •ðïäïóïíôåò)). Obey them, then, that
they may discharge their responsibility and perform these kindly offices for you (touto (ôïõôï) referring
not to logon apodosontes (ëïãïí •ðïäïóïíôåò) … but to agrupnousin (•ãñõðíïõóéí)) joyfully and not
with groaning (stenazontes (óôåíáæïíôåò), the groaning with which one resumes a thankless task, and with
which he contemplates unappreciated and even opposed work). And even for your own sakes you should
make the work of your rulers easy and joyful, for otherwise it cannot profit you. Your unwillingness to
listen to them means that you are out of sympathy with their teaching and that it can do you no good
(alusiteles gar humin touto (•ëõóéôåëåò ãáñ ßìéí ôïõôï)).”

Translation. Keep constantly obeying your rulers, and constantly be submitting to them; for they are
constantly watching for your souls, knowing that they are to give account, that they may do
this with joy, not with lamentation, for this would be profitless to you.

5. Closing words (vv. 18–25).

(13:18, 19) Expositor’s has an illuminating note on this verse: ”Both the next clause and the next verse
seem to indicate that by hemon (©ìïí) the writer chiefly, if not exclusively, meant himself; the next
clause, for he could not vouch for the conscience of any other person; the next verse because one principal
object or result of their prayer was his restoration to them. Request for prayer is common in the Epistles, I
Thess. 5:25; II Thess. 3:1; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:18; Col. 4:3. The reason here annexed is peculiar. ‘The
allusion to his purity of conduct, and strong assertion of his consciousness of it, in regard to them and all
things, when he is petitioning for their prayers, implies that some suspicions may have attached to him in
the minds of some of them. These suspicions would naturally refer to his great freedom in regard to
Jewish practices’ (Davidson). But notwithstanding verse 23 it may be that he was under arrest and shortly
to be tried and naturally adds to his request for prayer a protestation of his innocence of all civil offence
… The writer was conscious of a readiness and purpose to live and conduct himself rightly in all
circumstances. This gives him confidence and will lend confidence to their prayers. He is more urgent in
this request … because he is desirous to be quickly restored to them; implying that he in some sense
belonged to them and that the termination of his present exile from them would be acceptable to them as
well as to him.”

Translation. Be praying for us, for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience, desiring in all
things to be conducting ourselves in a seemly manner. Moreover, I beg of you the more
earnestly, to do this, in order that I may be restored to you more quickly.
(13:20, 21) Now the writer prays for those to whom he addresses this letter. He speaks of God as the God
of peace. The context here speaks of the substitutionary atonement of Messiah on the Cross, and the above
expression reminds us of Paul’s words in Colossians 1:20, “Having made peace through the blood of His
Cross.” That which separated a holy God from sinful man, namely, sin, was put away at the Cross. The
death of Messiah paid for sin, satisfied the righteous demands of the broken law, and made it possible for
God to bestow mercy on the basis of justice satisfied. We have an echo of all this in Ephesians 2:17, “And
came and preached peace to you who are far off (the Gentiles) and to them that are nigh (the Jews).”
The words “brought again” are the translation of anago (•íáãï) “to bring up.” The words “through the
blood of the everlasting covenant” are in a construction called in the Greek, the locative of sphere. The
New Testament is called the eternal one, in contrast to the First Testament which was of a transitory
nature. It was within the sphere of the eternal covenant that Messiah, having died for sinful man, was
raised up from among those who are dead. He could not be a high priest after the order of Melchisedec if
He were not raised from the dead. Sinful man needs a living Priest to give life to the believing sinner, not
a dead priest merely to pay for his sins. Thus, it was provided within the New Testament that the priest
who offered Himself for sacrifice, would be raised from the dead. We have a prophetic type of this in
Aaron’s rod that budded.

The words “make perfect” are the translation of katartizo (êáôáñôéæï) which means “to equip one for
service.”

Translation. Now the God of peace, the One who brought up out from among the dead, the Shepherd of
the sheep, the Great One, in the blood of an eternal testament, our Lord Jesus, equip you
in every good thing to do His will, doing that in you which is well-pleasing in His sight,
through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever, Amen.

(13:22) The word “suffer” is the translation of anecho (•íå÷ï) “to bear with or endure.” The writer pleads
with the recipients not to become impatient at his counsels in this letter. The words “word of exhortation,”
refer to the entire letter which the writer regards as hortatory rather than didactic or consolatory. The
words “I have written a letter,” are the translation of epistello (¦ðéóôåëëï) “to send” one a message,
command. It is used of sending a letter, of enjoining by letter, of writing instructions. Our word “epistle”
is derived from the cognate Greek noun. In the words “in few words,” there is a suggestion of apology.
The writer exhorts against impatience in view of the fact that the letter is short.

Translation. And I beg of you, please, brethren, patiently permit the word of exhortation, for verily I am
writing you in few words.

(13:23) Timothy had been under arrest, but as to where, when, and why is not known.

Translation. Know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he come quickly, I will
see you.
(13:24, 25) Both Vincent and Expositor’s say that it is wrong to determine the location of the writing of
the letter by the words “They of Italy salute you.” Expositor’s quotes Winer as saying “A critical argument
as to the place at which the Epistle was written should never have been founded on these words.” Vincent
says the expression, “They of Italy” may mean “those who are in Italy send greeting from Italy,” or, “those
of Italy (Italian Christians with the writer at the time) send greeting from the place at which the letter was
written.” He says, “The phrase affords no reliable indication as to the residence of the persons addressed.”

Translation. Greet all those who have the rule over you, and all the saints. There greet you those from
Italy. Grace be with you all.