Hebrews
The opening of this great epistle suggests grave questions in abundance, which the American committee slip in silence. They say nothing of the Revisers' departure from their rule as to the rendering of the aorist in 1:2, or the remarkable expression ἐν υἱῶ, where “in His Son” gives the idea inadequately, though it is difficult to represent it well in our tongue. For “as Son” is too vague, and “in the person of the Son,” or “in the Son,” would answer to ἐν τπω υἱῶ, as in the contrasted phrase ἐν τοῖς πρ., the meaning is that God spoke to us in One so nearly related to Him as Son. Very poor is Chrysostom's comment, Ἰδοὺ πάλν τὸ, ἐν υιῶ διὰ τοῦ φησι, πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας τῶ πνεύματι τοῦτο ἁρμόζειν. Ὁρᾶς ὅτι καὶ τὸ, ἐν, διά έστι; (Interpr. Epp. Paul. vii. 9. Field, Oxon. 1862.) So among the Latins Primasius, followed by a crowd down to our day, though not without a numerous and weighty protest. Again, in the dynamic sense of personal agency in π. is unnoticed, if the reading of the three oldest copies prevail against the mass in the omission of “by Himself” It is curious to see how Ebrard over and over discusses π. as if it were active, and the Vulgate renders it as a present, instead of a past and completed act. Nor is there a word on the questionable place of “again” in 6; but their first counsel is to omit marginal ("spirits"), which seem to be on just ground; for why “make” angels “spirits,” seeing that they are all assumed so to be in 14? The parallelism also points to “winds” here. The notion of making the winds His angels, and a flame of fire His servants, is ungrammatical and inadmissible in both Hebrew and Greek. The Lord really causes His angels to assume the shapes He sees fit. In 9 they would add to the first “God” marg. “or, O God.” Certainly many have so supposed, though Ps. 50:7 proves the analogy to the A. V., and the context (to my mind) is consistent with this alone. It is as man, not as God, that the Lord could be said with any propriety to be anointed. Compare Acts 10 and the very title of Messiah everywhere. In the aspect of divine glory we should not hear of “Thy fellows.” The Authorized and Revised Versions, were right as they are.
In 2 we have no remark till 16, where they propose for the text, “doth he give help to,” instead of “take hold,” which they would relegate to the margin. It comes really to the same sense, the one being the literal meaning, the other derivative. It is not angels that Christ takes up, but Abraham's seed. The assumption of humanity was taught previously in 14, and is in no way alluded to here, though no doubt His interest in the seed of promise is a consequence. The Authorized Version was a huge blunder—physically, grammatically, contextually, and dogmatically. Christ was Himself the woman's Seed; but to take on Him as a nature Abraham's seed is unintelligible. Besides, the present tense was therefore changed into the past to give it an appearance, but in vain. There is no contrast with the nature of angels; and if there were, the seed of Abraham would be a strange opposition. So that Chrysostom who made a similar mistake had to desert the text, and puts it as the nature not of angels but of men that He took up; just as King James' translators got farther away from the truth than the versions which preceded theirs.
It will be observed that they do not comment on the concatenation of 9, where the Revisers join some of the moderns against the ancients, nor on its close where an interesting question arises, excluded by all the English Versions; though it is well-known that the Greek fathers take it as neuter, which enlarges the scope and is in keeping with what has gone before, whereas we hear of “many sons” in what follows, not of all mankind.
Their only other reference is to 17, where they with Alford, Green, the Rhemish, &c. prefer “become” to “be” a merciful &c. Those who adhere to “be” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions, do not differ in sense, believing that our Lord only entered on His proper priestly functions when He ascended on high. If He were on earth, He would not even be a priest, there being those who offered the gifts according to the law. His is a heavenly priesthood.
In 3 the points noticed are of the slightest, “where” for “wherewith (9) as in margin,” and the “so” of the Authorized Version (as an alternative in the margin), in 11 where the Revisers have “as” —in 4:3 also. It is curious that all the older English Versions were right and had “where” till the Authorized Version. Had they remarked on the too common dilution of the Revisers which re-appears in 6, there would have been true ground of exception; for surely “as Son” is the sense, not “as a son.” They might have well pointed out also the loss of connection in 14 with 1:9, which all the old English Versions fail to keep up; not to speak of marking in the best way the links of the closing verses.
In 4:2 they are right about the singular text of the critics, adopted indeed on most ample diplomatic authority but with the strangest resulting sense, in the face of the great corroboration of the common text lent by the Sinaitic copy to the three known cursives, backed by the Vulgate and other Latin MSS., the Pesch. Syr. &c. But they do not object to the unfounded emphasis given to “that” rest in 3, nor to the enfeebling of 10, by withholding “own” at the end. They only would read in 7, “To day, saying in David, so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), Today if ye,” etc. Not even the serious error of “yet” in 15, imported from the Authorized Version into the Revised, draws out a word of remonstrance. “But yet” in Tyndale was a slight guard; the Rhemish is the best, for it has no supplement, as none is needed, and any such as is here insinuates the heterodoxy of its merely meaning that He did not sin. The statement however goes farther incalculably, and teaches that He was tempted, or tried, in all things in like manner, or according to our similitude, sin excepted—not sinning merely but “sin” excepted. In Him was no sin: it is that not only He did not sin, but there was nothing of the kind in Him He knew no sin. They are silent as to the last verse where “to help us in time of need” is freer even than the Authorized Version which omits the “us:” “for seasonable help” is surely better than Alford's “for help in time.” To limit it to “to-day” is not warranted.
On 5 they have nothing to offer. Yet we have again in 8 the worse than needless “a:” Son after the quotation in 5, and “first principles” instead of simply “beginning.” We may and ought to go on to full growth or “perfection,” but should never leave first principles.
Hence in 6:1 they fail to put the case in its full force, though quite justified in rejecting the strange paraphrase of the Revised text. The margin is preferable; and “full growth,” or margin, should have displaced “perfection” in what follows, for it is equivocal if not misleading, and v. 14 should have prevailed with the Revisers as to our verse. But was it not worth their notice that, it is “land,” not “the” land? They are warranted (9) in somewhat more than marg. “near to” and preferring “belong to” perhaps.
On 7 not a word, not even on the interesting difference of εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, here and in 10:1 rendered “continually,” in 10:12, “forever,” as compared with εἰς τὸν αίῶνα, “forever,” Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 286As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:6)
20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 6:20)
17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 7:17)
21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) (Hebrews 7:21)
28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28). It means without interruption or break, continuously, or in perpetuity whether relative or absolute; a precision of the utmost moment both as to Christ and as to the Christian, as may appear farther on. The difficulty raised by Commentators as to eternity has no real ground in the phrase.
8:8 has little to recommend it; for among the ancients it was expressly noticed that the apostle spoke of blaming, not it, but them; and it seems the natural construction to take αὐτοῖς with μ. rather than λ. But was there reason to say more in 1 than “a” chief point? So in 8 “days” are coming. Nor is there an effort even to express the different words for “knowing” in 11.
On 9 they have more to say, and first would have the margin of 4 change place with the text; that is, they would read in the text “altar of incense,” and in the margin censer. The ancient Versions, including the Memphitic of Wilkins, save the Latin of the Clermont MS. (avrevm habens altarem) and the Aethiopic which is here nil in its vagueness, are decidedly in favor of the Revised text, not of the margin. The word as in Philo and Josephus might express either; but the connection of the censer with the high priest's action on the Day of Atonement obviously strengthens its case against the golden altar; is plain that in 2 Chron. 26:1919Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. (2 Chronicles 26:19) θυμιατήριον “censer” in the king's hand is distinguished from θυσιαστήριον τῶν θ. “the altar of incense.” Compare also Ezek. 13:1111Say unto them which daub it with untempered mortar, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it. (Ezekiel 13:11) in the LXX with Luke 1:1111And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. (Luke 1:11); Rev. 8:3; 9:133And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. (Revelation 8:3)
13And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, (Revelation 9:13), which seem conclusive against the identification, and sustain the Authorized Version against Smith's Diet. of the Bible, i. 58, 288. For “parable” in 9 they would render π. “figure” and so in 11:19, as in the Authorized Version for both. This seems no great matter, and rather a question of linguistic taste than of substantial exactitude. It is agreed that “now” present is needless, as “then” in Authorized Version is erroneous. Much more important is διιά in 12, which the Authorized Version renders “by,” the Revised Version “through,” probably in the same sense. It is a total mistake to limit the preposition oven with a genitive to the instrument or means, for it also expresses time or state; as here how Christ entered heaven, not whereby. “With,” as in Rom. 2:2727And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (Romans 2:27), is the more correct, intelligent, and reverent sense, as there the Revisers properly say in contrast with the Authorized Version which has no just meaning, in Heb. 9:1212Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12) a possibly improper one. It was the way of atoning efficacy in which He entered, not the medium. Compare 1 Tim. 2:1515Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:15) for another shade of thought, “through” or “in,” not “by.” In 14 they would add as a margin “Or, his et. sp.,” I presume, to exclude the Holy Ghost from this offering, or at least to predicate it of His own spirit, as Alford &c. understand without “his.” But this is to miss the great truth on which Christians even from the most ancient times fell so soon away to their great loss; they failed to see His perfection as man in thus ever acting in the Spirit even to the closing and crowning fact that by the Spirit He offered Himself spotless to God. And if called here “eternal,” it is in exact keeping with the character of this Epistle where the Christian Hebrews are taught to view all their blessings thus, in contrast with the temporal standing, privileges and hopes of the earthly. people in its best estate, salvation, redemption, inheritance, and covenant. Their last point is merely to substitute the categorical for the interrogative form in 17 by substituting margin for the text. It is possible, though unnecessary: the sense amounts to the same.
In 10:1 it is a pleasure to agree heartily with the Americans in refusing “they” can (à A B D CORR P and some 30 or more cursives) against the rest of the uncials and cursives, confirmed by the ancient versions, which connect “can” with the law. “They” cannot be said to be in analogy with the Epistle: if defensible, it must be by making it in sense impersonal. And then follows the Lachmannic oddity of a period after πραγμάτων, and beginning a new sentence “They can never by the same sacrifice,” etc. Therefore it is here proposed to read margin “many ancient authorities read they can.” But not a syllable of protest do they utter against the error of the Authorized Version repeated in the Revised Version which takes vr. 12 εἰς τὸ δ., continuously, with Christ's having offered one sacrifice fox sins, whereas its true connection is with His session at God's right hand. Wiclif alone exhibits the same mistake, not Tyndale nor Cranmer nor the Geneva V. nor the Rhemish, strange to say. If it were indeed a participle present, it might go to prove the theory of the mass as a continual offering from the cross for the sins of living and dead. But the wrist falls in naturally with the contextual argument on the unity of the sacrifice because of its perfect efficacy; and the “continuously” goes with the utmost propriety and characterizes Christ's seat on high, though only stated as a fact. There He took His seat, not precisely “forever,” but “uninterruptedly” in witness of His completed and accepted sacrifice, instead of standing day by day to renew the same ineffectual offerings—not “forever” but henceforth expecting till His enemies be set a footstool of His feet. It may be of interest to note that the same phrase is used just after, in 14: by one offering Christ has perfected uninterruptedly the sanctified. His saints have been perfected without a break to disturb their acceptance, as freed from their sins by His blood. Their communion may be interrupted and is by every sin allowed: their clearance from guilt is as perfect as His work can effect. Out of communion we are powerless and fail to enjoy; and His advocacy restores our souls by the washing of water by the word which gives self-judgment. But the standing of the believer is in Christ and according to the value of a work which has so purged the worshipper that they have, as 10:2 says, no more conscience of sins. The conscience is so purged as to know that all one's sins are gone before God.
In 22, 23 the Americans prefer margin to the Revised text, but without sound reason, it seems to me; for the three verbs of call in the three verses are connected in due order, the approach being as simply strengthened by the two perfect participles which follow, as the holding fast the confession of our hope is sustained by the faithful promise of God, and the considering one another to provoke to love and good works, carried out especially in this habitual gathering together and by exhortation in view of the day approaching. Why sever “our body washed with pure water” from the foregoing? and why connect it particularly with what follows? Each of the subjunctives introduces a new scope, and has its own supports adjoining, and in no case preceding. The superiority of “our own assembling together” is not obvious. As to 34 it is a question between “ye yourselves have” à A H, some cursives, ancient Vv., &c)—or “ye have for yourselves” (D E K L, the mass of cursives, &c). Margin seems to me to be a mere blunder; and I could not say that any ancient authority countenances it, or if so, what matter? There are foolish enough things beyond doubt in the fathers.
The suggestion on 11:1 is unobjectionable. Here is the sense— “Now faith is confidence (3:14) in [things] hoped for, conviction of things not seen.” The rendering proposed for the text in 5 seems a mere twist without adequate ground. If no more than this could be questioned, the Revisers had small reason to fear criticism.
In 12 they draw attention to the strange, want of judgment in the Revised text of 3. There are a few ancient and excellent authorities which read the plural in one form or another; but the singular “himself” or “him” is the reading of Afford and Lachmann, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, none of whom lacked boldness in acting on a few old copies. The learned editors of Cambridge adopt it in their Gr. N. T. and were probably the chief influence in bearing down the opposition of others in the Committee. In 17 it is important to observe that what Esau sought diligently to obtain with tears was the coveted blessing. To have sought repentance with tears yields no good sense. This may show that an intervening parenthesis is desirable to help the unintelligent reader. It was not however a change of his father's mind but of his own for which he found no place. There was no real looking to God about his sins.
It is to be regretted that the Americans seem as far as the Revisers from correcting the vicious arrangement in 22, 23, where they all failed to see that καὶ, defines each new clause after the first in the sentence from 22-24. Mount Zion is the first; then comes the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; next myriads of angels, the general assembly; after that the church of the first-born, enrolled as they are in heaven; then God Judge of all; next spirits of just men made perfect; then Jesus mediator of a fresh (ν. not κ.) covenant; and lastly blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. It is confusion to mix up the church of first-born ones or heirs with theπανηγ. which really is in apposition with μυρ. ἀγγ. “To the general assembly and church” &c. is a muddle, the first term of which should end the previous object enumerated; the second begins a new one with the conjunction prefixed.
In 13:18 “honorably” or “rightly” is better than “honestly” as now limited in English. But in 20 “an” eternal is very much to be doubted. They did not suggest “an” eternal Spirit in ch. 9. Our tongue does not always admit of the characterizing power of the anarthrous Greek construction, as may be seen in almost every salutation of the Epistles and often elsewhere. Hence we are forced sometimes to use our definite article where Greek has none. More noteworthy far than any of these three is the true bearing of h, in 20, where the Revisers do not improve on the Authorized Version rendering. of “through” by theirs of “with,” for which they add the margin, “or, by Gr. in.” It is to be feared that our American friends with the Committee at home hold Calvin's strange idea, which Bleek of late defends though one hardly likes to put it on paper, of Christ's taking the blood with Him to heaven. It is really and simply in virtue, or in the power, of His blood. In 24 it seems needless to add the margin, “or, the brethren from.” It was implied, though Wiclif and the Rhemish have supplied it, following the Vulgate as usual slavishly.