Beginning

Footnotes

1. 7:1–3 Recalling the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham described in Gn 14:17–20, the author enhances the significance of this priest by providing the popular etymological meaning of his name and that of the city over which he ruled (Hb 7:2). Since Genesis gives no information on the parentage or the death of Melchizedek, he is seen here as a type of Christ, representing a priesthood that is unique and eternal (Hb 7:3).
2. 7:1 The author here assumes that Melchizedek was a priest of the God of Israel (cf. Gn 14:22 and the note there).
3. 7:2 In Gn 14, the Hebrew text does not state explicitly who gave tithes to whom. The author of Hebrews supplies Abraham as the subject, according to a contemporary interpretation of the passage. This supports the argument of the midrash and makes it possible to see in Melchizedek a type of Jesus. The messianic blessings of righteousness and peace are foreshadowed in the names “Melchizedek” and “Salem.”
4. 7:3 Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life: this is perhaps a quotation from a hymn about Melchizedek. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he remains…forever.
5. 7:4–10 The tithe that Abraham gave to Melchizedek (Hb 7:4), a practice later followed by the levitical priesthood (Hb 7:5), was a gift (Hb 7:6) acknowledging a certain superiority in Melchizedek, the foreign priest (Hb 7:7). This is further indicated by the fact that the institution of the levitical priesthood was sustained by hereditary succession in the tribe of Levi, whereas the absence of any mention of Melchizedek’s death in Genesis implies that his personal priesthood is permanent (Hb 7:8). The levitical priesthood itself, through Abraham, its ancestor, paid tithes to Melchizedek, thus acknowledging the superiority of his priesthood over its own (Hb 7:9–10).
6. 7:7 A lesser person is blessed by a greater: though this sounds like a principle, there are some examples in the Old Testament that do not support it (cf. 2 Sm 14:22; Jb 31:20). The author may intend it as a statement of a liturgical rule.
7. 7:9 Levi: for the author this name designates not only the son of Jacob mentioned in Genesis but the priestly tribe that was thought to be descended from him.
8. 7:11–14 The levitical priesthood was not typified by the priesthood of Melchizedek, for Ps 110:4 speaks of a priesthood of a new order, the order of Melchizedek, to arise in messianic times (Hb 7:11). Since the levitical priesthood served the Mosaic law, a new priesthood (Hb 7:12) would not come into being without a change in the law itself. Thus Jesus was not associated with the Old Testament priesthood, for he was a descendant of the tribe of Judah, which had never exercised the priesthood (Hb 7:13–14).
9. 7:13 He of whom these things are said: Jesus, the priest “according to the order of Melchizedek.” According to the author’s interpretation, Ps 110 spoke prophetically of Jesus.
10. 7:14 Judah: the author accepts the early Christian tradition that Jesus was descended from the family of David (cf. Mt 1:1–2, 16, 20; Lk 1:27; 2:4; Rom 1:3). The Qumran community expected two Messiahs, one descended from Aaron and one from David; Hebrews shows no awareness of this view or at least does not accept it. Our author’s view is not attested in contemporaneous Judaism.
11. 7:15–19 Jesus does not exercise a priesthood through family lineage but through his immortal existence (Hb 7:15–16), fulfilling Ps 110:4 (Hb 7:17; cf. Hb 7:3). Thus he abolishes forever both the levitical priesthood and the law it serves, because neither could effectively sanctify people (Hb 7:18) by leading them into direct communication with God (Hb 7:19).
12. 7:16 A life that cannot be destroyed: the life to which Jesus has attained by virtue of his resurrection; it is his exaltation rather than his divine nature that makes him priest. The Old Testament speaks of the Aaronic priesthood as eternal (see Ex 40:15); our author does not explicitly consider this possible objection to his argument but implicitly refutes it in Hb 7:23–24.
13. 7:19 A better hope: this hope depends upon the sacrifice of the Son of God; through it we “approach the throne of grace” (Hb 4:16); cf. Hb 6:19, 20.
14. 7:20–25 As was the case with the promise to Abraham (Hb 6:13), though not with the levitical priesthood, the eternal priesthood of the order of Melchizedek was confirmed by God’s oath (Hb 7:20–21); cf. Ps 110:4. Thus Jesus becomes the guarantee of a permanent covenant (Hb 7:22) that does not require a succession of priests as did the levitical priesthood (Hb 7:23) because his high priesthood is eternal and unchangeable (Hb 7:24). Consequently, Jesus is able to save all who draw near to God through him since he is their ever-living intercessor (Hb 7:25).
15. 7:20 An oath: God’s oath in Ps 110:4.
16. 7:22 An [even] better covenant: better than the Mosaic covenant because it will be eternal, like the priesthood of Jesus upon which it is based. Hb 7:12 argued that a change of priesthood involves a change of law; since “law” and “covenant” are used correlatively, a new covenant is likewise instituted.
17. 7:25 To make intercession: the intercession of the exalted Jesus, not the sequel to his completed sacrifice but its eternal presence in heaven; cf. Rom 8:34.
18. 7:26 This verse with its list of attributes is reminiscent of Hb 7:3 and is perhaps a hymnic counterpart to it, contrasting the exalted Jesus with Melchizedek.
19. 7:26–28 Jesus is precisely the high priest whom the human race requires, holy and sinless, installed far above humanity (Hb 7:26); one having no need to offer sacrifice daily for sins but making a single offering of himself (Hb 7:27) once for all. The law could only appoint high priests with human limitations, but the fulfillment of God’s oath regarding the priesthood of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) makes the Son of God the perfect priest forever (Hb 7:28).
20. 7:27 Such daily sacrifice is nowhere mentioned in the Mosaic law; only on the Day of Atonement is it prescribed that the high priest must offer sacrifice…for his own sins and then for those of the people (Lv 16:11–19). Once for all: this translates the Greek words ephapax/hapax that occur eleven times in Hebrews.
21. 8:1–6 The Christian community has in Jesus the kind of high priest described in Hb 7:26–28. In virtue of his ascension Jesus has taken his place at God’s right hand in accordance with Ps 110:1 (Hb 8:1), where he presides over the heavenly sanctuary established by God himself (Hb 8:2). Like every high priest, he has his offering to make (Hb 8:3; cf. Hb 9:12, 14), but it differs from that of the levitical priesthood in which he had no share (Hb 8:4) and which was in any case but a shadowy reflection of the true offering in the heavenly sanctuary (Hb 8:5). But Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is that of mediator of a superior covenant that accomplishes what it signifies (Hb 8:6).
22. 8:2 The sanctuary: the Greek term could also mean “holy things” but bears the meaning “sanctuary” elsewhere in Hebrews (Hb 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11). The true tabernacle: the heavenly tabernacle that the Lord…set up is contrasted with the earthly tabernacle that Moses set up in the desert. True means “real” in contradistinction to a mere “copy and shadow” (Hb 8:5); compare the Johannine usage (e.g., Jn 1:9; 6:32; 15:1). The idea that the earthly sanctuary is a reflection of a heavenly model may be based upon Ex 25:9, but probably also derives from the Platonic concept of a real world of which our observable world is merely a shadow.
23. 8:7–13 Since the first covenant was deficient in accomplishing what it signified, it had to be replaced (Hb 8:7), as Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34) had prophesied (Hb 8:8–12). Even in the time of Jeremiah, the first covenant was antiquated (Hb 8:13). In Hb 7:22–24, the superiority of the new covenant was seen in the permanence of its priesthood; here the superiority is based on better promises, made explicit in the citation of Jer 31:31–34 (LXX: 38), namely, in the immediacy of the people’s knowledge of God (Hb 8:11) and in the forgiveness of sin (Hb 8:12).
24. 8:8–12 In citing Jeremiah the author follows the Septuagint; some apparent departures from it may be the result of a different Septuagintal text rather than changes deliberately introduced.
25. 8:13 Close to disappearing: from the prophet’s perspective, not that of the author of Hebrews.
26. 9:1–10 The regulations for worship under the old covenant permitted all the priests to enter the Holy Place (Hb 2:6), but only the high priest to enter the Holy of Holies and then only once a year (Hb 9:3–5, 7). The description of the sanctuary and its furnishings is taken essentially from Ex 25–26. This exclusion of the people from the Holy of Holies signified that they were not allowed to stand in God’s presence (Hb 9:8) because their offerings and sacrifices, which were merely symbols of their need of spiritual renewal (Hb 9:10), could not obtain forgiveness of sins (Hb 9:9).
27. 9:2 The outer one: the author speaks of the outer tabernacle (Hb 9:6) and the inner one (Hb 9:7) rather than of one Mosaic tabernacle divided into two parts or sections.
28. 9:3 The second veil: what is meant is the veil that divided the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. It is here called the second, because there was another veil at the entrance to the Holy Place, or “outer tabernacle” (Ex 26:36).
29. 9:4 The gold altar of incense: Ex 30:6 locates this altar in the Holy Place, i.e., the first tabernacle, rather than in the Holy of Holies. Neither is there any Old Testament support for the assertion that the jar of manna and the staff of Aaron were in the ark of the covenant. For the tablets of the covenant, see Ex 25:16.
30. 9:5 The place of expiation: the gold “mercy seat” (Greek hilastērion, as in Rom 3:25), where the blood of the sacrificial animals was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14–15). This rite achieved “expiation” or atonement for the sins of the preceding year.
31. 9:6 In performing their service: the priestly services that had to be performed regularly in the Holy Place or outer tabernacle included burning incense on the incense altar twice each day (Ex 30:7), replacing the loaves on the table of the bread of offering once each week (Lv 24:8), and constantly caring for the lamps on the lampstand (Ex 27:21).
32. 9:7 Not without blood: blood was essential to Old Testament sacrifice because it was believed that life was located in the blood. Hence blood was especially sacred, and its outpouring functioned as a meaningful symbol of cleansing from sin and reconciliation with God. Unlike Hebrews, the Old Testament never says that the blood is “offered.” The author is perhaps retrojecting into his description of Mosaic ritual a concept that belongs to the New Testament antitype, as Paul does when he speaks of the Israelites’ passage through the sea as a “baptism” (1 Cor 10:2).
33. 9:9 The present time: this expression is equivalent to the “present age,” used in contradistinction to the “age to come.”
34. 9:11–14 Christ, the high priest of the spiritual blessings foreshadowed in the Old Testament sanctuary, has actually entered the true sanctuary of heaven that is not of human making (Hb 9:11). His place there is permanent, and his offering is his own blood that won eternal redemption (Hb 9:12). If the sacrifice of animals could bestow legal purification (Hb 9:13), how much more effective is the blood of the sinless, divine Christ who spontaneously offered himself to purge the human race of sin and render it fit for the service of God (Hb 9:14).
35. 9:11 The good things that have come to be: the majority of later manuscripts here read “the good things to come”; cf. Hb 10:1.
36. 9:13 A heifer’s ashes: ashes from a red heifer that had been burned were mixed with water and used for the cleansing of those who had become ritually defiled by touching a corpse; see Nm 19:9, 14–21.
37. 9:14 Through the eternal spirit: this expression does not refer either to the holy Spirit or to the divine nature of Jesus but to the life of the risen Christ, “a life that cannot be destroyed” (Hb 7:16).
38. 9:15–22 Jesus’ role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death (cf. Hb 8:6). His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained (Hb 9:15). This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator (Hb 9:16–17). The Mosaic covenant was also associated with death, for Moses made use of blood to seal the pact between God and the people (Hb 9:18–21). In Old Testament tradition, guilt could normally not be remitted without the use of blood (Hb 9:22; cf. Lv 17:11).
39. 9:16–17 A will…death of the testator: the same Greek word diathēkē, meaning “covenant” in Hb 9:15, 18, is used here with the meaning will. The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same time a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who established the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants; at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect.
40. 9:19–20 A number of details here are different from the description of this covenant rite in Ex 24:5–8. Exodus mentions only calves (“young bulls,” NAB), not goats (but this addition in Hebrews is of doubtful authenticity), says nothing of the use of water and crimson wool and hyssop (these features probably came from a different rite; cf. Lv 14:3–7; Nm 19:6–18), and describes Moses as splashing blood on the altar, whereas Hebrews says he sprinkled it on the book (but both book and altar are meant to symbolize the agreement of God). The words of Moses are also slightly different from those in Exodus and are closer to the words of Jesus at the Last Supper in Mk 14:24 // Mt 26:28.
41. 9:21 According to Exodus, the tabernacle did not yet exist at the time of the covenant rite. Moreover, nothing is said of sprinkling it with blood at its subsequent dedication (Ex 40:9–11).
42. 9:22 Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament mentions contrition of heart (Ps 51:17), fasting (Jl 2:12), and almsgiving (Sir 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult, which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive value.
43. 9:23–28 Since the blood of animals became a cleansing symbol among Old Testament prefigurements, it was necessary that the realities foreshadowed be brought into being by a shedding of blood that was infinitely more effective by reason of its worth (Hb 9:23). Christ did not simply prefigure the heavenly realities (Hb 9:24) by performing an annual sacrifice with a blood not his own (Hb 9:25); he offered the single sacrifice of himself as the final annulment of sin (Hb 9:26). Just as death is the unrepeatable act that ends a person’s life, so Christ’s offering of himself for all is the unrepeatable sacrifice that has once for all achieved redemption (Hb 9:27–28).
44. 9:26 At the end of the ages: the use of expressions such as this shows that the author of Hebrews, despite his interest in the Platonic concept of an eternal world above superior to temporal reality here below, nevertheless still clings to the Jewish Christian eschatology with its sequence of “the present age” and “the age to come.”
45. 9:28 To take away the sins of many: the reference is to Is 53:12. Since the Greek verb anapherō can mean both “to take away” and “to bear,” the author no doubt intended to play upon both senses: Jesus took away sin by bearing it himself. See the similar wordplay in Jn 1:29. Many is used in the Semitic meaning of “all” in the inclusive sense, as in Mk 14:24. To those who eagerly await him: Jesus will appear a second time at the parousia, as the high priest reappeared on the Day of Atonement, emerging from the Holy of Holies, which he had entered to take away sin. This dramatic scene is described in Sir 50:5–11.
46. 10:1–10 Christian faith now realizes that the Old Testament sacrifices did not effect the spiritual benefits to come but only prefigured them (Hb 10:1). For if the sacrifices had actually effected the forgiveness of sin, there would have been no reason for their constant repetition (Hb 10:2). They were rather a continual reminder of the people’s sins (Hb 10:3). It is not reasonable to suppose that human sins could be removed by the blood of animal sacrifices (Hb 10:4). Christ, therefore, is here shown to understand his mission in terms of Ps 40:6–8, cited according to the Septuagint (Hb 10:5–7). Jesus acknowledged that the Old Testament sacrifices did not remit the sins of the people and so, perceiving the will of God, offered his own body for this purpose (Hb 10:8–10).
47. 10:1 A shadow of the good things to come: the term shadow was used in Hb 8:5 to signify the earthly counterpart of the Platonic heavenly reality. But here it means a prefiguration of what is to come in Christ, as it is used in the Pauline literature; cf. Col 2:17.
48. 10:5–7 A passage from Ps 40:7–9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Hb 10:5 (Ps 40:6), where the Masoretic text reads “ears you have dug for me” (“ears open to obedience you gave me,” NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have “a body you prepared for me,” a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews.
49. 10:8 Sacrifices and offerings, holocausts and sin offerings: these four terms taken from the preceding passage of Ps 40 (with the first two changed to plural forms) are probably intended as equivalents to the four principal types of Old Testament sacrifices: peace offerings (Lv 3, here called sacrifices); cereal offerings (Lv 2, here called offerings); holocausts (Lv 1); and sin offerings (Lv 4–5). This last category includes the guilt offerings of Lv 5:14–19.
50. 10:11–18 Whereas the levitical priesthood offered daily sacrifices that were ineffectual in remitting sin (Hb 10:11), Jesus offered a single sacrifice that won him a permanent place at God’s right hand. There he has only to await the final outcome of his work (Hb 10:12–13; cf. Ps 110:1). Thus he has brought into being in his own person the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer 31:33–34) that has rendered meaningless all other offerings for sin (Hb 10:14–18).
51. 10:13 Until his enemies are made his footstool: Ps 110:1 is again used; the reference here is to the period of time between the enthronement of Jesus and his second coming. The identity of the enemies is not specified; cf. 1 Cor 15:25–27.
52. 10:15–17 The testimony of the scriptures is now invoked to support what has just preceded. The passage cited is a portion of the new covenant prophecy of Jer 31:31–34, which the author previously used in Hb 8:8–12.
53. 10:17 He also says: these words are not in the Greek text, which has only kai, “also,” but the expression “after saying” in Hb 10:15 seems to require such a phrase to divide the Jeremiah text into two sayings. Others understand “the Lord says” of Hb 10:16 (here rendered says the Lord) as outside the quotation and consider Hb 10:16b as part of the second saying. Two ancient versions and a number of minuscules introduce the words “then he said” or a similar expression at the beginning of Hb 10:17.
54. 10:19–39 Practical consequences from these reflections on the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ should make it clear that Christians may now have direct and confident access to God through the person of Jesus (Hb 10:19–20), who rules God’s house as high priest (Hb 10:21). They should approach God with sincerity and faith, in the knowledge that through baptism their sins have been remitted (Hb 10:22), reminding themselves of the hope they expressed in Christ at that event (Hb 10:23). They are to encourage one another to Christian love and activity (Hb 10:24), not refusing, no matter what the reason, to participate in the community’s assembly, especially in view of the parousia (Hb 10:25; cf. 1 Thes 4:13–18). If refusal to participate in the assembly indicates rejection of Christ, no sacrifice exists to obtain forgiveness for so great a sin (Hb 10:26); only the dreadful judgment of God remains (Hb 10:27). For if violation of the Mosaic law could be punished by death, how much worse will be the punishment of those who have turned their backs on Christ by despising his sacrifice and disregarding the gifts of the holy Spirit (Hb 10:28–29). Judgment belongs to the Lord, and he enacts it by his living presence (Hb 10:30–31). There was a time when the spirit of their community caused them to welcome and share their sufferings (Hb 10:32–34). To revitalize that spirit is to share in the courage of the Old Testament prophets (cf. Is 26:20; Hb 2:3–4), the kind of courage that must distinguish the faith of the Christian (Hb 10:35–39).
55. 10:20 Through the veil, that is, his flesh: the term flesh is used pejoratively. As the temple veil kept people from entering the Holy of Holies (it was rent at Christ’s death, Mk 15:38), so the flesh of Jesus constituted an obstacle to approaching God.
56. 10:21 The house of God: this refers back to Hb 3:6, “we are his house.”
57. 10:22 With our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience: as in Hb 9:13 (see note there), the sprinkling motif refers to the Mosaic rite of cleansing from ritual impurity. This could produce only an external purification, whereas sprinkling with the blood of Christ (Hb 9:14) cleanses the conscience. Washed in pure water: baptism is elsewhere referred to as a washing; cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26.
58. 10:25 Our assembly: the liturgical assembly of the Christian community, probably for the celebration of the Eucharist. The day: this designation for the parousia also occurs in the Pauline letters, e.g., Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 3:13; 1 Thes 5:2.
59. 10:26 If we sin deliberately: verse 29 indicates that the author is here thinking of apostasy; cf. Hb 3:12; 6:4–8.
60. 10:28 Rejects the law of Moses: evidently not any sin against the law, but idolatry. Dt 17:2–7 prescribed capital punishment for idolaters who were convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
61. 10:32 After you had been enlightened: “enlightenment” is an ancient metaphor for baptism (cf. Eph 5:14; Jn 9:11), but see Hb 6:4 and the note there.
62. 10:37–38 In support of his argument, the author uses Hb 2:3–4 in a wording almost identical with the text of the Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint but with the first and second lines of Hb 10:4 inverted. He introduces it with a few words from Is 26:20: after just a brief moment. Note the Pauline usage of Hb 2:4 in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11.