Lectionary Calendar
Wednesday, October 4th, 2023
the Week of Proper 21 / Ordinary 26
Take our poll

Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 7

International Critical Commentary NTInternational Critical

Search for…
Enter query below:
Additional Authors

Verses 1-99

The first paragraph (7:1-3), which is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, the first note of Melchizedek’s priesthood being that it is perpetual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7:4-10), that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood; this is implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully from the allusion to tithes.

20 There (ὅπου for the classical ὄποι) Jesus entered for us in advance, when he became highpriest “for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.” 1For “Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God,” who “met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him”— 2 who had “a tenth part (δεκάτην, sc. μοῖραν) of everything” assigned him by Abraham—this Melchizedek is (sc. ὤν) primarily a “king of righteousness” (that is the meaning of his name); then, besides that, “king of Salem” (which means, king of peace). 3 He has neither father nor mother nor genealogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling the Son of God, continues to be “priest” permanently.

This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4-10) are another little sermon, this time on the story of Genesis 14:18-20. In 6:20-7:3 the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is�Psalms 110:4 from Genesis 14:18-20. Εἰσῆλθεν in 6:20 is explained later, in 9:12f. Πρόδρομος recalls�Numbers 13:22), or of early fruit (ὡς πρόδρομος σύκου, Isaiah 28:4); the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12:8, where wasps or hornets are called the πρόδρομοι of God’s avenging host. The thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to do, after him, once like him (5:9) we are “perfected.” Vv.1-3 in ch. 7 are another of the writer’s long sentences: οὗτος ὁ Μελχισεδέκ … μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές is the central thought, but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, including a long μέν … δέ clause. The length of the sentence and the difficulty of applying μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές to Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of the sentence: οὗτος (Jesus) γὰρ (ὁ Μελχισεδέκ … τῷ υἱῷ θεοῦ) μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. But the οὗτος, as v. 4 shows, is Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8, for it is quite impossible to take ἐκεῖ κτλ. as “in the upper sanctuary (sc. ἐστιν) there is One of whom the record is that He lives.” There is a slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of the story, e.g. in ὁ συναντήσας κτλ. The story implies this, but does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who ἐξῆλθεν εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ ὑποστρέψαι αὐτὸν�

An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an inferior group of MSS is afforded by ὁ συναντήσας (C* L P). The variant ὄς συναντήσας (א A B C2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C (ΟΞΞΨΝ for ΟΞΨΝ), though attempts have been made to justify this reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in ὅς … Ἀβραάμ, or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv.1, 2. After βασιλέων two late minuscules (456, 460) read ὅτι ἐδίωξεν τοὺς�

In v. 2 ἐμέρισεν is substituted for the ἔδωκεν of the LXX (which reappears in v. 4), in order to make it clear that Abraham’s gift was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Genesis 14:18 (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72); τὰ γὰρ τοῦ πολέμου�

The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer’s own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a reference to this episode in Abraham’s career, but it has been excised for some reason (see R. H. Charles’ note on Jub 13:25). Josephus makes little of the story (Ant. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned from the rout of the Assyrians,�Exodus 15:7, r. Gen. 55:6,), who was ranked as the priest after the order of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded because he (Genesis 14:19) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God! This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten2, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence of Πρὸς Ἑβραίους. Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the episode than Josephus, and it is Philo’s method of interpretation which gives the clue to our writer’s use of the story. Thus in Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, 26 he points out (a) that Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλέα τε τῆς εὶρἡνης—Σαλὴμ τοῦτο γὰρ ὲρμηνεύεται—καὶ ἱερέα ἑαυτοῦ πεποίηκεν1 ὁ θεός (in Genesis 14:18), and allegorizes the reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. Ἀλλʼ ὀ μὲν Μελχισεδὲκ�Genesis 14:18 and hastening to add, οὐχ ὅτι ἐστί τις ἄλλος οὐχ ὕψιστος. Philo points out thus the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history.

In vv.1, 2 the only points in the original tale which are specially noted are (a) that his name means βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης; (b) that Σαλήμ, his capital, means εἰρήνη; and (c) inferentially that this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying Σαλήμ. All that matters is its meaning. He quotes ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, but it is ἱερεύς alone that interests him. The fact about the tithes (ᾦ καὶ δεκάτην�Genesis 14:18-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death; unlike the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light of Psalms 110:4, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot. 48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain in Genesis 4:15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why? Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now Moses never mentions the death of Cain διὰ πάσης τῆς νομοθεσίας, suggesting that ὥσπερ ἡ μεμυθευμένη Σκύλλα, κακὸν�Genesis 20:12)—Abraham’s evasive description of Sarah—is most significant; she had no mother, i. e. she had no connexion with the material world of the senses.

Ἀπάτωρ and�Psalms 110:4 among other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gen_14; indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from ἱερὸν Σολομών. Theodoret, who (Dial. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was�Isaiah 53:8, faces the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he explains, is described as�

Ἀφωμοιωμένος in v. 3 means “resembling,” as, e.g., in Ep. Jerem. 70 νεκρῷ ἐρριμένῳ ἐν σκότει�

Θεωρεῖτε (v. 4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14:13 (θεωρεῖτε δὲ πῶς πολύπλοκός ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλοτεκνίας στοργή); πηλίκος is a rare word, often used for ἡλίκος after vowels, though not in Zechariah 2:6 (τοῦ ἰδεῖν πηλίκον τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς ἐστιν), where alone it occurs in the LXX. The οὗτος (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) repeats the οὗτος of v. 1. We have now a triple proof of the inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Melchizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4-7); (b) he is never recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8); and (c) indeed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to Melchizedek (9, 10). Τὰ�Numbers 18:20, Numbers 18:21), is intended to throw the spontaneous action of Abraham into relief;�

Moulton calls attention to “the beautiful parallel in Plato`s Apol. 28c, for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in Scripture,” holding that “ὅσοι ἐν Τροίᾳ τετελευτήκασι (as is written in the Athenians’ Bible) is exactly like Hebrews 7:6, Hebrews 7:11:17, Hebrews 7:28.” But these perfects are simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note).

V.7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being blessed imply; the neuter (ἔλαττον) is used, as usual in Greek (cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly summarizes, from vv. 1-4, the contrast between the levitical priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (μαρτυρούμενος in scripture, cp. 11:5) is “he lives” (μήτε ζωῆς τέλος … μένει εἰς τὸ διηνεκές). Finally (vv. 9, 10), he ventures (ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, a literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi was committed διʼ Ἀβραάμ (genitive) to a position of respectful deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5; καίπερ ἐληλυθότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος Ἀβραάμ (the Semitic expression for descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in v. 10 ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρός) is another imaginative touch added in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. And yet Melchizedek’s is higher still!

(a) In v. 6; “forte legendum, ὁ δὲ μἡ γενεαλογούμενος αὐτὸν δεδεκάτωκε τὸν Ἀβραάμ, ipsum Abrahamam” (Bentley). But ἐξ αὐτῶν explains itself, and the stress which αὐτόν would convey is already brought out by the emphatic position of Ἀβραάμ, and by the comment καὶ τὸν ἕχοντα κτλ. (b) In v. 4 καὶ is inserted after ᾧ, in conformity with v. 2, by א A C Dc K L P syrhkl arm, etc. For�Matthew 13:32). In v. 6; the more common (11:20) aorist, εὐλόγησε, is read by A C P 6, 104, 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for εὐλόγηκε.

He now (vv. 11f.) turns to prove his point further, by glancing at the text from the 110th psalm. “It is no use to plead that Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priesthood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood.” He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later than the pentateuch; the point of 7:11 is exactly that of 4:7f.

11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge “with the rank of Melchizedek,” instead of simply with the rank of Aaron (12 for when the priesthood is changed, a change of law necessarily follows)? 13 He who is thus (i.e. “with the rank of M.”) described belongs to another tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar; 14 for it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when (εἰ = ἐπεί) another priest emerges “resembling Melchizedek,” 16 one who has become a priest by the power of an indissoluble �

>Εἰ μέν οὗν (without any δέ to follow, as in 8:4) τελείωσις (“perfection” in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to God; see v. 19) διὰ της Λευειτικης ἱερωσύνησκτλ. Λευειτικῆς is a rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, ἡ Λευιτικὴ μόνη), but never in the LXX except in the title of Leviticus; ἱερωσύνη does occur in the LXX, and is not distinguishable from ἱερατεία (v. 5). In the parenthetical remark ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, αὐτῆς was changed into αὐτήν (6, 242, 330, 378, 383, 440, 462, 467, 489, 491, 999, 1610, 1836 Theophyl.), or αὐτῇ (K L 326, 1288, etc. Chrys.) after 8:6 (where again we have this curious passive), and νενομοθετήται altered into the pluperfect ἐνενομοθέτητο (K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive (cp. Exodus 34:27 ἐπὶ γὰρ τῶν λόγων τούτων τέθειμαι σοὶ διαθήκην καὶ τῷ Ἰσραήλ) ἐπʼ αὐτῆς is not “in the time of,” for the levitical priesthood was not in existence prior to the Law; it might mean “in connexion with,” since ἐπί and περί have a similar force with this genitive, but the incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic νόμος could not be worked for the λαός without a priesthood, to deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always is that a νόμος or διαθήκη depends for its validity and effectiveness upon the ἱερεύς or ἱερεῖς by whom it is administered. Their personal character and position are the essential thing. Every consideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change in that involves a change in the νόμος (v. 12), the meaning of the parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the νόμος, though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. 11, 12 somewhat intricately; this parenthetical remark would have been better placed after the other in v. 12, as indeed van d. Sande Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19) he puts in depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant here: “the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood).” The inference that the νόμος is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. Ἀνίστασθαι ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15) and λέγεσθαι refer to Psalms 110:4, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12) an alteration of the νόμος as well as of the ἱερωσύνη. In καὶ οὐ … λέγεσθαι the οὐ negatives the infinitive as μή usually does; Ἀαρών, like Κανᾶ (John 21:2), has become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary genitive Ἀαρῶνος. In v. 12 μετάθεσις, which is not a LXX term, though it occurs in 2 Mac 11:24, is practically equivalent here (cp. 12:27) to�

We now (vv. 13f.) get an account of what was meant by οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών or ἕτερος (“another,” in the sense of “a different”) ἱερεύς in v. 11; Jesus, this ἱερεὺς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi. Ἐφʼ ὅν is another instance of the extension of this metaphorical use of ἐπί from the Attic dative to the accusative. The perfect μετέσχηκεν may be used in an aoristic sense, like ἔσχηκα, or simply for the sake of assonance with προσέσχηκεν, and it means no more than μετέσχεν in 2:14; indeed μετέσχεν is read here by P 489, 623*. 1912 arm, as προσέσχεν is (by A C 33, 1288) for προσέσχηκεν. The conjecture of Erasmus, προσέστηκεν, is ingenious, but προσέχειν in the sense of “attend” is quite classical. The rule referred to in εἰς ἧν φυλήν (ἐξ ἧς φυλῆς, arm?), i.e. ἐκ φυλῆς εἰς ἥν (as Luke 10:10) κτλ. is noted in Josephus, Ant. xx. 10. 1, πάτριόν ἐστι μηδένα τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν�Malachi 3:17 (διʼ ὧν πρόδηλον ἐγίνετο) and 14:39, as well as in Judith 8:29.) In Test. Leviticus 8:14 it is predicted (cp. Introd. p. xlviii) that βασιλεὺς ἐκ τοῦ Ἰούδα�Numbers 24:17, though it is just possible that�Zechariah 6:12; in commenting on that verse Philo observes (de confus. ling. 14): τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν ὁ τῶν ὅλων�1 Timothy 1:14, 2 Timothy 1:8). As the result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15) περισσότερον (for περισσότερως) κατάδηλον?1 The provisional character of the levitical priesthood, or the μετάθεσις νόμου? Probably the latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one from the other. In v. 15 κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα linguistically has the same sense as�

The μετάθεσις of v. 12 is now explained negatively �Psalms 110:4) προαγούσης (cp. IMA iii. 247, τὰ προάγοντα ψαψίσματα: προάγειν is not used by the LXX in this sense of “fore-going”) ἐντολῆς (v. 16) διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς (unemphatic)�Psalms 110:4, a solemn divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as permanent (vv. 20-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23-25).

20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart from an oath. Previous priests (οἱ μέν = levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but he has an oath from Him who said to him,

“The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, thou art a priest for ever.”

22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they (οι ̔μέν) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for ever. 25 Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf.

The long sentence (vv. 20-22) closes with Ἰησοῦς in an emphatic position. After καὶ καθʼ ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, which connect (sc. τοῦτο γίνεται) with ἐπεισαγωγὴ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, there is a long explanatory parenthesis οἱ μὲν γὰρ … εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, exactly in the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, ἐφʼ ὅσον γὰρ οἶμαι κτλ.—νοῦς μὲν γὰρ … αἴσθησις—ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον κτλ.). In v. 20 ὁρκωμοσία (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593:29, OGIS 229:82) which, like�Psalms 110:4 more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται (in the Hellenistic sense of “regret” = change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, says Suetonius (Vit. Claud. 22), “in co-optandis per collegia sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (i.e. that they were suitable) nominavit.”

The superfluous addition of κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχιζεδέκ was soon made, after εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, by אc A D K L P vt Syrpesh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 15, 40), etc.

Παραμένειν means to remain in office or serve (a common euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a family (cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 2, τῆς ἱερατικῆς τιμῆς μεγίστης οὔσης καὶ ἐν τῷ γένει παραμενούσης), but mortal men �Luke 2:4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν εἶναι). Ἀπαράβατον, a legal adjective for “inviolable,” is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh Chrys. οὐκ ἔχει διάδοχον, Oecumenius, etc.�

χάριτας ἐγγύου μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ,

ἔδωκεν γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ σου.

ἀγαθὰ ἐγγύου�

Our author might have written μεσίτης here as well as in 8:6; he prefers ἔγγυος probably for the sake of assonance with γέγονεν or even ἐγγίζομεν. As μεσιτεύειν means to vouch for the truth of a promise or statement (cp. 6:17), so ἔγγυος means one who vouches for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for μεσίτης here. The conclusion (v. 25) is put in simple and effective language. Εἰς τὸ παντελές is to be taken in the temporal sense of the phrase, as in BMiii:161:11 (a.d. 212)�Luke 13:11 better than this passage. This full and final ἱερωσύνη of Jesus is the κρείττων ἐλπίς (v. 19), the τελείωσις which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, a perfect access to God’s Presence. His intercession (ἐντυγχάνειν, sc. θεῷ as in Romans 8:34 ὃς καὶ ἐντύγχανει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) has red blood in it, unlike Philo’s conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii.14,�

A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28) now rounds off the argument of 6:19f-7:25:

26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, 27 one who has no need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Acts 26:18) those of the People—he did that once for all in offering up himself. 28 For the Law appoints human beings in their weakness to the priesthood; but the word of the Oath (which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever.

The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any importance. After ἡμῖν in v. 27 καί is added by A B D 1739 syrpesh hkl Eusebius (“was exactly the one for us”). In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense whether προσενέγκας (א A W 33, 256, 436, 442, 1837, 2004, 2127 arm Cyr.) or�

The words τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν (another daring use of ἔπρεπεν, cp. 2:10)�Job 8:20, Jeremiah 11:19), one of the LXX equivalents for תָּם or תָּמִים, not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; like�Leviticus 21:10-15 for the regulations, and the details in Josephus, Ant. iii.12. 2, μὴ μόνον δὲ περὶ τὰς ἱερουργίας καθαροὺς εἶναι, σπουδάζειν δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν αὐτῶν δίαιταν, ὡς αὐτὴν ἄμεμπτον εἶναι· καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν, οἱ τὴν ἱερατικὴν στολὴν φοροῦντες ἄμωμοι τε εἰσι καὶ περὶ πάντα καθαροὶ καὶ νηφάλιοι), and had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Κεχωρισμένος�

“He has outsoared the shadow of our night;

Envy and calumny and hate and pain …

Can touch him not and torture not again;

From the contagion of the world’s slow stain

He is secure.”

This is vital1 to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, as τετελειωμένος, and therefore able to do all for them. His priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal�Leviticus 6:19-23 the highpriest had indeed to offer a cereal offering morning and evening; but the text is uncertain, for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and also διὰ πάντος. Besides, this section was not in the LXX text of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day. Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo’s statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a daily sacrifice (quis rer. div. 36: τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας … ἥν τε ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν οἱ ἱερεῖς προσφέρουσι τῆς σεμιδάλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυεῖν�

Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU. ii.385 (ii/iii a.d.), τὸ προσκύνημά σου ποιῶ κατʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν παρὰ τῷ κυρίῳ Σαράπιδι καὶ τοῖς συννέοις θεοῖς.

A deep impression is made by the words ἑαυτὸν�

Bibliographical Information
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Hebrews 7". International Critical Commentary NT. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/icc/hebrews-7.html. 1896-1924.
adsFree icon
Ads FreeProfile