priest preserve himself free from defilement (Lev. xxi. 10 ff.); before the great day of atonement he must, according to the Talmud, spend seven days in the temple, apart from his family, in order to be secured against defilement. See Tract. Joma, i. 1. Comp. also Schöttgen, Horae Hebraicae, p. 963 f. — καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος] and (not "also" or "even," as Hofmann contends) raised above the heavens, inasmuch, namely, as He dieλnλve Toùs oúpavovs, iv. 14. Comp. Eph. iv. 10: ó ávaßàs vπepávw túvtwv tŵv οὐρανῶν.

แส

Ver. 27. In the πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν, ἔπειτα TWV TOû Xaoû there is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day of atonement (Lev. xvi.), comp. ix. 7. We are prevented, however, from referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sinoffering prescribed, Lev. iv. 3 ff.) by xao' μéрav, instead of which, as at ix. 25, x. 1, 3, kaт' éviavтóv must have been placed. For καθ ̓ ἡμέραν can signify nothing else than daily" or "day by day." To foist upon it the signification: yearly on a definite day” (“ καθ' ἡμέραν ὡρισμένην οι τεταγ μévŋv"), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, M'Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, as equivalent to "saepissime, quoties res fert" (Grotius, Owen), or "Toλλákis" (Böhme, Stein), or "Sià Tavтós" (de Wette), or in the sense of "one day after another" (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice!), is linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-embracing expiation of sinmust needs do day by day. For all that is expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the Levitical

high priests need to do daily. Nor does it avail anything that Kurtz will take ka' μéρav in conjunction only with our exei áváуnv, since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ka' pépav has "nothing whatever to do with the θυσίας αναφέρειν,” is a mere asser tion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the "daily renewal and daily pressing necessity," of the O. T. high priest on account of his daily sinning, the necessity," ere (on the great day of propitiation) he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacrifice for his own sins," was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion of the words, admitting as they do of no misapprehension,from which even the πρότερον, ἔπειτα, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary character of the one half of the statement, πρὸ τοῦ with the infinitive, or πρίν (πρὶν ἢ), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice of the Levitical priests (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), and by reason of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high priest-not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii. 3: in general as often as he was so minded)— went up with the other priests into the temple, and took part in the sacrificial service. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, ν. 5. 7 : Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνῄει μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἀεί, ταῖς δ ̓ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη δι ̓ ἔτους. Το be compared also are the words of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), remarks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for themselves, but the lambs for

1 The unsatisfactory character of the above exposition was afterwards acknowledged by Delitzsch himself, and the explanation retracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschr. f.die gesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 595).

the people ( ̓Αλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμι δάλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν, οὓς ἀναφέρειν διείρηται), and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the offering of a daily sacrifice (οὕτω τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους συγγενὴς καὶ ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι, πρυτανεύων μὲν τὰ δίκαια τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ ̓ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν). Recently also Delitzsch (Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschr. für die luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f.) has further drawn attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim, 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily. — τοῦτο] namely, τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίαν ἀναφέρειν. So rightly—as is even demanded by ver. 28 (comp. iv. 15)-Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, Storr, Heinrichs, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 463), Alford, Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Bengel, and Ebrard supplement τὸ θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ; while, altogether wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back τοῦτο to the whole proposition πρότερον . . . λαοῦ. For in the application to Christ, to explain the ἁμαρ τίαι as the " dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per mortem" (Grotius), or as “Christi infirmitates et perpessiones” (Schlichting, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας, besides Christ's suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (1) is at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much opposed to the context (ver. 28) as to the linguistic use of ἁμαρτίαι. once for all; comp. ix. 12, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10. ἐποίησεν, not to ἀνενέγκας. — ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not only the High Priest of the

·

ἐφάπαξ] Belongs to

New Covenant, but also the victim offered. Comp. viii. 3, ix. 12, 14, 25 f., x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2.

Ver. 28. Establishment of Toûто èπоiŋσev èþáπаž, ver. 27, by the definite formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant, a statement for which the way has been prepared by vv. 26, 27. The law constitutes high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. v. 2, 3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the oath, on the other hand (comp. ver. 21), which ensued after the law,-namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, ordains as high priest the Son (see on i. 1), who is for ever perfected, i.c. without sin (iv. 15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human doévela, however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, He needed not to repeat the same. - Entirely misapprehending the reasoning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the proposition, ver. 28, is likewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well ἄνθρωπος ἀσθένειαν ἔχων (according to chap. v.) as υἱὸς τετελειωμένος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (according to chap. vii.), and is here recapitulating () the two. Thus, then, ó vóμos yàp ... àσlévelav contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. v., and the thought is: "the law (in so far as it has not (1) been annulled) demands of all high priests (consequently () also of Jesus) that they be aveρWπоL EXOVTES ȧolévelav; the sworn word of promise, however (given after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as high priest the Son for ever perfected" (!). A misinterpreting of the meaning, against which even the opposition of ὁ νόμος . . . ὁ λόγος δέ, as a manifest parallel to οἱ μὲν . . . ὁ Sé, ver. 20 f., ver. 23 f., ought to have kept him. — TÊS μETÀ TÒV νόμον] The author did not write ὁ μετὰ τὸν νόμον, according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished to accentuate oprwμooía as the principal notion.

CHAPTER VIII.

VER. 1. ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις] Β: ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις. Explanatory gloss. Ver. 2. Recepta: zai oix avopamos. But xai is wanting in B D* E*, 17, It. Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. - Ver. 4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have si v záp. Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and Reiche. But yáp cannot be referred back to ver. 3, and upon the referring of it back to ver. 2 the addition, ver. 3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D* §, 17, 73, 80, 137, Vulg. It. Copt., al.), is the reading: iv ov, already commended to attention by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which is accordingly to be preferred. — Instead of the Recepta τῶν ἱερέων τῶν προσφερόντων (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first v within brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted merely τῶν προσφερόντων. Preferred also by Delitzsch. vispev, to the rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* *, 17, 67** 73, 137, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm. -ró] before vómov in the Recepta (recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A B * 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission. Ver. 5. Elz.: zoons. But all the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have ones, which also is found in LXX. Ex. xxv. 40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche. Ver. 6. In place of the Recepta vuvi dé, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D* Ath.): võv d. The more euphonious vuvi d is protected by A D** D*** E KL, min., and many Fathers. Instead of the Recepta rérɛu%: (B D*** **** min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there

δέ.

MEYER.-HEB.

T