<- Previous   First   Next ->

marturou'nto" ejpi; toi'" dwvroi" aujtou' tou' qeou' ( tw'/ qew'/ ). In such a case the loss of B is keenly felt. The best attested reading ( mart. ejpi; t. d. aujtou' tw'/ qew'/ ) gives a sense which, though it is at first sight foreign to the argument, becomes intelligible if we suppose that a parallel is suggested between the witness of God to Abel and the witness of Abel to God: he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, while he on his part, on occasion of his gifts , by the faith which inspired them, bore witness to God. But such a parallel seems to be artificial, and it is more natural to suppose that the character of the divine witness to the righteousness of Abel should be more distinctly defined. Thus the sense given by the later Greek MSS. is satisfactory; but that reading leaves tw'/ qew'/ unexplained. Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. 2.4, p. 434) quotes the clause, in a continuous citation, in the form mart. ejpi; toi'" dwvroi" aujtw'/ tou' qeou' . If this was the original text a mechanical change would account for both the current readings. It may be added that Clement also omits tw'/ qew'/ after proshvnegke .

Additional Note on Hebrews 11:10. On the social imagery in the Epistle.

No words are more liable to be misunderstood than those which describe forms of social organisation. They survive the state of things to which they were originally applied, and are transferred to a new order, more or less analogous to the past yet widely distinguished from it. For this reason the language which is used in the N. T. to describe the Christian Society is exposed to many difficulties of interpretation. Believers are represented in the apostolic writings as united in a ‘congregation’ ( ejkklhsiva ), a ‘state,’ or ‘city’

( povli" ), a ‘kingdom,’ and it is important to endeavour to realise the thoughts associated with these terms in the first age, if we wish to realise the primitive conception of Christianity as a social power. In this connexion the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews is of the greatest moment. It offers a view of the organisation of the Gospel in most respects singularly comprehensive; and it is not unlikely that the imminent overthrow of the Jewish state gave occasion for dwelling upon this aspect of the Gospel. There is however one striking omission. The Epistle is almost silent as to ecclesiastical organisation. No one of the words which have come to represent the main ideas of Church government is used in it with its limited technical sense. The title ‘Apostle’ is used only of Christ Himself (3:1 to;n ajpovstolon kai; ajrciereva th'" oJmologiva" hJmw'n jIhsou'n ). The verb ejpiskopei'n , in the one place where it occurs, suggests no thought of official oversight (12:15). ‘The elders’ are simply the heroes of the Old Dispensation (11:2). The word diavkono" is not found in the book; nor is the term ejkklhsiva used in the sense of ‘a particular church’ or of ‘the universal church’ (2:12 ejn mevsw/ ejkklhsiva" LXX. 12:23 ejkklhsiva/ prwtotovkwn ). The single term which indicates the existence of ordered discipline in the body is the most general, ‘those that have rule,’ ‘that lead’ ( oiJ hJgouvmenoi , 13:7, 17, 24).

With this exception the view given in the Epistle of the social embodiment of the Gospel is most varied. Eight passages present it under five distinct aspects:

1. 2:5 hJ oijkoumevnh hJ mevllousa . The Divine Order in its fullest extent and realisation.


<- Previous   First   Next ->