Verses 14-15 form a single sentence in the Greek. Verse 14 partly overlaps in meaning with verse 10, and partly sums up what was said in verses 11-13.

Revised Standard Version‘s “therefore” refers back to verse 11a, which this verse repeats in other words and then somewhat expands. Good News Translation omits “therefore,” perhaps because the connection with verse 11a is too far away to be seen by most readers, and because there is no direct link with the end of verse 13.

The first part of the sentence contains two statements: (a) the children share a common human nature with one another, and (b) Jesus shared this nature with them. The children: the is necessary because the children have just been mentioned in verse 13. Good News Translation and Bible en français courant bring this out by adding as he calls them. New English Bible and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy say “The children of a family,” which is less definite than the Greek. The children may be expressed as “these children,” especially if a reference to “the children” has been made in the previous verse. The phrase as he calls them may be expressed parenthetically as “that’s what he calls them.”

Flesh and blood (literally “blood and flesh”) is a common way of describing human nature, especially in its weakness. The expression of flesh and blood can rarely be translated literally, since people obviously consist of more than flesh and blood. Accordingly, people of flesh and blood may be rendered as “people like all other kinds of people” or “people in every sense of the word.”

Like them is emphatic; Barclay says “in exactly the same way.” Good News Translation reproduces this emphasis by expansion, for there is nothing in the Greek which literally corresponds to became like them and. This phrase is presupposed by shared their human nature (literally “shared them,” that is, shared their flesh and blood).

Became like them may be rendered as “became a person like they are persons,” “became a human being like them,” or “… even as they are.” It may, however, be extremely difficult to render the expression shared their human nature, because a literal rendering would assume that in some way Jesus took from them part of their human nature, since the concept of “sharing” so frequently suggests dividing up something. Therefore, shared their human nature may be expressed as “was a human being just like they are.” In fact, became like them and shared their human nature must often be combined in a single expression, such as “came to be just like all other human beings.”

The phrase about Jesus’ human nature is the focal point of the sentence, both in grammar and in meaning. The writer then goes on to describe the purpose of Christ’s sharing human nature. Barclay and Translator’s New Testament think the writer is referring to the result of this event, but this interpretation suits the structure less well.

He did this must be rendered in some languages as “He became like this” or even more specifically “He became a person.”

Through his death may be expressed as “by his dying” or “by means of his giving his life.”

Destroy does not always imply that the thing destroyed no longer exists. The first meaning of the Greek is “render ineffective” (see 1 Cor 15.26, where Good News Bible translates “defeated”). Here Moffatt has “crush”; Segond, Jerusalem Bible “take away all the power of”; New American Bible “rob … of his power”; Knox, Translator’s New Testament “depose”; Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “reduce to impotence.” The point is that the Devil is so utterly defeated that he is no longer able to do anything, and is thus like the pagan gods mentioned in Isaiah 44.9-20.

A literal rendering of might destroy the Devil might appear to be contradictory to other passages of Scripture, especially those references in the book of Revelation. Therefore it may be important to use some such expression as “take away completely the power of the Devil” rather than to use a literal rendering of “destroy,” which would mean annihilation.

Good News Translation simplifies the structure by putting the Devil before the phrase which describes him, who has the power over death. The idea is that the Devil has both control over death and the power to inflict death. Who has the power over death may be rendered as “who is able to kill” or “who is able to cause people to die.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse forms a transition to verses 12-13, which conclude the section. Many translations agree with Revised Standard Version in beginning a new paragraph here because of the exhortation, rather than at verse 12.

Then (literally “therefore”) often begins a new paragraph (compare verses 1, 14). Verse 11 marks a new appeal to the readers. Revised Standard Version‘s “For” in verse 12 links that verse with verse 11. On the other hand, verse 11 concludes the discussion of the rest and contains the last reference to the events of Numbers 14. Then does not refer to time; it expresses a conclusion or result, rendered often as “therefore” or “as a result of all this.”

Do our best: the Greek verb can mean “hurry” as in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible (Moffatt, Phillips “be eager”). However, verse 1 did not suggest the readers’ being “too late” to enter God’s rest. The idea is rather that of enthusiastic effort, so New American Bible has “strive,” Barclay “make every effort,” and Translator’s New Testament “do our utmost.” Verses 12-13 emphasize the element of effort in Christian living.

Let us … do our best is not a request for permission but an exhortation and may often be rendered as “we should do our best” or “we should try very hard.”

Fail is weaker than Revised Standard Version‘s literal “fall.” However, Good News Translation avoids “fall” here, as in3.12, where the meaning is the same, perhaps because in church language it means “lose one’s faith.” In this verse the writer is probably still thinking of those who fell down dead in the desert (3.17).

In a great many languages it is necessary to have some type of complement for the verb fail. So that no one of us will fail must then be rendered as “so that no one of us will fail to rest” or “… fail to receive the promise of being able to rest.”

Good News Translation, unlike Revised Standard Version, completes the comparison by adding as they did. This refers back to Those who first heard the Good News in verse 6. Other common language translations have “the people in the desert” (compare 3.17; Num 14.22). The reference to they may be made in terms of the historical event, for example, “those who lived long ago.”

As they did because of their lack of faith is literally “in the same sort of disobedience.” The Greek word for “sort” means “example,” but if a similar word is used in translation, as in King James Version, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible, it should be made clear that a bad example is meant. Here, as in verse 6, translations are about equally divided between the related ideas of disobedience (for example, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible) and unbelief (for example, King James Version, New English Bible). Numbers 14, especially verse 41, why are you disobeying the LORD now? suggests not only general unbelief but also specific acts of disobedience.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse is linked to its context by the words and so (Revised Standard Version “And thus”). They suggest, not merely the manner in which Abraham received the promises, but the means by which he received them. Most translations agree with Good News Translation in taking the sentence to mean “It was because he was patient (or, endured [see verse 12]) that Abraham received what God had promised.” Jerusalem Bible, however, translates “because of that,” implying the opposite: “It was because of God’s promise [see verses 13-14] that Abraham was patient and saw the promise fulfilled.” This is grammatically possible, but verses 12 and 15 have so much in common that it is natural to take verse 12 as a general principle which verse 15 applies to the particular case of Abraham. Abraham’s patience was not just a stage in time (New American Bible “after patient waiting”); it played an essential part in his finally receiving what God had promised.

Abraham was patient may be expressed as “Abraham was willing to wait.” It may in some cases be necessary to say “Abraham kept on trusting God for a long time.”

The Greek term for received is a more common equivalent of the word translated receive in verse 12. As usual, the writer varies his choice of words. A strictly literal rendering of received may be misleading, since it might wrongly suggest that the promise was an object which God handed to Abraham. A better equivalent may be “what God had promised Abraham happened to him.”

What God had promised (literally “the promise”), here as in verse 12, refers not to the act of promising but to the content of what was promised. The reference is either to Isaac’s birth or to his rescue from death (Gen 22). The word translated received therefore refers to a single past event, unlike the same expression in 11.13, 39, which refers to receiving forever what God had promised.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The whole point: New American Bible and New English Bible say “the main point,” Revised Standard Version and Barclay “the point,” and Bible en français courant “the most important point.” Some translations introduce a metaphor: Bijbel in Gewone Taal “the kernel” and Knox, following Coverdale, “the very pith.” This main point covers verses 1-2. Strictly speaking it is not a summary, as Phillips‘ “to sum up” suggests. Verse 2, especially the word real, introduces new ideas.

It is not certain whether The whole point is what the writer has just been saying (Barclay, Moffatt, Phillips, Jerusalem Bible) or what he is about to say (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “I come now to the decisive point”; similarly Knox). In fact it is both, and some commentators bring this out by using a general phrase such as “to crown the argument.” The writer intends to distinguish such “details” as the furniture of the sanctuary (9.2-5) from the central message of 7.1–10.18. Good News Translation and other common language translations are therefore right to keep the present tense of the original with what we are saying.

The whole point of what we are saying may be rendered as “The real meaning of what I am saying,” “What I am saying really means that,” or “The real purpose of what I am saying is that.”

The language of this verse recalls 1.3. Such a High Priest implies “as Jesus,” referring back to 7.26-28, which describes Jesus as High Priest; Phillips says “an ideal High Priest such as has been described above” (compare Jerusalem Bible). It is possible to omit such: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “we have a high priest” and Bijbel in Gewone Taal “we have someone as high priest who….”

The “place” of the new High Priest is described in impressive picture language, to emphasize the contrast with the old covenant.

The right side is the place of honor. Where readers may have difficulty in understanding the significance of right, it may be good to translate the final clause of this verse as “who sits at a place of honor beside God in heaven.”

The Divine Majesty is a reverent way of speaking of God. Divine is implied. However, it may be impossible in translation to talk about the Divine Majesty. This is a title of God, so it may be better to say “God” or “God, who is wonderful.” Who sits at the right of the throne of the Divine Majesty in heaven may be rendered as “who sits at the right of God’s throne in heaven.”

Heaven is literally “the heavens” (King James Version), as in 4.14 and 7.26. There is probably no special significance in the use of the phrase here, and the singular heaven is clearer for most modern readers.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He said is literally “saying.” Good News Translation divides the Greek sentence, which runs without a break from verse 18 to verse 21. “As he did this, he said” would be possible. The quotation is from Exodus 24.8, with some changes, probably influenced by the story of the Last Supper (Mark 14.24).

The reference of This may need to be more explicit; for example, “What I am sprinkling.”

Which seals is implied and brings out the meaning of “blood of the covenant.” The verb seals is a dead or dying metaphor in English, since the practice of fastening documents with a seal has become rare. It would be possible to bring out the meaning in a nonfigurative way, for example, by translating “This is the blood which confirms the covenant to which God has ordered you to be faithful.”

It is unusual to speak of one party to an agreement commanding the other to obey it. But the biblical covenant was unique; see the comment on 7.22. This idea is seriously weakened by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch‘s “Through this blood is sealed the covenant which God has concluded with you.”

In some languages “to seal a covenant” or “to confirm a covenant” may be expressed as “to make a covenant strong.” But the concept is often expressed somewhat more idiomatically; for example, “it ties you to the covenant” or “it makes you one with the covenant.”

To obey is implied in commanded.

The clause that God has commanded you to obey may have to be expressed as direct discourse; for example, “God has commanded, ‘You must obey the covenant’ ” or “ ‘… obey what the covenant says you must do.’ ”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This second half of the “how much more” comparison identifies three aspects of the same sin, not three separate sins. This sin is a deliberate turning away from faith in Christ (verse 26).

There are four possible ways to punctuate this verse, the first two of which are essentially the same. (a) Good News Translation makes three separate questions which are not linked by “and.” (b) The UBS Greek New Testament, like Revised Standard Version and several other translations, punctuates this sentence as a single question, “How much more…?” (c) Other editions and translations take it as a statement: Translator’s New Testament “Think how much severer punishment a man will deserve…”; or (d) an exclamation, as in Good News Translation. The choice between these possibilities depends on what is most natural in the receptor language. It makes little difference to the meaning, since the question, in any case, is rhetorical.

Despises is a nonfigurative translation of a vivid metaphor meaning “tramples underfoot.” In the Old Testament the phrase for “trample underfoot” is used literally, of cities, buildings (Isa 26.5), or even people (Dan 8.10); it is used also in the weakened metaphorical sense of “show great contempt for” (Micah 7.10; Mal 4.3; Psa 56.1-2). Good News Translation, probably correctly, understands “trample underfoot” to have a metaphorical sense here (compare Phillips “poured scorn on”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch similarly). If the metaphor is common in the receptor language and has the same meaning as in Greek, it should be kept, as in many translations. Otherwise, the translator should consider using a different but equivalent metaphor, or a nonfigurative expression. The translator must decide how natural the metaphor sounds in his own language, and whether it will be understood as a metaphor. In some languages the equivalent figurative expression for “trample underfoot” is “to throw away,” “to cast aside,” or “to consider as rubbish.”

The Son of God: the thought recalls 6.6, but the wording of this verse is different.

The three rhetorical questions in verse 29 are incomplete in themselves. Even the first question, What, then, of the person who despises the Son of God? contains no main verb, and in some languages it is essential to fill out the question, “What then is likely to happen to the person who despises the Son of God?” It may then be possible to introduce the following two question fragments as essentially appositional to the first question; for example, “to the person who treats as a cheap thing…? to the person who insults the Spirit of grace?”

Who treats as a cheap thing the blood of God’s covenant which purified him from sin?: this second aspect of the “unforgivable sin” depends on the biblical distinction between what was “holy” or fit for use in worship, and what was “common” and therefore not to be used in worship, or even generally by the people of Israel, who were themselves a “holy” people. See comments on 3.1, and compare Acts 10.14. In some parts of the world, this distinction is not recognized. For this reason Good News Translation translates the expression for “thinks common” as treats as a cheap thing. Translations in other (especially non-Western) languages may be able to express more directly the distinction between what is ritually holy and what is common, even in a common language translation. It is necessary to avoid in translation any word for “holy” which implies belonging to an evil or destructive supernatural power. If one follows the meaning who treats as a cheap thing, one may employ an expression such as “who considers as worthless” or “who thinks of something as being of no value.”

The covenant is, of course, the new covenant. The blood is Christ’s sacrifice of himself. God’s is implied. See comments on covenant in 7.22. The relationship between the blood and God’s covenant may need to be made more explicit; for example, “the blood which was involved in establishing God’s covenant.” However, in languages in which blood cannot be used as a symbol for death, it may be possible to render the blood of God’s covenant as “the sacrificial death of Christ which established God’s covenant.”

The clause which purified him from sin is a reference to the blood, and it may be necessary to express this as a separate clause; for example, “the blood is what purified him from sin” or “Christ’s sacrificial death caused him to be free from guilt.”

Insults may be expressed as “to speak against” or “to say bad words against.” Most languages have a number of words for verbal insulting.

Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch makes explicit the probable meaning of the Spirit of grace: “the Spirit from whom he received grace,” or more literally “the Spirit to whom he is indebted for grace.” On (Holy) Spirit, see comments on “wind” and “spirit” in 1.7; on grace, see comments on 2.9. The Spirit of grace may be rendered as “the Spirit that shows us loving kindness.”

In view of the fact that punishment is so often expressed as a verb, the final statement of verse 29 may be rendered as “Just think how much more that person will deserve to be punished,” “Just consider how much more that person deserves to have God punish him,” or “… cause him to suffer.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse is similar to verse 23 and may be treated similarly in translation: “Because Moses trusted God, he did not fear the king’s anger, but left Egypt.” The king is “Pharaoh”; see comment on verse 24.

Commentators discuss whether this verse refers to (a) Moses’ running away from Egypt after killing an Egyptian (see Exo 2.11-15), or (b) the exodus of Israel as a whole from Egypt (see Exo 12.51). This problem affects the translation of the second part of the verse, especially he refused to turn back. The difficulty with (a) is that Exodus 2.14 says that Moses was afraid, and 2.15 states that Pharaoh tried to kill him. The difficulty with (b) is that the Israelites, as distinct from Moses himself, are not mentioned in this passage until verses 28-29. Moffatt‘s solution is to take verse 27 as referring to Exodus 2, but as modifying or explaining Exodus 2.14: “It was by faith that he left Egypt—not from any fear of the king’s wrath.”

It was Moses’ faith which not only made him leave Egypt but made it possible for him to be unafraid of the king’s anger. This may be expressed as “Because Moses trusted God, he left Egypt; he was not afraid of the king who was angry” or “… he was not afraid even though the king was angry.” This use of two statements side by side may be natural in languages which do not employ a preposition combined with a participial phrase, such as without combined with being afraid of the king’s anger.

The invisible God: God, once more, is implied. Moffatt contrasts the visible, angry king of Egypt and the invisible king in heaven, and translates “the King Invisible.” This does not seem necessary, and one would expect such a contrast to be stated explicitly. As though correctly implies that Moses did not in fact see God. The invisible God may be rendered as “the God whom no one can see.” The clause which Good News Translation translates he refused to turn back has been understood in various ways:
(a) Good News Bible fits in better with a reference to the Exodus proper, rather than to Moses’ flight after killing the Egyptian. Exodus 16.3 and other passages refer to difficulties which could have led the Israelites to turn back and return to Egypt.
(b) Many modern translations give a more general meaning, such as “He held inflexibly to his chosen course” (Barclay), leaving it open whether the “course” was a literal journey or a plan of action. Similar are Bijbel in Gewone Taal “he carried through, persevered”; Bible en français courant “he remained firm”; Segond, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “he held firm”; Jerusalem Bible and Translator’s New Testament “he held to his purpose.”
(c) A few translations reemphasize Moses’ fearlessness at this point: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “that gave him courage”; Moffatt “he never flinched.”
(d) Older German translations (Luther 1984 and Zürcher Bibel) link Moses’ endurance directly with seeing the invisible: “he held on to the one whom he did not see, as if he saw him.”
(e) There is some evidence that the verb can mean “fix one’s eyes upon,” and although this meaning is not adopted by translations consulted, it would fit in well with verse 26, he kept his eyes on the future reward, and with 12.2.

On the whole, interpretation (b) seems the most probable, but since we do not know to which incident the verse refers, it is impossible to be certain.

The relation between As though he saw the invisible God and he refused to turn back may seem complicated, for the first clause did not happen, while the second clause did happen; yet the first clause expresses cause, while the second expresses result. This may be expressed as “It was as though Moses saw the invisible God and so refused to turn back,” “… he refused to change his course,” or “… he continued straight ahead.” In some languages the two clauses are inverted in order, but the difference between what did happen and what did not happen must be maintained; for example, “Moses refused to turn back, as though he saw the invisible God.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Revised Standard Version‘s “But” is too weak to introduce the second half of a major contrast with verse 18. The structure and content of verses 18-24 require something like Instead, “No!” (Barclay), or “On the contrary” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and Segond). Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente has “You, on the contrary.”

The series of eight items which follows recalls the list of 11.37, but here each item is introduced in the Greek by “and.” The use or omission of “and” in translation depends on what is most natural and forceful in the receptor language.

Mount Zion stands on its own as the first item in the list; a contrast with Mount Sinai is implied. Mount Zion is probably distinguished from the city of Jerusalem which is built on it. The words which follow show that both Zion and Jerusalem are understood in a symbolic sense. In some languages a title such as Mount Zion must be expressed as “mountain called Zion” or “mountain named Zion.”

The city of the living God is the second item. In some contexts the living God means “the God who gives life,” and this makes a good contrast with the reference to death in verse 20. The city of the living God and the heavenly Jerusalem are the same. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “the city of the living God, that is, the heavenly Jerusalem”; and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente repeats “but” in “but the city of the living God, but Jerusalem of Heaven.” It may be better to put the heavenly Jerusalem first, in order to make it clear as early as possible in the sentence that symbolic language is being used. As in the phrase heavenly country in 11.16, it may be wise to translate the heavenly Jerusalem as “the Jerusalem which is in heaven.” If one introduces only a qualitative adjective such as heavenly, a reader might think that the earthly Jerusalem is to be regarded as like heaven.

The third item is the thousands of angels. Thousands is literally “ten thousands.” New English Bible and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible use the literary equivalent “myriads”; Jerusalem Bible “millions”; and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “with its many thousand angels.” In any case the number is not intended to be precise. In order to relate the phrase with its thousands of angels to the previous statement about the heavenly Jerusalem, it may be best to translate “the Jerusalem in heaven, where there are the thousands of angels.” In some languages a literal rendering of with suggests only accompaniment, and of course the angels are not accompanying Jerusalem.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .