they could not dispense with the ritual of the Jewish sacrifice of atonement for the attainment of salvation, naturally led him to insist with emphasis on the superiority of Christ as the heavenly High Priest over the Jewish high priests as the merely earthly ones. Since now, on the other side, it is equally undeniable that the author places the voluntary sacrificial death of Christ, and the entering with His blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies,-as the two inseparable acts of the same proceeding,-in parallel with the slaying of the sacrificial victim, and the entering of the earthly high priest with the sacrificial blood into the earthly Holy of Holies, and looks upon the sins of men as completely expiated by the sacrificial death of Christ itself (comp. ii. 14 f., vii. 27, ix. 11–14, 26, 29, x. 10, 12, 14, xiii. 12), there can be no room for doubt, that according to the mind of our author the investiture of Christ with the high-priestly dignity had already begun on earth, from the time of His death; and the representation of mankind in the presence of God is to be thought of as the continued administration of the high-priestly office already entered upon. So in substance also Riehm (comp. the detailed discussion by this writer, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 466-481); although it is certainly not in accordance with the view of the writer of the epistle, when Riehm afterwards (like Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 63 f., 2 Aufl.) supposes a distinction is to be made between Christ as High Priest and Christ as High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec, in that he represents Christ as having become the former by virtue of that which He did during the days of His flesh, as well as on His entrance into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and the latter only by virtue of His exaltation to God, where He ever liveth to make intercession for us. Ver. 18. Elucidatory justification of ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται K.T.A., and by means thereof corroborative conclusion to the last main assertion: ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι. Onval. Christ, namely, became qualified for having compassion and rendering help, inasmuch as He experienced in His own person the temptations, the burden of which pressed upon the brethren He came to redeem. Comp. iv. 15, 16 ἐν ᾧ] equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (comp. John xvi. 30: ἐν TоÚT, propter hoc), literally: upon the ground of (the fact) that, in that, i.e. inasmuch as, or because. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 211; Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 3, p. 93. The interpretation "wherein," or "in which province" (Luther, Casau bon, Valckenaer, Fritzsche, l.c. p. 94, note; Ebrard, Bisping Kurtz, Woerner, and others), with which construction an ev TоÚT corresponding to the ev has to be supplied before δύναται, and ἐν ᾧ itself is connected with πέπονθεν or with Tεiρaσleís, or else by the resolving of the participle into the tempus finitum is connected in like measure with both verbs, is to be rejected; not, indeed, because in that case the aorist éπalev must have been employed (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 392, 2 Aufl.), nor because the plural év ois must have been placed (Hofmann, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 320, note), for only slight modifications of the sense would result in this way, the substance of the statement itself remaining untouched, but in reality for the reason that the thought thus resulting would be unsuitable. For Christ's capacity for conferring sympathy and help would then be restricted within the too narrow bounds of like conditions of suffering and temptations in the case of Himself and His earthly brethren. Bleek, too, understands év & in the ordinary signification: "wherein," but then-after the example of Chr. Fr. Schmid-takes the words év Téπоveev as a kind of adverbial nearer defining to αὐτὸς πειρασθείς: “ Himself tempted in that which He suffered," i.e. Himself tempted in the midst of His sufferings. So likewise more recently Alford: "for, having been Himself tempted in that which He suffered." Against this, however, the violence of the linguistic expression is decisive, since πειρασθεὶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν Tоis πalnμаow, or something similar, would have been much more simply and naturally written. - The emphasis rests not upon πέπονθεν (Hofmann), but upon αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, inasmuch as not the Táoɣew in and of itself, but the Táoxe in a definite state, is to be brought into relief: because He Himself suffered as one tempted, i.e. because His suffering was combined with temptations. avròs Teipaσbeis, however, was designedly placed at the end, in order to gain thereby a marked correspondence to the following τοῖς πειραζομένοις. — δύναται] not a note of the inclination (Grotius: potest auxiliari pro potest moveri ad auxiliandum, and similarly many others), but of the possibility. - τοῖς πειραζομένοις] a characteristic of Toîs ådeλpois, ver. 17. The participle present, since the state τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, of temptation of the human brethren is one still continuing. Boneñoai] to come to the help, sc. in that He entirely fills with His Spirit the suffering ones, whose necessities He has become acquainted with as a result of His own experience. CHAPTER III. VER. 1. ̓Ιησοῦν] Recepta : Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Rightly rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. For against it stands the preponderating authority of A B C* D* M N, 17, 34, al., many vss. and Greek as well as Latin Fathers, and not less the usus loquendi of the epistle, since Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς is found nowhere else therein, 'Inous Xpiorós only [vi. 20, with D* E* It.] x. 10, xiii. 8 [20, with D* 17, al.], 21; quite commonly, on the other hand, the simple 'Inoous (ii. 9, iv. 14, vi. 20, vii. 22, x. 19, xii. 2, 24, xiii. 12, 20) or the simple Xporós (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, vi. 1, ix. 11, 14, 24, 28, xi. 26). — Ver. 2. iv öλw op oïxy abro] Instead thereof, Tisch. 1 and 2 reads merely vox abro. But for the deletion of λ the authority of B, Sahid. Erp. Ambr. does not suffice. w is defended not only by A C DE KL MN, Vulg. al., but also by the consideration that it forms a constituent part of the passage Num. xii. 7, to which the writer has respect, and the complete formula ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ aurou is, on account of its repetition in ver. 5, already presupposed for ver. 2.- Ver. 3. ouros don] Elz. Matthaei, Bloomfield: dóns ouros. Against A B C D E N, 37, 47, al., It. Chrys. Transposition for bringing into marked relief the opposition οὗτος παρὰ Μωϋσῆν. — Ver. 4. In place of the Recepta τὰ πάντα, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. read only úvra. To be preferred, not merely on account of the strong attestation by A B C* D* E* K M &, al. mult., Chrys. ms., but also because the notion of the universe, which rà avra would contain, does not suit the connection. Ver. 6. In place of iάvp, Lachm. (this editor, however, only in the edit. stereot.; in the larger edition he adds in brackets) and Tisch. have adopted, after B D* E* M ** 17, the mere iάv. The author, however, is fond of the fuller iáp (comp. ver. 14, vi. 3), and here it has preponderating testimonies (A C D*** E** K L **** Lucif. Cal.) in its favour. — μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν] Instead of this, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads merely xarázs. But, for the omission of the words μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν (already condemned by Mill, Prolegg. 1208, and more recently by Delitzsch and Alford), the authority of B, Aeth. Lucif. Ambr. does not suffice; and as a - - gloss from ver. 14 they can hardly be regarded, inasmuch as, with regard to the object the author has in view, they are just as little without significance here as there. See, moreover, the observations of Reiche, p. 19 sq.- Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. have ἐπείρασάν με οι πατέρες ὑμῶν, ἐδοκίμασαν με. . Defended also by Reiche. But the only accredited reading is ἐπείρασαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἐν δοκιμασία. Already preferred by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. ἐπείρασαν, in place of ἐπείρασάν με, is demanded by A B C D* E* * 17, It. Copt. Lucif.; v doxiaoíą in place of oozíμacúv ue, by A B C D E M * 73, 137, It. Copt. Lucif. Clem. Al. protrept. c. 9, § 84, Didym. — Ver. 10. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. Reiche: yeve izɛívy. More correctly, after A'B D* M 8, 6, 17, al., Vulg. Clem. Did. Bengel, Böhme, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford (recommended also by Griesb.): rõ yeveã raúry. Deviating from the LXX., the author chose rar, in order to make the bearing of the passage upon the readers the more palpable. Ver. 13. The Recepta ris i juv (adopted by Tisch. 8) is, with Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford, al., to be transposed into us, in accordance with BDE KL, 46, 48, Theodoret, Damasc. al. By means of the transposition, the person of the readers, in opposition to the fathers in the wilderness, comes out more emphatically, and more in accordance with the context. Ver. 14. Elz. Matthaei, Bloomf.: γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ] But the important attestation by A Β CDEHM 37, al., Vulg. Clar. Germ. Cyr. Damasc. Lucif. Hilar. Hier. Ambr. Vigil. Taps. decides in favour of the order of the words τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν ; accepted by Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Alford, al. Vv. 1-6. Even above Moses is Christ exalted. By so much higher than Moses does He stand, as the son exercising authority over his own house has precedence over the servant of the house. This new dogmatic consideration, to which the discourse now advances, was indeed already contained implicite as the minus, in the preceding argument as the majus; it must, however, still be separately insisted on, inasmuch as, in addition to the angels as the suprahuman agents (Vermittler) in connection with the founding of the Old Covenant, Moses, as the human agent (Vermittler) in the founding of the same, could not remain unmentioned. Appropriately to the subject, however, the author treats of this new point of comparison only with brevity, blending the same with the exhortation, |