256 clare k. rothschild
likewise, John chrysostom, in his commentary on rom 6:10 (in Hom. 11
on rom 6:5), cites Hebrews 9:26–28 to explain the passage. chrysostom,
too, understands Heb 9:26–28 as a separate appeal by paul to an idea in
romans:
what does “unto sin” [τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ in rom 6:10a] mean? It means that he
[ Jesus] was not subject even to that one, but for our sin, that he might
destroy it, and cut away its sinews and all its power, therefore He died....
but in that “He lives, he lives unto God,” he [paul] says—that is, unchange-
ably, so that death does not have dominion over him anymore. For if it was
not through any liability to it that he died the former death, save only for the
sin of others, much less will he die again now that he has done away with
that sin. and this he [paul] says in the epistle to the Hebrews also (ὃ καὶ ἐν
τῇ πρὸς ‘Εβραίους ἔλεγεν), “but now once (ἅπαξ γάρ)” he says “at the end of
the world he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. and
as it is appointed to men to die once (ἅπαξ) and after that the judgment, so
christ was once (ἅπαξ) offered to bear the sins of many, and to those that
look for him he will appear the second time without sin to salvation” (Heb
9:26–28).58
these two excerpts demonstrate that, for origen and John chrysostom,
Jesus’ once and for all death to sin in romans is explicable through
recourse to Jesus’ once and for all sacrificial death in Hebrews. Hebrews
functions as a hermeneutical lens for reading romans. that chrysostom
does not repeat ἐφάπαξ in this context and that origen makes no attempt
to duplicate it may suggest its vulgar affect (tendency of Koiné to prefer
compound rather than simplex forms),59 strengthening the argument that
occurrences in Hebrews (generally sophisticated Greek) represent delib-
erate imitation of paul.
In sum, the observation from chronology—that virtually no occur-
rences (at least none that paul or the author of Hebrews can be expected
to know) of the expression ἐφάπαξ predate paul—recommends reevalu-
ation of the consensus position that occurrences of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews
are based on a tradition common to both Hebrews and romans. with
absence of documentary evidence prior to the third (or for spicq: sixth)
century, that only two of two hundred and two occurrences of this adverb
of america press, 2002), 49. caroline p. Hammond bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des
Origenes Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins Buch 4–6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1997), 526.
58 pG 60:485–86; et: trans. (with minor modifications) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. 11 “chrysostom: Homilies on the acts of the apostles and the epistle to the romans”
(1st series; trans. J. b. morris and w. H. simcox; rev. by George b. stevens; ed. philip schaff;
peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 1994 [orig. 1889]), 410.
59 see n.36 above.