Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
But the transition is worked out in a practical warning (2:1-4) to the readers, which not only explains the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind:
1 We must therefore (δὰτῦο in view of this pre-eminent authority of the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away. 2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (ἐέεοββις proved valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (ἔδκν adequate, not arbitrary) punishment in every case,3 how shall we (ἡες emphatic) escape the penalty1 for neglecting (ἀεήατς if we ignore: Mat_22:5) a salvation which (ἥι, inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miraculous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (ατῦemphatic as in Rom_3:25).
Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of τ (M P) in v. 4, with the variant πρρυμν(Bc Dc) for πρρῶε,2 the only textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of ὑόfor δάin v. 3 by some cursives (69, 623, 1066, 1845), due either to the following ὑό or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of ὁκρο. But δάhere as in δʼἀγλν meaning “by,” is used to preserve the idea that in λλῖ the subject is God (1:1). The order of words (v. 1) δῖπρσοεῶ ποέενἡᾶ has been spoiled in אvg (πρσοεῶ δῖ and K L P (ἡᾶ ποέεν
As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, ἐε δ σχοςὁῶτῖ ὑὸδσεεα ὑὸτννερμνι ποέοτςβαφμαςκὶτῖ πρ τνἈχιλγα ὑʼἐο γγαμνι ἀιτῦτςκλ Strabo, ii. I. 7, τῖ μνἀιτῖ …ἐεν δ ποέεν ποέεν(sc. τννῦ) is the opposite of ἀιτῖ: to “attend” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is implied even in Act_8:6 and 16:14 (ποέεντῖ λλυέοςὑὸΠύο) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message. Πρσοέω is almost in its elative sense of “with extreme care”; “all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13:19. Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the gospel than to the Law. Ἡᾶ = we Christians (ἡῖ, 1:1), you and I, as in v. 3. The τ ἀοσέτ (in τῖ ἀοσεσ) is the revelation of the εαγλο (a term never used by our author), i.e. what ὁθὸ ἐάηε ἡῖ ἐ υῷ 1:1, and this is further defined (in vv. 3, 4) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys to the writer and his readers (εςἡᾶ ἐεαώη In the Ep. Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (τ γρκλςζνἐ τ τ νμμ σνηενενι τῦοδ ἐιεεσα δὰτςἀράεςπλῷμλο ἢδὰτςἀανσω), and the evangelists of v. 4 include οτνςἐάηα ὑῖ τνλγντῦθο (13:7); but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, μ πτ πρρῶε (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally, “be carried past” and so lose) the στραwhich we have heard. Πρρωin this sense goes back to Pro_3:21 υέ μ πρρῇ, τρσνδ ἐὴ βυὴ κὶἔνιν(see Clem. Paed. III. xi. 58, δὸκὶσσέλι χὴτςγνῖα κσίςκὶπρσίγι αδῖσφοι μ πρρυσ τςἀηεα); indeed the writer may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested.
The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply an equivalent for “going wrong,” like “labi” in Latin (cp. Cicero, De Officiis, i. 6, “labi autem, errare …malum et turpe ducimus”). Anyhow ποέενmust not be taken in a nautical sense ( = moor), in order to round off the “drift away” of πρρω a term which carries a sombre significance here ( = πρππεν 6:8); μπτ πρρῶε, τυέτ μ ἀοώεα μ ἐπσμν(Chrysostom).
In vv. 2f. we have a characteristic (e.g. 10:28-31) argument a minori ad maius; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly punished—a legislation enacted by means of angels—how much more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a (great, τλκύη στραas that originally proclaimed by the Lord himself! The τλκύηis defined as (a) “directly inaugurated by the Κρο himself,” and (b) transmitted to us unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endowment; it is as if the writer said, “Do not imagine that the revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position; the full power of God’s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which we owe our faith.”
The reference in λγςis to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife.
Λγςis used, not νμς in keeping with the emphasis upon the divine λλῖ in the context, and, instead of νμςΜσω (10:28), ὁδʼἀγλνλλθὶ λγςis chosen for argumentative reasons. Here as in Gal_3:19 and Act_7:38, Act_7:53 (ἐάεετννμνεςδααὰ ἀγλν the function of angels in the revelation of the Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such as is overheard in Paul’s reference. The writer and his readers shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136, ἡῶ δ τ κλιτ τνδγάω κὶτ ὁιττ τνἐ τῖ νμι δʼἀγλνπρ τῦθο μθνω)1 repeats this tradition, but it went back to the LXX which altered Deu_33:2 into a definite proof of angelic co-operation (ἐ δξῶ ατῦἄγλιμτ ατῦ and brought this out in Psa_68:18. Rabbinic tradition elaborated the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like Philo (de vita Mosis, 2:3), that the Mosaic legislation was ββι, ἀάετ, valid and supreme as long as the world endured.
Πρβσςκὶπρκήform one idea (see on 1:1); as πρκή(which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, ε ἐὶπρκῇλγνκίι γντι and the use of the verb in Mat_18:17 ἐνδ πρκύῃατνκλ or in LXX of Isa_65:12 ἐάηεκὶπρκύαε it represents the negative aspect, πρβσςthe positive. Μσαοοί is a sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of κλσς for μσό or for the classical μσοοί. Some of the facts which the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3:17 and 10:28. The Law proved no dead letter in the history of God’s people; it enforced pains and penalties for disobedience.
In v. 3 ἀχνλβῦαis a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g. Philo in Quaest. in Exo_12:2 (ὅα ο τνσατνκρο τλιθσν ο τνδνρνγνσω ἀχνλμάοσν and de vita Mosis, 1:14 (τνἀχντῦγνσα λβνἐ Αγπῳ The writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, τ Ῥμίνπάμτ οκἂ ἐτῦαποβ δνμω, μ θίντν ἀχνλβνακὶμδνμγ μδ πρδξνἔοσν The modern mind wonders how the writer could assume that the στρα as he conceives it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was unconscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his personality and career, in which God’s saving purpose came to full expression. ο ἀοσνε means those who heard Jesus himself, the ατπα of Luk_1:1-4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to Mark’s gospel: μτ δ τῦακὶατςὁἸσῦ …ἐαέτιε δʼατντ ἱρνκὶἄθρο κργατςαωίυστρα). If the Sinaitic Law ἐέεοββις the Christian revelation was also confirmed or guaranteed to us—εςἡᾶ (1 P 1:25 τ ῥμ τ εαγλσὲ εςὑᾶ: Act_2:22 Ἰσῦ …ἄδαἀὸτῦθο ἀοεεγέο εςὑᾶ) ἐεαώη It reached us, accurate and trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men1 who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and inspired them in their mission. Σνπμρυενmeans “assent” in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and “corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a (σνπμρυε δ κὶὁβο ἅα), as usual, but is here a sonorous religious term for σματρῖ (Rom_8:16). “Coniunctio σν…hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin).
σμ τρ δν in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Act_2:22; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2Co_12:12. Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any verbal injunction (ἅεδ τῦθο ταοέαςχημνἀοεξσ τῖ δάσμίνκὶτρτντ βύηαδδλκτς vit, Mos. i. 16).
As “God” (θο) is the subject of the clause, ατῦ(for which D actually reads θο) refers to him, and πεμτςἁίυis the genitive of the object after μρσος(cp. 6:4). What is distributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take ατῦwith πεμτςand make the latter the genitive of the subject, would tally with Paul’s description of the Spirit δαρῦ ἰί ἐάτ κθ βύεα (1Co_12:11), but would fail to explain what was distributed and would naturally require τ μρσῷ A fair parallel lies in Gal_3:5 ὁἐιοηῶ ὑῖ τ πεμ κὶἐεγνδνμι ἐ ὑῖ, where δνμι also means “miraculous powers” or “mighty deeds” (a Hellenistic sense, differing from that of the LXX = “forces”). In κτ τνατῦθλσν as perhaps even in 7:18 (cp. Blass, 284, 3; Abbott’s Johannine Grammar, 2558), the possessive ατςis emphatic. θλσνis read by א R for δηι in Psa_21:3 (cp. Eze_28:23 μ θλσιθλσ). It is not merely a vulgarism for θλμ. “Θλμ n’est pas θλσς volonté θλμ dé le vouloir concentrésur un moment, sur un acte, l’ordre, le commandment” (Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171 n.). The writer is fond of such forms (e.g. ἀέηι, ἄλσς ανσς μτθσς πόχσς Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (Disputatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their gifts as they pleased— α θα δ τςἑυῶ δρὰ οςτ ἂ ἐέωι
The vital significance of the Son as the ἀχγςof this “salvation”1 by means of his sufferings on earth, is now developed (vv. 5-18). This unique element in the Son has been already hinted (1:3), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of Christ’s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis between the Son and angels (v. 5); presently it passes beyond this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis (v. 16). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5-9 are the prelude to vv. 10-18. The idea underlying the whole passage is this: λλῖθιδὰτῦκρο meant much more than λλῖθιδʼἀγλν for the Christian revelation of στραhad involved a tragic and painful experience for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal experience on earth ἐ τῖ ἡέαςτςσρὸ ατῦ But this sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men; and it taught him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, pp. 413 f., on 2:1-5, and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on 2:6-18).
5 For the world to come, of which I (ἡεςof authorship) am speaking, was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the present world). 6 One writer, as we know, has affirmed,
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels,
crowning him with glory and honour,
8 putting all things under his feet.”
Now by1 “putting all things under him”2 the writer meant to leave nothing out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see ”all things controlled” by man; 9 what we do see is Jesus “who was put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death, and who has been “crowned with glory and honour,” that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.
Ο γρἀγλι (γρ as in Greek idiom, opening a new question; almost equivalent to “now”: ο γρ= non certe, Valckenaer) ὑέαε(i.e. ὁθό, as C vg add)—the writer is already thinking of ὑέαα in the quotation which he is about to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to μλοτ ἀαά(9:11, 10:1) and ἡμλοσ πλς(13:14), we see that τνοκυέη τνμλοσνmeans the new order of things in which the στραof 1:14, 2:2, 3 is to be realized (see 9:28), and from which already influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4) imply this higher, future order of things (cp. 6:4, 5; especially δνμι τ μλοτςαῶο), from which rays stream down into the present. How the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. But the author had already urged that this service of angels was rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit Christians (1:14). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his argument differently and used, for example, the belief that Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world (1Co_6:2, 1Co_6:3).
Philo (de opificio, 29, ο πρ ὅο ὕττνγγννἂθωο, δὰτντξνἠάττι argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in relation to angels, as here.
The quotation (vv. 6-8a) from the 8th psalm runs:
τ ἐτνἄθωο ὅιμμήκ1 ατῦ
ἢυὸ ἀθώο ὅιἐικπῃατν
ἠάτσςατνβαύτ πρ ἀγλυ,
δξ κὶτμ ἐτφνσςατν
πναὑέαα ὑοάωτνπδνατῦ
The LXX tr. אהםnot incorrectly by ἀγλυ, since the elohim of the original probably included angels. This was the point of the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the quotation offers only a couple of items. (a) τ is changed into τς(LXX A) by C* P 104, 917, 1288, 1319, 1891, 2127 vt boh, either in conformity to the preceding τςor owing to the feeling that the more common τς(in questions, e.g. 12:7, Joh_12:34) suited the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (b) The quotation omits κὶκτσηα ατνἐὶτ ἔγ τνχιῶ συbefore πνα it is inserted by אA C* M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth. Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in the sentence on which the writer does not comment; probably he left it out as incompatible with 1:10 (ἔγ τνχιῶ σύεσνο ορνί although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage than is absolutely required for his particular purpose.
In δεατρτ δ πύτς(v. 6), even if the δ is adversative, it need not be expressed in English idiom. δαατρῖθιin Greek inscriptions “means primarily to address an assembly or a king” (Hicks, in Classical Review, i. 45). Here, the only place where it introduces an OT quotation, it = attest or affirm. Πύτςin such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo (De Ebriet. 14: επ γρπύτς and πυlater on (4:4) recurs in a similar formula, as often in Philo. The τςimplies no modification of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration; his words are God’s words (v. 8). The psalm intends no contrast between ἠάτσςκλ and δξ …ἐτφνσςατν The proof that this wonderful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet’s (“What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel!” etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes βαύτ in the sense of “temporarily” rather than “slightly,” and so has to make the “inferiority” and “exaltation” two successive phases, in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take this verse as part of a messianic ode; neither here nor elsewhere does he use the term “Son of Man.” He points out, first of all (v. 8) that, as things are (ννδ οπ: ο π = ο πςmight be read, i.e. “in no wise,” and ννtaken logically instead of temporally; but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unfulfilled; οπ ὅωε ατ (i.e. man) τ “πνα i.e. ἡοκυέηἡμλοσ) ὑοεαμν. Human nature is not “crowned with glory and honour” at present. How can it be, when the terror of death and the devil (v. 15) enslaves it? What is to be said, then? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there is something that we do see: βέοε Ἰσῦ dealing triumphantly with death on man’s behalf (v. 9). The Ἰσῦ comes in with emphasis, as in 3:1 and 12:2, at the end of a preliminary definition τν…ἠατμνν
It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which involves the reference of ατ already to him. On this view, the writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still unfulfilled. “We do not yet see τ πναunder the sway of Jesus Christ, for the world to come has not yet come; it has only been inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ (1:3 κθρσὸ τνἁατῶ πισμνςἐάιε ἐ δξᾷτςμγλσνςἐ ὑηος Though the Son is crowned (1:8, 9) and enthroned (1:13 κθυἐ δξῶ μυ his foes are still to be subdued (ἕςἂ θ τὺ ἐθοςσυὑοόιντνπδνσυ and we must be content to wait for our full στρα(9:28) at his second coming; under the οπ ὁῶε κλ of experience there is a deeper experience of faith.” The writer rather turns back in v. 9 to the language of v. 7; this at least has been fulfilled. Jesus has been put lower than the angels and he has been crowned. How and why? The writer answers the second question first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application to the messiah of words like those quoted in v. 6 is forced, and “Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation of ατ in v. 8. That interpretation yields a true idea—the thought expressed, e.g., in T. E. Brown’s poem, “Sad! Sad!”—
“One thing appears to me—
The work is not complete;
One world I know, and see
It is not at His feet—
Not, not! Is this the sum?”
No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum; our outlook is not one of mere pathos; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of Christ’s triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of his sacrifice. The argument of v. 8, 9, therefore, is that, however inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the Jesus who was “put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death (δὰτ πθμ τῦθντυmust refer to the death of Jesus himself,1 not to the general experience of death as the occasion for his incarnation), now “crowned with glory and honour.” When δὰτ πθμ τῦθντυis connected with what follows (δξ κὶτμ ἐτφνμνν it gives the reason for the exaltation, not the object of the incarnation ( = εςτ πσεν But δά…θντυis elucidated in a moment by ὅω …θντυ V. 9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted—it was for the sake of mankind. In v. 10 the writer proceeds to explain how he was “lowered”—it was by suffering that culminated in death. Then he recurs naturally to the “why.” The mixture of quotation and comment in v. 9 leaves the meaning open to some dubiety, although the drift is plain. “But one Being referred to in the psalm (τν…ἠατμνν we do see—it is Jesus, and Jesus as ἠατμννfor the purpose of suffering death, and δξ κὶτμ ἐτφνμνν Why did he die? Why was he thus humiliated and honoured ? For the sake of every man; his death was ὑὲ πνό, part of the divine purpose of redemption.” Thus ὅω …θντυexplains and expounds the idea of δὰτ πθμ (which consists in) τῦθντυ gathering up the full object and purpose of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This implies a pause after ἐτφνμνν or, as Bleek suggests, the supplying of an idea like ὃἔαε before ὅω κλ if γύηα is to be taken, as it must be, as = “he might taste.” How a ὅω clause follows and elucidates δάκλ may be seen in Ep. Arist. 106 (δὰτὺ ἐ τῖ ἁνίι ὄτς ὅω μδνςθγάωι).
As for v. 8a, Paul makes a similar comment (1Co_15:27), but excludes God from the τ πνα The curiously explicit language here is intended to reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v. 5, viz., that the next world has no room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The τ πναincludes even angels!) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek bible, where Deu_32:8 voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non-Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism. Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that ἀυόατνoccurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. 10, 1, τύῃτ ἅλ ὑοεαμν, ατνδ ἀολυο κὶἀυόατν Our author’s language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo’s remark on Gen_1:26 in de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception of the heavenly beings—ὅαγρθηὰἐ τῖ τιὶσοχίι γ ὑάιἀρ πναὑέατνατ, τ κτ ορννὑεεόεο ἅεδιτρςμία ἐίαότ.
The closing clause of v. 9 (ὅω χρτ θο ὑὲ πνὸ γύηα θντυ therefore, resumes and completes the idea of δὰτ πθμ τῦθντυ Each follows a phrase from the psalm; but ὅω …θντυdoes not follow ἐτφνμννlogically. The only possible method of thus taking ὅω κλ would be by applying δξ κὶτμ ἐτφνμννto Christ’s life prior to death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when “in the counsels of heaven” he was, as it were, “crowned for death” (so Rendall, who makes γύαθιθντυcover the “inward dying” of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary), or (b) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round him, or (c) specifically to God’s recognition and approval of him at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of δξ in v. 10 tells against such theories; it is from another angle altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P 1:17 to have received τμνκὶδξνfrom God at the transfiguration. The most natural interpretation, therefore, is to regard δξ …ἐτφνμννas almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm. It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume a break in the text after ἐτφνμνν some words lost which led up to ὅω …θντυ(Windisch), or (ii) to translate ὅω by “how,” as in Luk_24:20, i.e. “we see how Jesus tasted death” (so Blass, boldly reading ἐεστ), or by “after that” or “when” (Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it takes the indicative as usual), etc.
In ὑὲ πνό, πνό was at an early stage taken as neuter, practically =the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity. “You know,” says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative of the death of Joseph (Texts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), “that many times now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the universe.” The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (in Joan. i. 35) writes: “He is a ‘great highpriest’ [referring to Heb_4:15], having offered himself up in sacrifice once (ἅα) not for human beings alone, but for the rest of rational creatures as well (ἀλ κὶὑὲ τνλιῶ λγκν ‘For without God he tasted death for everyone’ (χρςγρθο ὑἐ πνὸ ἐεστ θντυ In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage runs: ‘for by the grace of God’ (χρτ γρθο). Well, if ‘without God he tasted death for everyone,’ he did not die simply for human beings, but for the rest of rational creatures as well; and if ‘by the grace of God he tasted the death for everyone,’1 he died for all except for God (χρςθο)— for ‘by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.’ It would indeed be preposterous (ἄοο) to say that he tasted death for human sins and not also for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin—e.g. for the stars. Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of Job: ‘The stars are not pure before him,’ unless this is said hyperbolically. For this reason he is a ‘great highpriest,’ because he restores (ἀοαίτσ) all things to his Father’s kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father’s glory (πὸ τ χρσιδξνπτιή).” The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this interpretation of πνό as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially angels. But the neuter is always expressed in “Hebrews” by the plural, with or without the article, and, as v. 16 shows, the entire interest is in human beings.
Γύηα after ὑὲ πνό has also been misinterpreted. Γύι in LXX, as a rendering of מעם takes either genitive (1 S 14:24, cp. 2 Mac 6:20) or accusative (1 S 14:29, Job_34:3), but γύσα θντυnever occurs; it is the counterpart of the rabbinic phrase טםמת, and elsewhere in the NT (Mar_9:1 = Mat_16:28 = Luk_9:27, Joh_8:50) is used not of Jesus but of men. It means to experience ( = ἰενθντν 11:5). Here it is a bitter experience, not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply “tasted” death (Chrysostom, Theophyl., Oecumenius: ο γρἐέενντ θντ ἀλ μννατντόο τν ἀεεστ) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to encourage a patient. The truer comment would be: “When I think of our Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death” (M ’Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); γύηα does not echo βαύτ, as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or short.
The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in χρτ θο. In the second century two forms of the text were current, χρςθο and χρτ θο. This is plain from Origen’s comment (see above); he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Gal_3:10), and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read χρς(“absque deo: sola enim divina natura non egebat”), i.e., in the sense already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ’s divine nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading than χρτ. Of all the supporters of χρς the most emphatic is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd (γλιττν to substitute χρτ θο, for χρςθο, arguing from passages like 1Co_15:10 and Eph_2:8, Eph_2:9 that Paul’s custom is not to use the former phrase ἁλς ἀλ πνω ἀότνςἀοοθα λγυ The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the Nestorians tended to compromise χρςin the eyes of the later church; it survives only in M 424 **, though there is a trace of it (a Nestorian gloss?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice; χρςwas read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by Origen’s time, and the problem is to determine whether it or χρτ was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for the other. In this case, the textual canon “potior lectio difficillima” would favour χρς But the canon does not apply rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult for a modern to do justice to χρςθο. Yet χρςis elsewhere used by our author in a remarkable way, e.g. in 9:28 χρςἁατα ὀθστι and the question is whether χρςθο here cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It may be (i) “forsaken by God,” an allusion to the “dereliction” of Mar_15:34 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put as ἄε θο. (ii) “Apart from his divinity” (see above), i.e. when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would require a term like τςθόηο. (iii) Taken with πνό, “die for everyone (everything?) except God” (Origen’s view, adopted recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and (iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus Bengel and others modify it by taking ὑὲ πνό = to master everything, χρςθο being added to explain that “everything” does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem) gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and represents χρς(Christ = the Grace of God),1 which came to be altered into χρςand χρτ. But, if χρςθο is regarded as secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as a gloss upon πνό, or even on the margin of v. 8 opposite οδνἀῆε ατ ἀυόατν whence it slipped lower down into the text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text, which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at any rate χρτ fits in well with ἔρπι which immediately follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was χρτ θο that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God’s character (ἔρπιγρατ, i.e. θῶ The nearest Latin equivalent for πέο, as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was “decorum” (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this high sense the divine χρς(4:16), shown in the wide range and object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and method.
The writer now explains (vv. 10-18) why Jesus had to suffer and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay (whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had to enter human life and identify himself with men; suffering is the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer, if he is to carry out God’s saving purpose. The sufferings of Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation which gave rise to the author’s handling of the subject arose out of what he felt to be his readers’ attitude. “We are suffering hardships on account of our religion.” But so did Jesus, the writer replies. “Well, but was it necessary for him any more than for us? And if so, how does that consideration help us in our plight?” To this there is a twofold answer. (a) Suffering made Jesus a real Saviour; it enabled him to offer his perfect sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends. (b) He suffered not only for you but like you, undergoing the same temptations to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold inference is: (i) do not give way, but realize all you have in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you can enjoy. (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an encouragement; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example nerve you.
10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was befitting that He for whom and by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by suffering (δὰπθμτν echoing δὰτ πθμ τῦθντν 11For sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (ἐ ἕο, sc. γνῦ: neuter as Act_17:26). That is why he (ὁἁιζν is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying,
“I will proclaim thy name to my brothers,
in the midst of the church I will sing of thee”;
13 and again,
“I will put my trust in him”;
and again,
“Here am I and the children God has given me.”
14 Since the children then (ον resuming the thought of v. 11a) share blood and flesh,1 he himself participated in their nature,2 so that by dying he might crush him who wields the power of death (that is to say, the devil), 15 and release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 16 (For of course it is not angels that “he succours,” it is “the offspring of Abraham”). 17 He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in order to prove a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the People. 18 It is as he suffered by his temptations that he is able to help the tempted.
It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either generally (as, e.g., Luk_24:26 οχ τῦαἔε1 πθῖ τνΧιτνκλ or with a specific reference to Isa_53. He explains them on the ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God’s standpoint, as in 12:2 from that of Jesus himself. God’s purpose of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour (v. 10); then (vv. 11f.) it is shown how he made common cause with those whom he was to rescue.
Ἔρπνγρκλ (v. 10). Πέενor πέο, in the sense of “seemly,” is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not uncommon in later Greek, e.g. Lucian’s Prometheus, 8 (οτ θοςπέο οτ ἄλςβσλκν and the de Mundo, 397b, 398a (ὃκὶπέο ἐτ κὶθῷμλσαἁμζνof a theory about the universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo, who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do,2 though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea. According to Aristotle (Nic. Ethics, iv. 2. 2, τ πέο δ πὸ ατν κὶἐ ᾧκὶπρ ὅ what is “befitting” relates to the person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object. Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering and actual death. “Quand il est question des actes de Dieu, ce qui est convenable est toujours né au point de vue mé” (Reuss). In the description of God (for ατ cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) δʼὃ τ πνακὶδʼο τ πνα the writer differs sharply from Philo. The Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Gen_4:1) and Joseph (Gen_40:18) using the phrase δὰτῦθο (Cherubim, 35), on the ground that it makes God merely instrumental; whereas, ὁθὸ ατο, οκὄγνν On the contrary, we call God the creative cause (ατο) of the universe, ὄγννδ λγνθο δʼο κτσεάθ. He then quotes Exo_14:13 to prove, by the use of πρ, that ο δὰ τῦθο ἀλ πρ ατῦὡ ατο τ σζσα. But our author has no such scruples about δά any more than Aeschylus had (Agamemnon, 1486, δα Δὸ πνιίυπνρέα Like Paul (Rom_11:36) he can say δʼο τ πναof God, adding, for the sake of paronomasia, δʼὅ to cover what Paul meant by ἐ ατῦκὶεςατν Or rather, starting with δʼὃ τ πναhe prefers another δάwith a genitive, for the sake of assonance, to the more usual equivalent ἐ ο or ὑʼο. To preserve the assonance, Zimmer proposes to render: “um dessentwillen das All, und durch dessen Willen das All.”
The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults; Aristides (ΕςτνΣρπν 51: ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of Serapis, writes to this effect, πναγρπναο δὰσῦτ κὶδὰσ ἡῖ γγεα. But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use of δάin this connexion Possibly δάwith the accusative was the primitive and regular expression, as Norden contends.1 We call Zeus “Ζν κὶΔα ὡ ἄ ε λγιε δʼὃ ζμν says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the older Stoics (see Arnim’s Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, ii. pp. 305, 312), and δάwith the accusative might have the same causal sense here,2 i.e. “through,” in which case the two phrases δʼὅ and δʼο would practically be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least = “by whom and through whom.” But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of δʼὅ here is final, “for whom”; the end of the universe, of all history and creation, lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists; He who redeems is He who has all creation at His command and under His control.
The point in adding δʼὅ …τ πναto ατ is that the sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental; they form part of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation of the world (Quaest. in Exo_24:16 βυόεο ἐιεξιὅιατςκὶτνκσο ἐηιύγσ κὶτ γνςελτ. Ἡδ ἀάλσςτῦποήο δύεαγνσςἐτ τςποέα ἀενν But our author goes deeper; redemption, he reiterates (for this had been hinted at in 1:1-4), is not outside the order of creation. The distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite assertion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God the creator, that God’s providence included the mysterious sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with His will.
In πλοςυοςthe πλο is in antithesis to the one and only ἀχγς as in Rom_8:29, Mar_14:24. For the first time the writer calls Christians God’s sons. His confidence towards the Father is in sharp contrast to Philo’s touch of hesitation in De Confus. Ling. 28 (κνμδπ μνο τγάῃτςἀιχεςὤ υὸ θο ποαοεεθι…κὶγρε μπ ἱαο θο πῖε νμζσα γγνμν Ἀαότ is devoid of any reference to past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to denote “an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact” (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with an implied ατνinstead of ατ, by a common Greek assimilation (cp. e.g. Act_11:12, Act_15:22, Act_22:17, Act_25:27). The accusative and infinitive construction prompted ἀαότ instead of ἀαότ. Had ἀαότ been intended to qualify ἀχγν πλοςwould have been preceded by τν The thought is: thus do men attain the δξ which had been their destiny (v. 7), but only through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering.
The mistaken idea that ἀαότ must refer to some action previous to τλισι which gave rise to the Latin rendering “qui adduxerat” (vg) or “multis filiis adductis” (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of Zimmer that δξ denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the δκιιof the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible (see below on 11:40, 12:23) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer, but not to introduce it here.
The general idea in ἀχγνis that of originator or personal source; τυέτ, τνατο τςστρα (Chrysostom). It is doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of 12:2, suggests that the “pioneer” meaning was present to his mind; Jesus was ἀχγςτςστρα ατνin the sense that he led the way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Act_5:31 (ἀχγνκὶστρ), and suits ἀαότ better than the alternative sense of the head or progenitor—as of a Greek clan or colony. In this sense ἀχγςis applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGIS 212:13, 219:26), as well as a term for the founder (= conditor) or head of a philosophical school (Athenaeus, xiii. 563 E, τνἄχγνὑῶ τςσφα Ζνν). But the other rendering is more relevant. Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the soldier who was put to death in 295 a.d. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 340 f.): “huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur vitae principem, salutis auctorem.” The sufferings of Jesus as ἀχγςστρα had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how to die; he experienced death ὑὲ πνό, and by this unique suffering made it possible for “many sons” of God to enter the bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to “perfect” (τλισι the ἀχγςστρα is to make him adequate, completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet told; later on (5:9, 7:28) the writer touches the relation between the perfect ability of Christ and his et