de Profugis, p. 458 A, with Mangey, I. p. 553: Kaтà TηY πρòs тäλλα óμοlóτηTa): in like (similar) manner as we. — xwpis ȧμaρrías] without sin, i.e. without sin arising out of the temptations, or more clearly: without His being led into sinning, as a result of His being tempted. Comp. vii. 26; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John iii. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 22. When Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 37) and Delitzsch will discover in these words the additional indication that in the case of Jesus temptation also found no sin present, this is indeed true as to the fact, but open to the misconception of being supposed to imply that even the possibility of sinning on the part of Jesus is denied, whereas surely this possibility in itself must be conceived of as an essential factor in the idea of being tempted; and opposed to the context, because xwpis ἁμαρτίας is the continued note of modality of πεπειρασμένον, and thus cannot possibly specify something that was already present, even before the Tepáleobat came in. More in accordance with the context, therefore, does Alford express himself: "Throughout these temptations, in their origin, in their process, in their result,—sin had nothing in Him: He was free and separate from it." Wrongly Jac. Cappellus, Calmet, Semler, Storr, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others tempted in all things, sin excepted. For in that case Xwpis τs úμаprías (with the article) would be written, and this be connected immediately with xaтà Távтa. Mistaken, however, is also the explanation of Oecumenius, Schlichting, Dindorf: without having committed sin, as a guiltless one; an interpretation which would be admissible only if πeiρášeσdaι could be referred specially to the enduring of outward sufferings, which might be seen to be a consequence of sin.— Comp., for the rest, on xwpis apapтías likewise the kindred. statements concerning the divine Logos in Philo, de Profugis, p. 466 B (with Mangey, I. p. 562): Aéyoμev yáp, tòv ȧpxiepéa οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ λόγον θεῖον εἶναι, πάντων οὐχ ἑκουσίων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκουσίων ἀδικημάτων ἀμέτοχον. — Ibid. p. 467 C (I. p. 563): ἀμέτοχος γὰρ καὶ ἀπαράδεκτος παντὸς εἶναι πέφυκεν ἁμαρτήματος.

Ver. 16. Encouragement, derived from the character of the High Priest of the New Testament, as brought into relief,

ver. 15.πрoσépxeσbai] approach, draw near, in order to have community with something. Comp. vii. 25, x. 1, 22, xi. 6, xii. 18, 22. Too specially Delitzsch, Kurtz, and Ewald, who explain: drawing near in prayer for aid or succour. — μeтà πaрpnoías] with confidence (iii. 6), inasmuch as we possess, in the very office of intercessor, a High Priest who is not only exalted, but also full of sympathy, who thus has not only the power, but also the will to help. Opóvos TŶS XÁρITOS] - τῆς χάριτος] not: Christ Himself (Gerhard, S. Schmidt, Carpzov, Ernesti, al.), not: the throne of Christ (Primasius [also Tena, arguing from the Vulgate of ii. 9], Schlichting, Limborch, Chr. Fr. Schmid, al.), but the throne of God, at whose right hand Christ is seated. Comp. viii. 1, xii. 2 [Eph. ii. 18]. It is called, however, the throne of grace, because the nature of the New Covenant has, as its presupposition, not strictly judicial retribution, according to the works of men, but compassion and grace on the part of God; the believer feels himself united to God as a loving Father, who has remitted to him the guilt and punishment of sin. A reference for the rest to the cover of the ark of the covenant, regarded as the seat of the Godhead in the sanctuary (then or inaoτýpiov of the Old Covenant), assumed by Piscator, Schöttgen, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, al., and still in recent times by Bloomfield and Bisping (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in connection with the expression: ó póvos Tîs Xápɩtos, is not indicated by anything in the text. To obtain mercy and find grace (Luke i. 30; Acts vii. 46; comp. in Y, Gen. vi. 8, xviii. 3, and frequently) are synonymous terms. All distinctions, as that of Böhme: eos magis id appellat, quo indigebant calamitatibus oppressi lectores, xápis, quo peccatis non carentes; of Stein, that exeos relates to compassion towards the sinner, xápis to every manifestation of grace; of Bisping, that exeos refers more to the forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sufferings, while xápis refers to the communication of higher gifts of grace; of Hofmann, that xápi evρíoκew means to be brought into a state of favour with any one, to become an object of his good-will;" λapßável eλeos, on the other hand, is" a receiving of that which the kind and gracious One accords to those in need of His kindness, just on account

of their need," and many others, are untenable. — eis evκαɩρov Bonleiav] for timely help, i.e. in order that we may in this manner attain to a help which appears on the scene, while it is still the right time, before it is yet too late (iii. 13). Wrongly Tholuck, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, and Hofmann: "before the one in conflict with the temptations succumbs ;" and others (also Riehin, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 740): "as often as we stand in need of the βοήθεια.”

CHAPTER V.

VER. 1. Instead of the Recepta dãpá se nai lvoías, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read merely dupa xai voias. But the single testiδῶρα καὶ θυσίας. mony of B (D** ?)-for nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions-does not suffice for the condemnation of the particle. Te is protected by A C D*** (D*: rɛ dãpa) E K L 8, of, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Heb. viii. 3, ix. 9. — Ver. 3. Elz.: dià raúrny. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, al.: di airýv. To be preferred on account of the better attestation by A B C D*, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret (alic.). Instead of the Recepta avrou, there is placed in the text by Lachm., after B D*, airoũ; by Tisch. 1, auroũ. - But ἑαυτοῦ is found in A C D*** E K L N, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. The preference over the Recepta ip aμaptiv (supported by C*** D*** E K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al.; defended by Bleek, and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading

apri, already commended to attention by Griesbach ; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* §, 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because pi might easily, on account of the pi placed twice before, be altered into υπέρ, in conformity with ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, ver. 1. Ver. 4. áλλà xaλośμevos] So rightly already the Editt. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the preponderating authority of A B C* DE KN, 23, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. Damasc. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: ἀλλὰ ὁ καλούμενος, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophylact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatics is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to the significant oix

ἑαυτῷ. aur. Instead of the Recepta xalá≈≤p (C** D*** E K L **** Theodoret), approved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: xaú; Tisch., with Alford, after A B D* * Damasc.: xalop. The last, in favour of which Delitzschi also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious combinations. The article before 'Aapúv in the Recepta was already with justice deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty authority of A B C D E KL, many min. and Fathers. Ver. 9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: ros ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ πᾶσιν! But preponderating witnesses (A B C DEN, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: ão τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ. Already recommended by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring out the more noticeably the paronomasia of τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν with the foregoing τὴν ὑπακοήν.

Ver. 12. zai où σTEPεãs Tрopñs] So Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, al.; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, * Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only où σTEPεãs Topñs. But xaí is protected by A B* DE K L**** the majority of the min., many versions, and several Fathers.

Vv. 1-10. Emphasizing of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ likewise is not wanting.

Vv. 1-3. The first qualification: the capacity, as man, who himself is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity. To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further added ver. 4, the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in detail from ver. 5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express application to Christ, of that which was observed vv. 1-3. What the author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the homogeneity of Christ

MEYER.-HEB.

N