Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 4:1 - 4:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest is still left to us, let us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. 2For (κὶγρ= etenim) we have had the good news as well as they (ἐενι 19); only, the message they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. 3 For we do “enter the Rest” by our faith: according to his word,
“As I swore in my anger,
they shall never enter my Rest”—
although “his works” were all over by the foundation of the world. 4For he says somewhere about the seventh(sc. ἡέα) day: “And God rested from all his works on the seventh day.” 5And again in this (ἐ τύῳ sc. τπ) passage, “they shall never enter my Rest.” 6Since then it is reserved (ἀοεπτι a variant for κτλι. v. 1) for some “to enter it,” and since those who formerly got the good news failed to “enter” owing to their disobedience,1 7he again fixes a day; “today”—as he says in “David” after so long an interval, and as has been already quoted:
“Today, when you hear his voice,
harden not your hearts.”
8Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another day. There is a sabbath-Rest, then, reserved (ἀοεπτι as in 6) still for the People of God (for once “a man enters his (ατῦ i.e. God’s) rest,” he “rests from work” just as God did).
Ἐαγλα(v. 1) is not common in the LXX, though it mistranslates ספרהin Psa_56:8, and is occasionally the term for a human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh (6) it is the divine promise (τ ἔεςτςἐαγλα συ and recurs in the plural, of the divine promises, in Test. Jos_20:1 (ὁθὸ πισιτνἐδκσνὑῶ κὶἐάε ὑᾶ εςτςἐαγλα τνπτρνὑῶ) and Ps. Sol 12:8 (ὅιικρο κηοοήαε ἐαγλα κρο—the first occurrence of this phrase κ. ἐ., cp. below on 6:12). Κτλιοέη ἐαγλα (+ τςD* 255, from 6:15, 17, 11:9) is a genitive absolute. Ἐαγλα εσλεν(like ὁμ …ὑρσιin Act_14:5) κλ the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn (still τ “σμρν κλῖα); and (b) that the punishment which befalls others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, 1: α γρἑέω τμρα βλοῦιτὺ πλος φβ τῦμ πρπήι πθῖ). By a well-known literary device μ πτ, like μ in 12:15, takes a present (δκ), instead of the more usual aorist, subjunctive. Δκ means “judged” or “adjudged,” as in Josephus, Ant. viii. 32, κνἀλτινδκ. This is common in the LXX, e.g. in Pro_17:28 ἐενδ τςἑυὸ πισςδξιφόιο ενι(where δξιis paralleled by λγσήεα), 27:14 (κτρμνυοδνδαέενδξι indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which goes back to Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 113 D, of the souls in the underworld, ο μνἂ δξσ μσςββωέα) and Demosthenes (629. 17, ο δδγέο ἀδοόο = the convicted murderers). The searching scrutiny which passes this verdict upon lack of faith is the work of the divine Logos (in v. 12).
In v. 2 εηγλσέο is remarkable. Our author, who never uses εαγλο (preferring ἐαγλαhere as an equivalent), employs the passive of εαγλζι1 (as in v. 6) in the broad sense of “having good news brought to one.” The passive occurs in LXX of 2 S 18:31 (εαγλσήωὁκρό ὁβσλύ) and in Mat_11:5 (πωο εαγλζνα). The κίafter κθπρemphasizes as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure of the past generation was that they merely heard what God said, and did not believe him; ὁλγςτςἀος(ἀος passive = “sermo auditus,” vg), which is another (see 3:12) instance of the Semitic genitive of quality, is defined as μ (causal particle as in 11:27 μ φβθί) σγε(ερ(ςμνςτ πσε τῖ ἀοσσν since it did not get blended with faith in (the case of) those who heard it. Or τ πσε may be an instrumental dative: “since it did not enter vitally into the hearers by means of the faith which it normally awakens in men.” The fault lies, as in the parable of the Sower, not with the message but with the hearers. The phrase λγς…σγερσέο may be illustrated from Menander (Stob. Serm. 42, p. 302), τντῦλγυμνδνμνοκἐίθννἤε δ χητ σγερμννἔεν and Plutarch, non posse suauiter vivi secundum Epicurum, 1101, βλινγρἐυάχι τ κὶσγερσα τ πρ θῶ δξ κιὸ αδῦ κὶφβυπθςκλ The use of λγςwith such verbs is illustrated by Plutarch, Vit. Cleom. 2 (ὁδ Σωκςλγς…βθιδ κὶπά κρνύεο ἤε μλσαεςτ οκῖνἀαὸ ἐιίωι). Κᾶι occurs in Philo’s definition of φλα(Quaest. in Gen_2:18) as consisting [οκ ἐ τ χεώε μλο ἢκάε κὶσμωί ββί τνἠῶ, and σγερσα in his description of the union of spirit and blood in the human body (Quaest. in Gen_9:4 πεμ …ἐφρσα κὶσγερσα αμτ).
The original reading σγε(ερ(ςμνς(א114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon assimilated (after ἐενυ) into the accusative -ος(p13 A B C D K L M P vg boh syrhkl etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of τῖ ἀοσσνinto τνἀοσνω (D* 104. 1611. 2005 d syrhkl mg Lucif.), or τῖ ἀοσεσν(1912 vg Theod. -Mops.), or τῖ ἀοοσν(1891). The absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua) tells decisively against σγερσέος(“since they did not mix with the believing hearers”); for the writer (see above) never takes them into account, and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hypothesi there were none such?
The writer now (vv. 3-10) lays emphasis upon the reality of the Rest. “We have had this good news too as well as they,” for (γρ we believers do enter into God’s Rest; it is prepared and open, it has been ready ever since the world began—ἄαἀοεπτισβαιμςτ λῷτῦθο. Εσρόεαis the emphatic word in v. 3: “we do (we are sure to) enter,” the futuristic present (“ingrediemur,” vg). When God excluded that unbelieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his Rest. The κτπυι was already in existence; the reason why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not any failure on God’s part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it had been brought into being (this is the force of κίο in v. 3), for what prevents it from being realized is not that any ἔγ of God require still to be done. Κτπυι is the sequel to ἔγ. The creative ἔγ leading up to this κτπυι have been completed centuries ago; God enjoys his κτπυι, and if his People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man’s disbelief.
Here, as in Rom_3:28, there is a choice of reading between ον(אA C M 1908 boh) and γρ(p13 B D K L P Ψ6, 33 lat syrhkl eth Chrys. Lucif. etc.); the colourless δ (syrpesh arm) may be neglected. The context is decisive in favour of γρ Probably the misinterpretation which produced ονled to the change of εσρόεαinto εσρώεα (A C 33. 69*: future in vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of τν(the first) may be due to the same interpretation, but not necessarily; p13 B D* om., but B omits the article sometimes without cause (e.g. 7:15). The omission of ε (p13 D* 2, 330, 440, 623, 642, 1288, 1319, 1912) was due to the following ε in εσλύοτι
Κίο (with gen. absol., as OP 898:26) is equivalent here to κίογ for which it is a v.l. in Act_17:27 (A E, with ptc.). “Κίο, ut antiquiores κίε, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores aetatis hellenisticae” (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graeci, 249). Κτβλ is not a LXX term, but appears in Ep. Aristeas, 129 and 2 Mac 2:29 (τςὅη κτβλς= the entire edifice); in the NT always, except Heb_11:11, in the phrase ἀόor πὸκτβλςκσο.
The writer then (v. 4) quotes Gen_2:2, inserting ὁθὸ ἐ (exactly as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the κτπυι had originated immediately after the six days of creation. In ερκ πυthe πυis another literary mannerism (as in Philo); instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2:6). The psalm-threat is then (v. 5) combined with it, and (v. 6) the deduction drawn, that the threat (v. 7) implies a promise (though not as if v. 1 meant, “lest anyone imagine he has come too late for it”—an interpretation as old as Schö and still advocated, e.g., by Dods).
The title of the 92nd psalm, “for the sabbath-day,” was discussed about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia; the former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia’s rabbinical tradition preferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W. Bacher’s Agada der Tannaiten2, 1. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gen_2:2 in the millennium: “he rested on the seventh day” means that “when his Son arrives he will destroy the time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon and stars; then he will really rest on the seventh day,” and Christians cannot enjoy their rest till then. Our author’s line is different—different even from the Jewish interpretation in the Vita Adae et Evae (li. I), which makes the seventh day symbolize “the resurrection and the rest of the age to come; on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.”
In v. 7 μτ τσῦο χόο, like μτ τῦα(v. 8), denotes the interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David, for ἐ Δυί means “in the psalter” (like ἐ Ἠί, Rom_11:2); the 95th psalm is headed ανςᾠῆ τ Δυί in the Greek bible, but the writer throughout (3:7f.) treats it as a direct, divine word. Ποίηα (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the original text (p13 A C D* P 6, 33, 1611, 1908, 2004, 2005 lat syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.); ποίηε (B 256, 263, 436, 442, 999, 1739, 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David spoke these words before the oath (v. 7 comes before v. 11!), while ερτι(Dc K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of quotation. From the combination of Psa_95:7, Psa_95:8 with Psa_95:11 and Gen_2:2 (vv. 3-7) the practical inference is now drawn (v. 8f.). Like Sirach (46:1, 2 κααὸ ἐ πλμι Ἰσῦ Νυ …ὃ ἐέεοκτ τ ὄοαατῦμγςἐὶστρᾳἐλκῶ ατῦ Philo (de mutatione nominum, 21, Ἰσῦ δ [ἑμνύτι στρακρο, ἓεςὄοατςἀίτς had commented on the religious significance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and even uses the name Ἰσῦ freely, since Ἰσῦ is never applied by him to Christ before the incarnation (Aquila naturally avoids Ἰσῦ and prefers Ἰσυ). The author of Ep. Barnabas plays on the fact that “Joshua” and “Jesus” are the same names: ἐπστ ἐὶτνἐ σρὶμλοτ φνρῦθιὑῖ Ἰσῦ (6:9), i.e. not on the “Jesus” who led Israel into the land of rest, but on the true, divine “Joshua.” Such, he declares, is the inner meaning of Isa_28:16 (ὃ ἐπσιἐʼατνζστιεςτναῶα But the author of Πὸ Ἑρίυ takes his own line, starting from the transitive use of κτπύι (Jos_1:13 κρο ὁθὸ ὑῶ κτπυε ὑᾶ κὶἔωε ὑῖ τνγντύη, etc.); not that he reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages of κτπύι, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the relevance of κτπυι to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26), explains why Moses calls the sabbath (ἑμνύτιδ ἀάασς the “sabbath of God” in Exo_20:10 etc.; the only thing which really rests is God—“rest (ἀάαλν meaning not inactivity in good (ἀρξα κλν—for the cause of all things which is active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but—an energy devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with absolute ease.” The movement and changes of creation point to labour, but “what is free from weakness, even though it moves all things, will never cease to rest: ὥτ οκιτττνμν θῷτ ἀααεθι” So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 8, τντσῦο κσο ἄε πννπλιμνεράεο νν δ κὶεσε σνχνοδπτ λγι[cp. Heb_1:3 φρντ τ πνα θῷγρτ ἀάαο ἁμδώαο. All such speculations are remote from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God’s promise of κτπυι is spiritual; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans in Canaan; (b) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is eschatological.
In v. 9 ἄα as in 12:8, Luk_11:48, Act_11:18, Rom_10:17, is thrown to the beginning by an unclassical turn (“mü dem gebildeten Hellenen hochgradig anstö erscheinen,” Radermacher, 20). Σβαιμς apparently1 a word coined by the writer, is a Semitic-Greek compound. The use of σβαιμςfor κτπυι is then (v. 10) justified in language to which the closest parallel is Rev_14:13. “Rest” throughout all this passage—and the writer never refers to it again—is the blissful existence of God’s faithful in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in 4 Es 8:52: “for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a Rest appointed” (κτσαη In ἀὸτνἰίν as in δὰτῦἰίυαμτς(13:12), ἴιςis slightly emphatic owing to the context; it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun.
When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little-frequented way leads, at length reach it and “rest from their labour” (Dissert. xxiii.).
The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages is pressed home (vv. 11-13) with a skilful blend of encouragement and warning.
11Let us be eager then to “enter that Rest,” in case anyone falls into the same sort of disobedience. 12For the Logos of God is a living thing, active and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow—scrutinizing the very thoughts and conceptions of the heart. 13And no created thing is hidden from him; all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to reckon (ὁλγς
In v. 11 the position of τς as, e.g., in Luk_18:18, is due to “the tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to the beginning of the sentence as possible” (Blass, §473. 1). For ππενἐ, cp. Epict. 3:22, 48, πτ ὑῶ εδνμ τς…ἐ ἐκίε πρπποτ. This Hellenistic equivalent for ππενεςgoes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Herc. 1091, 1092, ἐ κύωικὶφεῶ τργαιππωαδιῷ In Hellenistic Greek ὑόεγαcame to have the sense of πρδιμ, and is used here loosely for “kind” or “sort”; take care of falling into disobedience like that of which these πτρςὑῶ yield such a tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of this kind, writes ἐ τ ατ ὑοεγαιτςἀεθίς where ἐ τ ατ ἀεθί would have served. In passing away from the text about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classical example of ἀεθι in the far past of the People.
The connexion of thought in vv. 11f. is suggested by what has been already hinted in v. 1, where the writer pled for anxiety, μ πτ δκ τςἐ ὑῶ ὑτρκνι He repeats ἵαμ …τς…πσ, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term δκ. Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v. 13), with which the paragraph closes. Σοδσμνwe have to put heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God whom nothing escapes; ζνγρκλ (v. 12). The term ζνechoes θὸ ζνin 3:12 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as κρίςechoes κρί πνρ ἀιτα. God is swift to mark any departure from his will in human thought—the thought that issues in action.
The personifying of the divine λγς in a passage which described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis 18:15, for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect of God’s λγςcoming into play: ὁπνούαό συλγςἀʼορνν…ξφςὀὺτνἀυόρτνἐιαή συφρν In Wis 1:6, again, the φλνρπνπεμ σφα which cannot tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it: ὅιτννφῶ ατῦ(the blasphemer) μρυ ὁθό, κὶτςκρίςατῦἐίκπςἀηή, so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer poetically personifies the revelation of God for a moment. Ὁλγςτῦθο is God speaking, and speaking in words which are charged with doom and promise (3:7f.). The revelation, however, is broader than the scripture; it includes the revelation of God’s purpose in Jesus (1:1f.). The free application of ὁλγς(τῦθο) in primitive Christianity is seen in 1 P 1:23f., Jam_1:18f., quite apart from the specific application of the term to the person of Christ (Joh_1:1-18). Here it denotes the Christian gospel declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired message which carries on the OT revelation of God’s promises and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this λγς The rhetorical outburst in vv. 12f. is a preacher’s equivalent for the common idea that the sense of God’s all-seeing scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus (Captivi, 2. 63, “est profecto deu’, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et uidet”). This had been deepened by ethical writers like Seneca (Ep. lxxxiii. I, “nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit”), Epictetus (ii. 14, 11, οκἔτ λθῖ ατνο μννπιῦτ ἀλ οδ δαούεο ἢἐθμύεο), and the author of the Epistle of Aristeas (132-133: Moses teaches ὅιμνςὁθό ἐτ …κὶοθνατνλνάε τνἐὶγςγνμννὑʼἀθώω κυίς…κνἐνηῇτςκκα ἐιεεν οκἂ λθι μ ὅικὶπάα, and 210: the characteristic note of piety is τ δααβνι ὅιπναδαατςὁθὸ ἐεγῖκὶγνσε, κὶοθνἂ λθιἄιο πισςἢκκνἐγσμνςἄθωο), as well as by apocalyptists like the author of Baruch (83:3: He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the members of man). But our author has one particular affinity. Take Philo’s interpretation of δελνατ μσ in Gen_15:10. Scripture means, he explains (quis rer. div. haeres, 26) that it was God who divided them, τ τμε τ σμάτνἑυο λγ, ὃ εςτνὀυάη ἀοηεςἀμνδαρνοδπτ λγι τ γρασηὰπναἐεδνμχιτνἀόω κὶλγμννἀεῶ δεέθ, πλνἀὸτύω τ λγ θωηὰεςἀυήοςκὶἀειρφυ μία ἄχτιδαρῖ οτςὁτμύ. He returns (in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man, and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of ἠοηέο κὶὀὺ λγν μσεενκὶἀαηενἕατ ἱαό. Still, the Logos is τμύ as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather than as an ethical force; and when Philo connects the latter with ὁλγς as he does in quod deter. pot. 29, Cherub. 9, etc., ὁλγςis the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas.
Ἐεγς(for which B, by another blunder, has ἐαγς= evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity (cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, ζσςἀτ ἐεγσέα). Neither is τμτρςa LXX term; the comparison of ὁλγςto a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and a “dagger,” though μχιαhad by this time come to mean a sword of any size, whether long (ῥμαα or short.1 The comparative is followed (cp. Luk_16:8) by ὑέ, as elsewhere by πρ, and the “cutting” power of ὁλγςextends or penetrates to the innermost recesses of human nature—ἄρ μρσο ψχςκὶπεμτς ἁμντ κὶμεῶ (the conj. μλν= limbs is neat but superfluous, for μεῶ was in the text known to Clem. Alex. quis dives, 41). D K here (as in 11:32) insert τ before the first κί but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and the physical spheres; ἅμν…μεῶ is merely a metaphorical equivalent for ψχςκὶπεμτς Μρσό (only in LXX in Jb 11:23, Job_11:2 Ezr_6:18) means here “division,” not “distribution” (2:4); the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line between the ψχ and the πεμ, all this is open to ὁλγς The metaphorical use of μεῶ in this sense is as old as Euripides, who speaks of μ πὸ ἄρνμεὸ ψχς(Hippolytus, 255).
According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8, 9), the flaming sword of Gen_3:24 is a symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole world in a single day), or of reason, ὀυιηόαο γρκὶθρο λγςκὶμλσαὁτῦατο. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds, to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, ὅ οδπτ λγικνύεο σοδ πσ πὸ αρσνμντνκλν φγνδ τνἐατω. But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian’s account of the impression made by the address (ὁλγς of a philosopher: ο γρἐ ἐιοῆ οδ ὡ ἔυε ἡῶ ὁλγςκθκτ, βθῖ δ κὶκίιςἡπηὴἐέεο κὶμλ εσόω ἐεθὶ ὁλγςατν ε οό τ επῖ, δέοετνψχν(Nigr. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo-Phocylides, 124: ὅλντιλγςἀδὶτμτρνἐτ σδρυ and Od. Sol. 12:5: for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit.
The μρσο …μεῶ passage is “a mere rhetorical accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of man” (A. B. Davidson); the climax is κρί, for what underlies human failure is κρί πνρ ἀίτα (3:12), and the writer’s warning all along has been against hardening the heart, i.e. obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of κὶκιιό κλ Κιιό is another of his terms which are classical, not religious; it is used by Aristotle (Eth. Nik. vi. 10) of ἡσνσς the intelligence of man being κιιήin the sense that it discerns. If there is any distinction between ἐθμσω (ἐθμσω C* D* W vt Lucifer) and ἐνιν it is between impulses and reflections, but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them; indeed ἔνι could mean “purpose” as well as “conception.” The two words are another alliterative phrase for “thought and conception,” ἔνι, unlike ἐθμσς being a LXX term.
In v. 13 κὶοκἔτνκίι ἀαή κλ κίι means anything created (as in Rom_8:39), and ατῦis “God’s.” The negative side is followed by the positive, πναδ γμὰκὶτταηιμν. The nearest verbal parallel is in En 9:5 πναἐώινσυφνρ κὶἀάυτ, where the context points as here to secret sins. The general idea was familiar; e.g. (above, p. 55) “nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit.” Μν γρἔετ θῷ ψχνἰεν(Philo, de Abrahamo, 21). But what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub. 5, where Philo explains Deu_29:29 (τ κυτ κρῳτ θῷ τ δ φνρ γνσιγώια by arguing, γντςδ οδὶ ἱαὸ γώη ἀαοςκτδῖ ἐθμμ, μνςδ ὁθό. Hence, he adds, the injunction (Num_5:18) τνψχν“ἐατο τῦεῦσῆα” with head uncovered; which means, the soul τ κφλινδγαγμωεσνκὶτνγώη ᾗκχηα ἀαφαθῖα, ἵʼὄειτῖ ἀρβσάαςἐιρθῖατῦἀεάτυθο κλ the closing description of God being τ μν γμὴ ψχνἰενδνμν. For γμάsee also M. Aurel. 12:2 ὁθὸ πνατ ἡεοιὰγμὰτνὑιῶ ἀγίν…ὁᾷ Τταηιμν must mean something similar, “exposed” or “bared” (“aperta,” vg; πφνρμν, Hesych.).
Though ταηιωdoes not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler “downing” his opponent by seizing his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield the metaphorical passive sense of “exposed,” is not easy to see. The Philonic sense of “depressed” or “bent down” would yield here the meaning “abashed,” i.e. hanging down the head in shame (“conscientia male factorum in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt,” Wettstein). But this is hardly on a level with γμά The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of exposing an offender’s face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an equivalent for the Latin “resupinata” in the sense of “manifesta.” The bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was “reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam praeberet faciem” (Suet. Vit. Vitell. 17).
In the last five words, πὸ ὃ ἡῖ ὁλγς which are impressive by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term λγςhere and in v. 12, although in view of the flexible use of the term, e.g. in 5:11 and 13:17, it might be even doubtful if the writer intended more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase is best conveyed by “with whom we have to reckon.” (a) This rendering, “to whom we have to account (or, to render our account),” was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from Chrysostom (ατ μλοε δῦα εθνςτνππαμνν onwards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a commercial metaphor; e.g. OP. 1188:5 (a.d. 13) ὡ πὸ σ τῦπρ τνἀνηθνω] ζ[τμτς ἐομνυ (sc. λγυ and Hibeh Papyri, 53:4 (24:6 b.c.) πιῶονἀφλςὡ πὸ σ τῦλγυἐοέο. (b) The alternative rendering, “with whom we have to do,” has equal support in Gk. usage; e.g. in the LXX phrase λγςμιπό σ (1 K 2:14, 2 K 9:5) and in Jdg_17:7 (μκά εσνΣδνω, κὶλγνοκἔοσνπὸ ἄθωο). The former idea is predominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn 3, τ δ τιῦο ο πὸ σραὁλγς ἀλ πὸ θὸ τντ κύι εδτ), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Zeitschrift fü die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1911, pp. 243-269), where the passage is quoted from a text like this: ὡ κὶὁΠῦο λγι ζνὁλγςτῦθο κὶτμτρςὑὲ πσνμχια δσοο, δϊνύεο μχιμρσο πεμτςκὶσρό, μχιἁμντ κὶμεῶ, κὶκιιό ἐτνἐθμσω κὶἐνινκρίς κὶοκἔτνκίι ἀαὴ ἐώινατῦ ἀλ πναἐφν ἐώινατῦ ὅιγμο κὶτταηιμνιἐμνἐ τῖ ὀθλοςατῦἕατςἡῶ λγνατ ἀοιόα. The rendering, “who is our subject, of whom we are speaking” (πό = with reference to, and ἡῖ ὁλγςas in 5:11), is impossibly flat.
At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme, which is to occupy him till 10:18, i.e. Christ as ἀχεες He begins, however, by a practical appeal (vv. 14-16) which catches up the ideas of 2:17, 18, 3:1.
14As we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession; 5for ours is no high priest who is incapable (μ δν as in 9:9) of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every respect like ourselves (sc. πὸ ἡᾶ), yet without sinning. 16So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence (μτ πρηίς 3:6), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in the hour of need.
Μγςis a favourite adjective for ἀχεεςin Philo,1 but when the writer adds, ἔοτςονἀχεέ μγνδεηυόατὺ ορνύ, he is developing a thought of his own. The greatness of Jesus as ἀχεεςconsists in his access to God not through any material veil, but through the upper heavens; he has penetrated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self-sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 6:19f, 9:24f.), in the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2:9, 10, where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the full divine glory. Καῶε here as in 6:18 with the genitive (ὁοοις see 3:1); in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer now (v. 15) reiterates the truth of 2:11f.; the exalted Jesus is well able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then positively. Σμαῆα is used of Jesus1 as in Acta Pauli et Theclae, 17 (ὃ μνςσνπθσνπαωέῳκσῳ see below, on 10:34. Origen (in Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus: δὰτὺ ἀθνῦτςἠθνυ κὶδὰτὺ πιῶτςἐεννκὶδὰτὺ δψνα ἐίω, the first part of which may go back to Mat_8:17 (ατςτςἀθνίςἔαε); cp. also Mat_25:35f.. Philo uses the term even of the Mosaic law (de spec. eg. ii. 13, τ δ ἀόω ἔοτ σνπθσ), but here it is more than “to be considerate.” The aid afforded by Jesus as ἀχεεςis far more than official; it is inspired by fellow-feeling τῖ ἀθνίι ἡῶ. “Verius sentiunt qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus, quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes” (Calvin). These ἀθνιιare the sources of temptation. Ἠσρ ἀθνς as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against temptation. Jesus was tempted κτ πνα(2:17, 18) κθ ὁοόηα(a psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OP ix. 1202:24 and BGU 1028:15, in second-century inscriptions) χρςἁατα, without yielding to sin. Which is a real ground for encouragement, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that χρςἁατα does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, κτ πναis modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst temptations arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in the writer’s mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any psychological analysis.
Philo deduces from Lev_4:3 (μννοκἄτκυ ἀαιάκν ὅιὁπὸ ὰήεα ἀχεεςκὶμ ψυώυο ἀέοο ἁατμτνἐτν that the ideal highpriest is practically sinless (de Victimis, 10); but this is a thought with which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as sinless account for our writer’s view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless, not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience which proved successful in the field of temptation.
Hence (v. 16) ποεχμθ ονμτ πρηίς Philo (quis rer. div. haeres, 2) makes πρηί the reward of a good conscience, which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly. But here (cp. ERE ii. 786) πρηί is not freedom of utterance so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3:6). Our writer certainly includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and body, not for any selfish and material end: “audacter deum roga; nihil illum de alieno rogaturus es” (Ep. x. 4). But even this is not the meaning of πρηί here. The Roman argues that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the majority of people “whisper basest of prayers to God.” Our author does not mean “palam” by πρηί.
Our approach (ποεχμθ: the verb in the sense of applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP 1119:8 ποήθμντ καίτ βυῇ BGU 1022) is τ θοῷτςχρτς for grace is now enthroned (see 2:9f.). For the phrase see Isa_16:5 δοθθστιμτ ἐέυ θόο. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic piety, regarded heaven as God’s royal presence and also as the σηήwhere he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Isa_6:1f. and Psa_29 (cp. Mechilta on Exo_15:17), though he only alludes incidentally (12:22) to the worship of God by the host of angels in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of Azariah (Dn 3:38): ὠ ἔτνἐ τ κιῷτύῳ…οδ τπςτῦκρῶα ἐώινσυκὶερῖ ἔες He rather shares Philo’s feeling (de Exsecrat. 9) that ο ἀαῳοέο can rely upon the compassionate character of God (ἑὶμνἐιιεᾳκὶχητττ τῦπρκλυέο σγνμνπὸτμρα ἀὶτθνο), though he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus. The twofold object of the approach is (a) λμάενἔες which is used for the passive of ἐε (which is rare), and (b) χρνερσενκλ an echo of the LXX phrase (e.g. Gen_6:8) ερσενχρνἐατο κρο (τῦθο). In the writer’s text (A) of the LXX, Pro_8:17 ran ο δ ἐὲζτῦτςερσυιχρν Εςεκιο βήεα recalls τῖ πιαοέοςβηῆα in 2:18; it signifies “for assistance in the hour of need.” Εκιο means literally “seasonable,” as in Psa_104:27 (δῦα τντοὴ ατῖ εκιο), “fitting” or “opportune” (Ep. Aristeas, 203, 236). The “sympathy” of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all because it is timely (εκιο being almost equivalent to ἐ κιῷχεα, Sir 8:9). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all his greatness, cherishes compassion (ἔενκὶοκο λμάε τνἐ ἐδίι ἀοωάω) for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes, who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help (κρὸ ερμνιτςἐὶτνθὸ κτφγςτνἀʼατῦβήεα). But the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, ΕςτνΣρπν50: σ γρδ πςτςἐ πνὶκιῷβηὸ κλῖ Σρπ.
How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading is shown by the evidence for ποεχμθ: 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206*. 241. 255. 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489. 623. 635. 639. 642. 915. 919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For ἔες(the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 176:1), the Attic ἔεν(ἔες masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules (Chrys. Theodoret). B om. ερμν
1 Ἀεθιν altered into ἀιτα by א sah boh arm Cyr.
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
D [06: α1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorlyreproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of Πὸ Ἐρίυ has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
255 [α174]
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.
1 An almost contemporary instance (εαγλζνιτ τςνίη ατῦκὶποοῆ) of the active verb is cited by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2, 29.
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
א[01: δ2).
vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.
p [α1034] cont. 2:14-5:6 10:8-11:13 11:28-12:17: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, in 2:14-5:5, to agree with B “in the omission of unessential words and phrases …gives the papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, where B is deficient”; thus p 13 partially makes up for the loss of B after 9:14. Otherwise the text of the papyrus is closest to that of D.
A [02: δ4].
B [03: δ1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
C [04: δ3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
K [018:1:1].
L [020: α5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
M [0121: α1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.
P [025: α3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
104 [α103]
1611 [α208]
2005 [α1436] cont. 1:1-7:2
d (Latin version of D)
1908 [O π103]
Ψ[044: δ6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
6 [δ356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
33 [δ48] Hort’s 17
1 A similar error of A C in 6:2.
69 [δ505]
sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
2 [α253]
330 [δ259]
440 [δ260]
623 [α173]
642 [α552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25
1288 [α162]
1319 [δ180]
1912 [α1066]
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
2004 [α56]
256 [α216]
263 [δ372]
436 [α172]
442 [O 18]
999 [δ353]
1739 [α78]
1837 [α192]
Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.).
1 The only classical instance is uncertain; Bernadakis suspects it in the text of Plutarch, de superstit. 166 A.
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
1 The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Pro_5:4 ἠοηέο μλο μχία δσόο.
2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of πεμτςinto σμτς(2, 38, 257, 547, 1245).
W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “quite free from Western readings.”
1 ὁμνδ μγςἀχεες(de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos.
1 Of God in 4 Mac 5:25 κτ φσνἡῖ σμαε νμθτνὁτῦκίτς but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac., like Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men (cp. 4 Mac 13:23 οτςδ τίυ κθσηυα τςφλδλίςσμαοσς
BGU Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), ed. Wilcken (1895).
ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings).
1 Aristotle argues that χρςor benevolence must be spontaneous and disinterested; also, that its value is enhanced by necessitous circumstances (ἕτ δ χρς κθ ἢ ὁἔω λγτιχρνὑορενδοέῳμ ἀτ τνς μδ ἵατ ατ τ ὑορονιἀλ ἵʼἐεν τ·μγλ δ ἂ ᾖσόρ δοέῳ ἢμγλνκὶχλπν ἢἐ κιοςτιυος ἢμνςἢπῶο ἢμλσα Rhet. ii. 7. 2).
38 [δ355]
88 [α200]
177 [α106]
206 [α365]
241 [δ507]
337 [α205]
378 [α258]
383 [α353] cont. 1:1-13:7
462 [α502]
487 [α171]
489 [δ459] Hort’s 102
639 [α169]
915 [α382]
919 [α113]
920 [α55]
927 [δ251]
1149 [δ370]
1245 [α158]
1518 [α116]
1836 [α65]