<- Previous   First   Next ->

it obscures the idea of the perpetual efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice; it weakens the contrast with e{sthken ; and it imports a foreign idea into the image of the assumption ( ejkavqisen ) of royal dignity by Christ.

For ou|to" see 3:3; 7:4; and for ejkavqisen , Heb. 1:3 note. The word ejkavqisen is in sharp opposition to e{sthken leitourgw'n (10:11). Throughout the Epistle (except 1:13 kaqou' from the LXX.) the reference is uniformly to the act of taking the royal seat ( kaqivzein as contrasted with kaqh'sqai : 1:3; 8:1; 12:2). Compare Eph. 1:20; Apoc. 3:21; and contrast the phrase of the Apocalypse oJ kaqhvmeno" ejpi; t. qrovnou (Rev. 4:9 ff.). On the general thought Chrysostom says tersely: to; eJstavnai tou' leitourgei'n ejsti; shmei'on, oujkou'n to; kaqh'sqai tou' leitourgei'sqai .

Heb. 10:13. to; loipo;n ejkdec. ] henceforward waiting. Christ Himself in His royal majesty ‘waits’ as the husbandman for the processes of nature (James 5:7) and the patriarchs for the divine promise (Heb. 11:10). There is an aspect in which the time of the triumphant Return of Christ is known only to the Father (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7), and is in some sense contingent on the action of men (Acts 3:19 o{pw" a[n ... ajposteivlh/ ...; 2 Pet. 3:12).

Elsewhere in the N. T. the word ( ejkdevcesqai ) is used only of one man waiting for another (Acts 17:16; 1 Cor. 11:33; 16:11: not John 5:3; 1 Pet. 3:20).

to; loipo;n ] Vulg. de cetero , O. L. postea. 2 Thess. 3:1; Phil. 3:1; 4:8; 1 Cor. 7:29. (Mark 14:41.) Eph. 6:10 ( tou' loipou' ).
e{w" teqw'sin ] The Return of Christ appears to be placed after the conquest of His enemies. Compare 1 Cor. 15:22 ff.

The reference to Ps. 110 carries back the thoughts of the reader to the portraiture of the majesty of the Son in Heb. 1:13. His victory is won (John 16:33 nenivkhka ): only the fruits of it remain to be gathered.

Heb. 10:14. mia'/ ga;r prosfora'/ ] For by one offering ..., so that no fresh duty can interrupt the continuance of His royal Majesty.

The word prosforav goes back to v. 10 (note). It extends more widely than qusiva (v. 12; 9:16). St Paul combines both words in Eph. 5:2 which, as was noticed, is the only passage besides this chapter (Heb. 10:5, 8, 10, 18) in which the word is used in connexion with Christ's work; nor indeed does it occur elsewhere in the Epistles at all except Rom. 15:16.

The ‘offering’ of Christ, His perfect life crowned by a willing death, in which He fulfilled the destiny of man and bore the punishment of human sin, is that by and in which every human life finds its consummation.

It is significant that Christ Himself is said to perfect ‘by the offering’: it is not said that ‘the offering’ perfects. His action is personal in the application of His own work. The importance of this form of expression appears from the language used of the Law: Heb. 7:19 oujde;n ejteleivwsen oJ novmo" . Comp. 9:9; 10:1. In the case of the Levitical institutions the action of the appointed ministers fell into the background.
tetel. eij" to; dihn. ] He hath perfected for ever ...Latt. consummavit in sempiternum. For the perfect see 11:17 note; 7:6 note, 28; 9:6, 8, 18; and contrast ejteleivwsen Heb. 7:19.

For eij" to; dihn. see Heb. 7:3; 10:1 notes. The virtue of Christ's work remains ever available as long as the need of man exists.


<- Previous   First   Next ->