Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Hebrews X. 11-18. 625
ised in order to fulfil it imperfectly, that has Christ promised by-
David in order to keep it perfectly.
If now, according to Ps. xl., it belongs to the theocratical
Anointed that he regards not animal sacrifices, but the sacrifice of
obedience, as suitable to him, this expresses just what our author
had laid down in ver. 1-4.
Ver. 8, 9. The author here simply shews, that obedience was put
in the place of the animal sacrifices, and thereby, also, declared to
be a sacrifice, and, indeed, the true sacrifice.
At Txepl duapriaq^ ver. 6 and 8, Ovoiai is to be supplied. There
was no Greek noun for " sin-ofiering ;" the idea must be rendered
by the circumlocution : (dvala) -nepl di^apriag.
Ver. 10.—By the deXrjua here, as at ver. 9, we n^ay understand
either the special will of the Father, that Christ should suffer and
make atonement for the world, or the general will of God, as, for
example, it is expressed in the decalogue. Either : Christ came to
fulfil that special decree of redemption, and in this will (i. e. by the
fulfilment of it on the part of Christ) we are sanctified. Or : Christ
came in general to live conformably to the will and law of God, i. e.
to live a holy life, and through this will of God (fulfilled by Christ,
t. e. : by the fulfilment of this will on the part of Christ) we are
sanctified. But as ver. 9 belongs to the citation from the psalm, in
which there was no mention of the special decree respecting the
suffering of the Messiah, the second explanation is preferable.
(That the fulfilment of the general will of God already involved the
accomplishment of the special degree is, of course, self-evident. If
Jesus was obedient to the Father in general, he was so also in that
special point.)
'RyiaafiEvoi, here in the widest sense " to make dyici," to take
them from the profane world sunk in death, and to place them in
the kingdom of God. Thus dyid^eiv here involves both justification
and sanctification ; that the former is not excluded appears already
from the additional clause Scd riig irpoacjyopdg, etc.
Ver. 11-18.—The author here agains sums up with aU precision
the proper quod erat demonstrandum (ver. 12, 13), and, inasmuch
as he represents the one sacrifice as, at the same time, the fulfilment
of the promise of a new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 32, seq.) cited in chap,
viii. 8, seq., he derives from this still another and concluding proof
of the once offering of this sacrifice, and therewith of the superfiuousness
and dispensableness of the Levitical ritual beside this one sacrifice.
Ver. 11.—The Kai is not to be rendered " namely'' (Tholuck), a
signification which it never can have, and, moreover, cannot have
here, as ver. 11 stands related to the foregoing not as an argument
but as an inference. It means " and," " and so."—Instead of kpevg
A. C, Peshito, and several Fathers read dpxi^p^vg (so also Grotius,
Limborch, Lachmann, Bleek). But it is not likely that a transcriber