Appendix C2 – Appendix H2

Appendix C2

APPENDIX C 2

Chapter 7:27. Who needeth not daily, etc A difficulty has been raised as to this verse. It is said that Christ did not, like the priests, offer up a daily sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, “for this he did once when he offered up himself.” It seems hence, it is said, that he offered a sacrifice for himself as well as for the people. In order to explain this, it has been proposed to take in the following verse; and it has been said that there is here an arrangement similar to what often occurs in the Prophets; that is, when two things are stated, the last is first referred to, and then the first. The two things here are the priest’s own sins and those of the people. The Apostle is supposed to speak first of what Christ did as to the sins of the people, and then that in the following verse he shews that Christ had no sins of his own, for he became or was made “a perfect priest,” and that “for ever,” being sinless not only when he actually offered the great sacrifice, but also sinless as our intercessor in heaven.

This is the explanation of Bishop Jebb, and is adopted by Bloomfield. That arrangements of this kind are found in the New Testament, and even in this Epistle is what cannot be doubted. But the last word, “perfected,” will not admit of the meaning given to it, “he is and was, and shall be everlastingly perfect and free from sin.” Were this its meaning, there would be a complete correspondence with the former part. Perfection is twice before applied to Christ in this Epistle, (chapter 2:10; 5:9,) but not in the sense above stated. When Christ is said to be perfected or made perfect, the meaning is that he is completely fitted and qualified for his undertaking, or that he has fully completed his work of expiation. Here the meaning seems to be that he is for ever made perfect as a priest, having not only once for all made an adequate atonement for the sins of his people, but also continues a priest for ever.

As to the 27th verse, it may be thus rendered, —

27. “Who has no need daily to offer sacrifices, as the high priests, (first for their own sins, and then for those of the people:) for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself”

“This he did” refers only to the offering of a sacrifice, and “for their own sins,” etc., apply only to the high priests. Thus we avoid the difficulty alluded to.

From an idea that the high priest offered sacrifices only once a year, i.e., on the day of expiation, Macknight renders καθ ἡμέραν “from time to time,” etc. He considers it as equivalent to κατ ἐναυτὸν “from year to year,” in chapter 10:1, and refers to Exodus 13:10, where “from year to year” is in Hebrew from “days to days,” and the same in the Sept., ἀφ᾿ ἡμερῶν εἰς ἡμέρας. Whether the high priest offered sacrifices daily, is what cannot be ascertained from Scripture, though Stuart refers to Leviticus 6:19-22, and Numbers 28:3, 4, where nothing satisfactory is found. He quotes indeed some words from Philo, who says that this was the case. Scott considered that what was done daily by the priests is here attributed to the high priest, they being his coadjutors. But Macknight’s explanation is the most satisfactory, especially as the comparison throughout is between Christ and the high priest.

The 28th verse may be thus rendered,—

“For the law made men high priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, the Son, perfected for ever.”

“Perfected,” or completely qualified, that is, as a priest. The word, perfected, depends as to its specific meaning on the context. The subject here is the perpetuity of the priest. The high priests under the Law did not continue because of death, (verse 23,) and this is the “infirmity” mentioned here, though in another place, (chapter 5:2,) it means sinfulness. Then the perfection of the Son is the perpetuity of his life, referred to in verses 16 and 24. The high priests died, and hence were not fitted for their work; but Christ lives, and therefore continues for ever fully qualified for his office. See verse 26.

Appendix D2

APPENDIX D 2

Chapter 8:1. This is the sum, etc Many think that the word κεφάλαιον does not mean here a sum in the sense of a summary, but a principal thing. So Chrysostom understood it. Macknight’s version is, “Now of the things spoken the chief is;” Stuart’s is substantially the same. But the idea seems to be somewhat different: the literal rendering is, “Now the head as to the things said is,” etc.; that is, the sum total, the whole amount.

Parkhurst quotes a passage from Menander which is very similar to the first part of this verse, Τὸ δὲ κεφάλιιον τῶν λόγων ῎Ανθρωπος εἶ— “But the sum of my discourse is, Thou art a man,” etc. The word means here the substance or the sum total. The word ראש, read, in Hebrew, has a like meaning, the total number of the people, Exodus 30:12; Numbers 4:2

Appendix E2

APPENDIX E 2

Chapter 8:9. And I regarded them not, etc The Apostle here follows the Sept., though in some other parts of this quotation he follows more closely the Hebrew. Our version in Jeremiah 31:32, is, “although I was a husband to them,” which is not countenanced by any of the earlier versions. The phrase is peculiar, not found anywhere else except in Jeremiah 4:17; which is rendered by Kimchi, “I have abhorred them.”

The verb means to have, to possess, to rule, to exercise dominion, to marry; and Pocock and some others think, that it means to loathe, to disdain, to abhor, when followed as here by the preposition ב and it is said that its cognate in Arabic has this meaning. The Vulg. here is, “and I have ruled over them;” and the Syr., “and I have despised them.” The expression is softened by the Sept., “and I have disregarded (or cared not) for them.” The same is done as to the preceding clause, “because they continued not in my covenant,” which is in Hebrew, though not as rendered in our version, “because they broke my covenant.” So אשר rendered by the Syr. and the Targ. “Which my covenant” has been derived from the Vulg., and is a construction which the original will not bear.

Still the most probable and the easiest solution is, to suppose a typographical mistake in Jeremiah 31:32, the word בעלתי: being used instead of בחלתי: there being only one letter different. The reasons for this supposition are these: — All the versions are different here from what they are in Jeremiah 4:17, where the same phrase is supposed to occur, — and this latter verb is found in Zechariah 11:8, followed by: as here, and means to “abhor,” or according to some, to “reject.”

There is also another word, נעלתי which has been mentioned, and has but one letter different; and as it is used by Jeremiah himself in chapter 14:19, and with ב, in the sense of abhorring or loathing, it may justly be deemed as the most probable word.

But Newcome suggests another thing, a typographical mistake in the Greek. There is another reading in some copies of the Sept., and that is, εμελησα, “I have cared for them;” and this would in substance agree with “I was a husband to them.” This conjecture is less probable; for it involves a mistake both in the Sept. and in this Epistle. But either of these suppositions would reconcile the passages; and it is singular that in both cases the change required is only in one letter!

Appendix F2

APPENDIX F 2

Chapter 9:2 The first, etc. Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart, connect “the first” with “tabernacle,” but improperly. The rendering ought to be no doubt as in our version, or as follows, “For a tabernacle was made; the first, in which were the candlestick, and the table, and the shew­bread, which is called holy.” We find in verse 3, that “the Holy of holies” is also called a tabernacle, which was as it were the second tabernacle, or the second part of it, see verse 7. The word “holy,” followed by “of holies,” is an adjective agreeing in gender with tabernacle; and “of holies” seem to mean holy things; so that it might be rendered, “The holy tabernacle of holy things.” The accents are of no authority. The word “holy” in the plural with an article, as in verse 8 and 12, designates the Holy of holies; or it may refer to both places, the sanctuary and the Holy of holies, for the people were excluded from both; and no access, strictly speaking, applied to them only.

Appendix G2

APPENDIX G 2

Chapter 9:9, 10. These two verses have greatly tried the ingenuity of critics, not as to the general meaning, but as to the construction. All agree as to the general import of the passage, and yet they find a difficulty in the syntax. This has arisen from not apprehending the style of the Apostle; he often arranges his sentences according to the practice of the ancient prophets. So he does here. In verse ninth he mentions two things, “gifts” or oblations and “sacrifices;” then he refers first to “sacrifices,” and afterwards to the “gifts.” Of the “sacrifices,” he says, that they could not perfect or justify “the worshipper,” for so λατρευόντα ought to be rendered here; but of “the gifts,” together with meats, etc., he says, that they were only imposed until the time of reformation. Here syntax is satisfied. The two verses may be thus rendered, —

9. “Which is a type for the present time, while gifts and sacrifices are offered, which (sacrifices) cannot perfect the

10. worshipper as to his conscience, being imposed (gifts) only, together with meats, and drinks, and divers washings, even ordinances of the flesh, until the time of reformation.”

Now, there is here a consistency in every part; δυνάμεναι is in the same gender with θυσίαι, and what is said is suitable to sacrifices, they being not able to atone for sin; and then ἐπικείμενα is of the same gender with δῶρά, and what is said of them is also suitable, that they were imposed or required only, together with meats, etc., which were rituals referring to the flesh or body, and not to the conscience or the soul, until the time of reforming or rectifying all things came.

Doddridge rightly states the efficacy of the Jewish sacrifices when he says, that they averted “temporal evils,” but did expiate offenses in the court above; they removed offenses against the government under which the Jews lived, and restored them to the privileges of eternal communion with the Church; and thus they were types and symbols of the efficacy of the true sacrifices by which we are restored to the favor of God, and to a spiritual communion with him.

Appendix H2

APPENDIX H 2

Chapter 9:16, 17. Much has been written on the meaning of the word διαθήκη in this passage. It is rendered “covenant” throughout by Doddridge, Macknight, Scholefield, etc.; and Scott is disposed to take the same view. Macknight’s version is this, —

16. “For where a covenant is, there is a necessity that the

17. death of the appointed sacrifice be brought in; for a covenant is firm over dead sacrifices, since it never hath force whilst the appointed sacrifice liveth.”

The difficulty here is as to the word διαθέμενος, rendered above, “the appointed sacrifice,” — by Doddridge, “he by whom the covenant is confirmed,” — and by Scholefield, “the mediating sacrifice.” But the word is never found to have such meanings in the New Testament, in the Sept., or in the classics. It is therefore impossible to accede to such a view of the passage.

It is then said, on the other hand, that διαθήκη does not mean a testament or a will in the New Testament nor in the Sept. This is not true; for it clearly means a testament or a will in Galatians 3:15, and in connection, too, with its common meaning, a covenant, see verse 17. Besides it has commonly, if not always, this meaning in the classics.

These two verses are to be viewed as an illustration, and may be regarded as parenthetic; and were γὰρ rendered “in fact,” or indeed, this would appear more evident, “Where indeed a testament is,” etc. As an illustration, a reference to a testament is exceedingly suitable; for with regard to Christ, his death was really the ratification of the covenant; as by death a Will attains its validity, so by Christ’s death the covenant of which he is the Mediator. Death in both instances has a similar effect. And this, and no more than this, seems to have been the intention of the Apostle. The different meaning of the same word in the same passage is to be found out by words connected with it; in the present instance διαθέμενος is sufficient, independently of the 17th verse, which can be rightly applied to nothing but to a will or a testament.

Many agree with Calvin on these verses, such as Erasmus, Beza, Schleusner, Stuart, Bloomfield, etc.