Appendix I2 – Appendix O2

Appendix I2

APPENDIX I 2

Chapter 10:5 But a body hast thou prepared me The words in the Psalm are, “Mine ears hast thou opened,” 40:6; or more literally, “Ears hast thou opened for me.” Calvin seems to have discarded the idea of an allusion to the boring of the ear in sign of servitude. The two verbs are certainly different. He evidently refers to Isaiah 50:5, “The Lord hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious;” which clearly applies to Christ. He therefore makes the meaning of the phrase to be, “Thou hast made me teachable and obedient.” This view has been adopted by Merrick, Bishop Horne, and Stuart. But how to make the words, “a body hast thou prepared for me,” to bear an analogous meaning, does not very clearly appear. Bishop Horne gives this version, “Thou hast prepared” or fitted “my body,” that is, to be obedient and to do thy will.

Mede conceived that the allusion is to the practice of boring the ear in token of servitude, mentioned in Exodus 21:6; and that as that practice was unknown to the Greeks, the Seventy rendered the words in conformity with what they did as to their slaves; which was, to set a mark on the body; “Thou hast fitted (or adapted) a body for me;” that is, that I might be thy servant. That Christ assumed “the form of a servant,” is expressly declared in Philippians 2:7. There is in this case an agreement as to meaning; but the difficulty is: as to the verb כרה which does not mean to bore or to perforate, but to dig, to hollow out, and in a secondary sense, to form or to make a thing, such as a well, a pit, a grave, or a cave. As to “ears” instead of an “ear,” as in Exodus 21:6, that might be accounted for by saying, that the object was to shew the entire willingness of Christ to become a servant.

These have been the two ways proposed to reconcile the passages as they now stand. There are no different readings in Hebrew, nor in the Sept., nor in this Epistle. Proposals have therefore been made as to a change in the texts on the supposition of typographical mistakes.

Some, as Grotius, Hammond, and Dr. Owen, have proposed ὠτία, ears, instead of σῶμα, body, in the Sept. When did this change take place? Before or after the Apostle’s time? If before, then the Apostle adopted a false reading; if after, then the same mistake must have been made in the Sept. and in this Epistle; which is not credible.

Others have supposed a mistake in the Hebrew text; and this conjecture has been approved by Kennicott, Doddridge, Bishop lowth, Adam Clarke, and Pye Smith. It is no objection to say that the Syr., Vulg., and the Targ., confirm the present reading; for the mistake might have been made long before any of these were in existence. Such a change might indeed have been made in the first ages of Christianity, and might have been made intentionally, through a wish to obscure the testimony of Scripture respecting Christ.

The words are supposed to have been אז גוה instead of אזנים, as the text now is. There would in this case be a literal agreement; the passage in the Psalm might then be thus rendered, —

6. “Sacrifice and offering thou hast not delighted in, Then a body hast thou formed for me; Burnt­offering and sin­offering thou hast not required,

7. Then I said, Behold, I am coming.” —

There is here a consistency throughout. “Behold, I am coming,” that is, in the body designed for him. And then the Apostle says, “When coming into the world, he saith,” etc., clearly referring to our Saviors incarnation. And this “body” is afterwards expressly mentioned in verse 10, in opposition to sacrifices. It is true that in his argument in verse 9, he dwells on the words, “I come;” but then his coming was in the body prepared for him.

Appendix K2

APPENDIX K 2

Chapter 10:14 He hath perfected, etc The word simply means to complete, to finish, to perfect; and it depends on the context what that completion or perfection means. To perfect the sanctified or the expiated, or those atoned for, was completely to free them from the imputation of sin, to make them fully clear from guilt, or in other words, fully to take away their sins, which was never done by the sacrifices of the law, verse 11. This is the point here handled. Stuart gives the real meaning by the following free translation, — “By one offering, then, he hath fully accomplished for ever what was needed by those for whom expiation is (was) made.”

The perfecting “for ever” by one offering in this verse, proves that “for ever,” εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, in verse 12, is to be connected with the offering of one sacrifice, and not with the sitting on God’s right hand; the verse may be thus rendered, —

12. “But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for perpetuity, (or, according to Beza and Stuart, ‘one perpetual sacrifice for sins,’) sat down on the right hand of God, henceforth waiting until his enemies be made his footstool.”

Some copies have αὐτὸς; — “he;” and some, οὗτος; — “this.” If the latter be adopted, it ought not to be rendered “this man,” but “this priest,” such being the word used before. As one sacrifice is opposed to many sacrifices, so a perpetual sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice perpetually efficacious, is opposed to those sacrifices which were often made.

Appendix L2

APPENDIX L 2

Chapter 10:19 21. Of these verses the following rendering is offered, —

19. “Having then, brethren, liberty as to an entrance into the

20. holiest through the blood of Jesus, which he has consecrated for us, a way new and leading to life, through the

21. veil, that is, his flesh, — and having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach,” etc.

It is rather “liberty” or freedom than “boldness,” and so it is rendered by Beza, Doddridge, and Stuart. The Vulgate has “confidence.” The word for “consecrated” is literally “initiated:” Christ first opened the way, and opened it for his people. The “way” is in apposition with “entrance.” It was “new,” in contrast with the old under the Law, and living or “leading to life:” so ζῶσαν evidently means here. It has often a causative sense. The “living bread” in John 6:51, is said in verse 33 to be the bread that “giveth life.” So here the living way may be said to be that which leads to life.

There is a division of opinion as to the “veil.” Calvin, Doddridge, Stuart, and others, take the veil as a figurative expression for the human nature of Christ; and they ground their opinion on the following texts, John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2:6. Others give this explanation, “As the veil was removed for the entrance of the high priest, so Christ s body was removed by death, in order to open an entrance into heaven.” But the easiest and the most natural way is to consider it an allusion to what took place at our Saviors death, the rending asunder of the veil of the temple, (Matthew 27:51,) which was a significant intimation and a striking symbol of what was done by Christ when he died on the cross. It was by his flesh or body being torn and rent, when suffering for us, that a way to the holiest was opened to us, and the same is ascribed to his blood in the former verse, so that one part corresponds with the other. The way was opened through the veil being rent, which symbolized his rent or torn flesh.

Appendix M2

APPENDIX M 2

Chapter 10:22. With pure water It is evident that baptism is not here referred to, because the Apostle is instructing the Hebrews, who had been baptized, how they were daily to draw nigh to God.

The words “pure water” are not found elsewhere in the New Testament, nor in the Sept. but once, Ezekiel. 36:25, where our version is “purifying water,” and no doubt correctly, though the early versions have “pure water.” It was a command as to Aaron, “He shall wash (λούσεται) with water his whole body (πάν τὸ σῶμα;)” So the Sept., but the Hebrew is “his flesh,” (בשרו,) though the Samaritan text has “all,” (כל) before it, Leviticus 16:4. See also Leviticus 16:24. The terms here used are sacerdotal or Levitical. The “sprinkled” with blood were the priests at their consecration, and not those who brought their offerings. See Leviticus 8:30. In no other case were any sprinkled with blood except the lepers, and the people when the covenant was made. Washing with water was also done by the priests at their consecration, (see Leviticus 8:6,) and whenever they ministered. (Exodus 30:20, 21.)

The reason of this allusion especially to what was done as to the priests, seems to have been this, to shew that all who now draw nigh to God through Christ are priests, for they all serve God as it were in the sanctuary, and like the high priest, enter as it were into the holiest, not once a year, but daily and constantly, whenever they hold communion with God.

As sprinkling in the case of Christians is continually needed, so is washing, as the daily washing of the priests before they engaged in their duties. (Exodus 40:32.) The sprinkling betokens forgiveness, and washing, sanctification or cleansing. See 1 Peter 1:2; and 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

It may be added that as (ζῶσαν, living, seems to have been used in verse 20 in a causative sense, so καθαρὸν in this passage; and it may be rendered, as in Ezekiel 36:25, “purifying.” The priests after washing were said to be clean, and were deemed to have been thereby purified, which proves that washing was nothing more than a symbol. Pure or purifying water signifies the sanctifying effect of divine grace.

Appendix N2

APPENDIX N 2

Chapter 10:26. Willfully, etc. It is rendered by the Vulg., “voluntarie — voluntarily;” by Beza, “ultro — of one’s own accord;” by Doddridge and Macknight, as in our version, and by Stuart, “voluntarily.”

It occurs in one other place, (1 Peter 5:2,) and is rendered “willingly;” it is found as an adjective in Philemon 14, and is rendered willingly; and in both instances in opposition to “constraint.” So that Schleusner’s explanation seems right, “with no compelling force — nulla vi cogente.” It is used in the Sept. for a Hebrew word which means freely, with free will, spontaneously. We may therefore thus render the words, “For if we sin of our own free will, (that is, renounce the faith, which is clearly the sin intended,) after having received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins.”

According to this verse the case of the persecuted is not here contemplated, for they are under constraint; but such are spoken of here as renounced the faith willingly, freely, by their own free choice; so that “willfully” is not what is meant, but spontaneously, without any outward constraining force or influence.

The fathers, such as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Augustine, sadly blundered on this passage, because they did not understand the sin that is here intended, though it be evidently that of apostasy according to the drift of the whole context; and hence they said some strange things about sin after baptism, though baptism is neither mentioned nor alluded to in the whole passage. How many errors and absurdities have been introduced by the fathers into the world!

Appendix O2

APPENDIX O 2

Chapter 10:30 The Lord shall judge The same meaning is given to “judge” here by Beza as by Calvin; but Doddridge, Grotius, and Macknight think it means to avenge, to vindicate, or defend. The argument is considered to be this, — “If God would avenge the injury done to his people, much more the injury or reproach done to his Son and the Holy Spirit.” Stuart and Bloomfield give the verb the sense of condemning or punishing; that is, his apostatizing people, — “The Lord will condemn (or punish) his people.”

The two quotations are connected in Deuteronomy 32:35, 36. “Vengeance” refers to idolaters; and lest an advantage should have been taken of this, he added, as it seems, these words, “The Lord will judge his people;” that is, he will call his people to an account, so as to reward some, and to punish others. The apostates might have said, “Though we leave the Christian, and turn to the Jewish religion, we shall not be idolaters; therefore the vengeance you threaten will not belong to us. To prevent this kind of evasion, the Apostle adds, “The Lord will summon to judgment his own people, and give to each according to their works. The fact, that God is a judge, who will reward some and punish others, is what is meant; and this view accords with the passage in Deuteronomy, and also with the design of the Apostle here.

The two verbs also, the Hebrew ידין, and the Greek κρινεῖ, will admit of this meaning. The first, indeed, though not the second, often means to vindicate, to defend; but the context in Deuteronomy 32:36, requires its sense to be that of executing what is right and just to all. See Genesis 30:6