Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 6:1 - 6:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Δὸwell then (as in 12:12, 28)— ἐὶτντλιττ φρμθ (6:1). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an effort. The τλιτςin question is the mature mental grasp of the truth about Christ as ἀχεες a truth which the writer is disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand. However, δὰτνχόο they ought to understand it. He has every reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of the sharp, severe tone of vv. 11 f., he now speaks more hopefully. The connexion is not easy. We expect “however” instead of “well then.” But the connexion is not made more easy by regarding 6:1f. as a resolve of the writer: “since you are so immature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching.” It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not facilitated by reading φρμθ. The plural is not the literary plural as in 5:11. The writer wishes to carry his readers along with him. “If you want anyone to instruct you over again in rudimentary Christianity, I am not the man; I propose to carry you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us advance, you and I together.” The underlying thought, which explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv. 4 f.), where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either advance or lose their present position of faith,1 in which latter case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his unqualified censure in 5:12, he shows, in 6:9f., that they are really capable of doing what he summons them to try in 6:1f., i.e. to think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and forgiveness. Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of your religious life. “Religion is something different from mere strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to no other cause than intellectual sloth” (E. F. Scott, p. 44). After the parenthesis of 5:13, 14, the writer resumes the thought with which he started in 5:11a “you must make an effort to enter into this larger appreciation of what Christ means.” Ἄετς…φρμθ is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392-393, τνἀχνἀες| πὸ τντλυὴ ὑτρνοσνφρ: by ἀέτςthe writer means “leaving behind,” and by φρμθ “let us advance.” Ἀίμ might even mean “to omit” (“not mentioning”); it is so used with λγν(= to pass over without mentioning), e.g. in Plutarch’s an seni respublica gerenda sit, 18, ἀλ ἀέτς ε βύε, τνἀοπνατςπλτίςλγνἐεν σοῶε ἤηκλ and even independently (cp. Epict. iv:1. 15, τνμνΚίααπὸ τ πρνἀῶε, and Theophrastus, prooem. ἀεςτ ποιιζσα κὶπλὰπρ τῦπάμτςλγι). In what follows, τντςἀχςτῦΧιτῦλγνis a variant for τ σοχῖ τςἀχςτνλγω τῦθο (5:12). ΤῦΧιτῦis an objective genitive; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344). Blass follows L in reading λιό after λγνneedlessly.
The use of the θμλο metaphor after τςἀχςwas natural; it occurs in Epictetus (2:15. 8, ο θλι τνἀχνσῆα κὶτνθμλο) and in Philo (de spec. leg. ii. 13, ἀχντύη βλόεο ὥπρθμλό τν). Indeed the θμλο metaphor is particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempl. 476 (ἐκάεα δ ὥπρτν θμλο ποαααλμνιψχς This basis (θμλο) of Christian instruction is now described; the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair are not distinctively Christian ideas (v. 2), the writer puts in δδχνor δδχς The θμλο of instruction consists of μτνίς…κὶπσες(genitives of quality), while δδχν which is in apposition to it (“I mean, instruction about”), controls the other four genitives. Μτνι and πσι, βπιμίand ἐιέι χιῶ, ἀάτσςand κίααώιν are the fundamental truths. Μτνι1 ἀόis like μτνενἀό(Act_8:22), and πσι ἐὶθό like πσεενἐί(e.g. Wis 12:2 ἵαἀαλγνε τςκκα πσεσμνἐὶσ, κρε These two requirements were foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other side of repentance is described in 9:14 πσ μλο τ αμ τῦΧιτῦ…κθρε τνσνίηι ἡῶ ἀὸνκῶ ἔγνεςτ λτεενθῷζνι where the last word indicates that νκὰἔγ mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and service of God. Practically, therefore, νκὰἔγ are sins, as the Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11:25 (θο …ἁατα) would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He has coined this phrase to suggest that such ἔγ have no principle of life in them,2 or that they lead to death. The origin of the phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecumenius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of 9:14 was derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse (see Num_19:1f, Num_31:19). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one thing that is clear about it is that these ἔγ νκάwere not habitual sins of Christians; they were moral offences from which a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all. They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it (Eph_2:1), pagans lay νκο τῖ πρπώαι κὶτῖ ἁατας The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is a general phrase. Whatever is evil is νκό, for our author, and ἔγ νκάrender any Christian πσι or λτεενimpossible (cp. Expositor, Jan. 1918, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the profane, contaminating sphere of the world.
In v. 2 δδχνis read, instead of δδχς by B syrharkl and the Old Latin, a very small group—yet the reading is probably original; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into δδχς However, it makes no difference to the sense, which reading is chosen. Even δδχςdepends on θμλο as a qualifying genitive. But the change of δδχνinto δδχςis much more likely than the reverse process. Δδχνfollows βπιμνlike κσο in 1 P 3:3 (ἐδσω ἱαίνκσο). Βπιμίby itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10) or elsewhere (Mar_7:4), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general. The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Col_2:12), but why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 7:1-3), but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with water (see on 10:22). The distinctively Christian uses of water had to be grasped by new adherents. That is, at baptism, e.g., the catechumen would be specially instructed about the difference between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various cults, and (b) the ablutions which were required from Christians in subsequent worship. The latter practice may be alluded to in 10:22 (λλυμνιτ σμ ὗαικθρ). Justin (Apol. 1:62) regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of real baptism: κὶτ λυρνδ τῦοἀοσνε ο δίοε …ἐήγσνκὶῥνίενἑυοςτὺ εςτ ἱρ ατνἐιαννα κὶποινιατῖ μλοτς λιὰ κὶκία ἀοεονα τλο δ κὶλύσα ἐινα πὶ ἐθῖ ἐὶτ ἱρ, ἔθ ἵρνα, ἐεγῦι The ἐιέι χιῶ which often followed baptism in primitive days (e.g. Act_8:17f. Act_8:19:6), though it is ignored by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy Spirit (see v. 4). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de baptismo, 18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it (Ep. lxxiv:5, “manus baptizato imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum sanctum”). The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising, and at “ordination,” afterwards at the reception of penitents and heretics; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism particularly (ERE vi:494b).
The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason’s The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm’s Die Handauflegung im Urchristenthum (1911).
The final pair of doctrines is ἀατσω νκῶ κὶκίαο (2:14, 15, 9:27) αωίυ(as in Act_24:15, Act_24:25). Tεis added after ἀατσω mechanically (to conform with the preceding τ) by אA C K L Lat arm syrhkl pesh, just as it is added after βπιμνby harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the whole sentence, “notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical structure,” it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), “an oratorical device to express a feeling of impatience” with people who need to have such principia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens forward. V. 3 is not a parenthesis (“I will do this,” i.e. go over such elementary truths with you, “if God permits,” when I reach you, 13:23); the τῦοrefers to the advance proposed in v. 1, and after πισμνthe author adds reverently, “if God permits,” ἐνε ἐιρπ ὁθό, almost as a contemporary rhetorician might say in a pious aside: ἐνδ σζ τ διόινἡᾶ (Dion. Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or θῶ ἡᾶ φλτότνἀιεςτ κὶἀόος(De Composit. Verborum, 1). The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann’s Bible Studies, p. 80), and Josephus (Ant. xx:11. 2) uses κντ θῖνἐιρπ.
πισμν(אB K L N 1. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88. 216. 218. 221. 226. 242. 255. 337. 429. 489. 919. 920. 1149. 1518. 1739. 1758. 1827. 1867. 2127. 2143. Lat sah boh Chrys.) has been changed into πισμνby A C D P arm, etc., though the latter may have been originally, like φρμθ in v. 1, an orthographical variant, οand ωbeing frequently confused.
4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly Gift, who participated in the holy Spirit, 5 who tasted the goodness of God’s word and the powers of the world to come, 6and then fell away—it is impossible to make them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in their own persons and hold him up to obloquy. 7 For “land” which absorbs the rain that often falls on it, and bears “plants” that are useful to those for whom it is tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 whereas, if it (sc. ἡγ) “produces thorns and thistles,” it is reprobate and on the verge of being cursed—its fate is to be burned.
Vv.4-6 put the reason for τῦοπισμν(v. 3), and vv. 7, 8 give the reason for ἀύαο …ἀαανζι εςμτνιν(vv. 4-6). Ἀύαο γρκλ (v. 4); there are four impossible things in the epistle: this and the three noted in vv. 18, 10:4 and 11:6. Τὺ …αῶο (4, 5a) is a long description of people who have been initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic κὶπρπσνα. What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v. 6) ἀατυονα …πρδιμτζνα. Logically πλνἀαανζι εςμτνινought to come immediately after ἀύαο γρ but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes (Ep. xxiii:9-11) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that “it is irksome always to be starting life over again,” and that “they live badly who are always beginning to live.” The reason is: “quia semper illis imperfecta vita est.” But our writer takes a much more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges them to develop their ideas of Christianity. “You need some one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over again,” he had said. “Yes,” he now adds, “and in some cases that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, etc.! That cannot be done for deliberate apostates.” The implication is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has hinted already (in 3:7-4:14), and that one of the things that is weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal; it means the possibility of a relapse altogether. “Come on,” the writer bids them, “for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back is to be ruined.” The connexion between this passage and the foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate grasp of it; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudimentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does. This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and fellowship will be able to hold out. And once you relapse, he argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal; people who deliberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of Πὸ Ἑρίυ. It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could not repent of their sins was, e.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic Judaism. “Over and over again we have the saying: ‘For him who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or possible’ (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, 107b). ‘He who is wholly given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness to him for ever’ (Midrash Tehillim on Psa_1 ad fin.).”1 There is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Gen_9:20: “Noah began to till the earth.” Evidently, says Philo, this means that he was merely working at the ἄχιof the subject. Ἀχ δ, ὁτνπλινλγς ἥιυτῦπνο, ὡ ἂ ἡίε πὸ τ τλςἀετκῖ, ο μ πογνμνυκὶτ ἄξσα πλάι μγλ πλοςἔλψν His point is that it is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified, however. (a) It is put in the form of a general statement. (b) It contains a note of encouragement in v. 7; and (c) it is at once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will disappoint their friend and teacher’s fear (v. 9). In the later church this feature of Πὸ Ἑρίυ entered into the ecclesiastical question of penance (cp. ERE ix:716, and Journal of Theological Studies, iv: 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx).
The fourfold description of believers (4, 5a) begins with ἅα φτσέτς where φτσέτςcorresponds to λβῖ τνἐίνσντςἀηεα (10:26), in the general sense of LXX (e.g. Ps 118:130 ἡδλσςτνλγνσυφτε, κὶσντῖνπος i.e. “enlightened” in the sense of having their eyes opened (Eph_1:18) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun φτσό, came to be used of baptism specifically (cp. ERE viii:54, 55).Ἅα is prefixed, in contrast to πλν(v. 6); once for all men enter Christianity, it is an experience which, like their own death (9:27) and the death of Jesus (9:28), can never be repeated. In κλνγυαέοςθο ῥμ (“experienced how good the gospel is”) the construction resembles that of Herod. vii:46, where the active voice is used with the accusative (ὁδ θὸ γυὺ γύα τναῶα φοεὸ ἐ ατ ερσεα ἐν and the adj. is put first: “the deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing.” The similar use of the middle here as in Pr 29:36 and Joh_2:9 probably points to the same meaning (cp., however, Diat. 2016-2018), i.e., practically as if it were ὅικλ (cp. Psa_34:8 γύαθ κὶἴεεὅιχητςὁκρο, 1 P 2:3), in contrast to the more common construction with the genitive (v. 4, 2:9). The writer uses genitive and accusative indifferently, for the sake of literary variety; and κλνhere is the same as κλῦin 5:14. Γυαέοςκλ recalls the partiality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somniis, i:26), but indeed it is common (cp. e.g. Jos. Ant. 4:6. 9, ἅα τ νο γυαέο ξνκνἐιμνἀλσω ατνἐεοετ) throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for experiencing. Probably γυαέος…ἐορνο, μτχυ …ἁίυ and κλνγυαέοςαῶο are three rhetorical expressions for the initial experience described in ἅα φτσέτς “The heavenly Gift” (τςδρᾶ τςἐορνο) may be the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the higher world which even already is partly realized in the experience of faith. Note that φτσέτςis followed by γυαέοςκλ as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor in Philo’s (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna (Exo_16:15, Exo_16:16): ἡθί σναι ατ τνὁαιὴ ψχνφτζιτ κὶὁο κὶγυανι…τὺ δψνα κὶπιῶτςκλκγθα ἐηύοσ. Also, that δνμι τ μλοτςαῶο the thrilling experiences mentioned in 2:4. The dramatic turn comes in (v. 6) κὶπρπσνα. Πρππενis here used in its most sinister sense; it corresponds to ἀοτνι(3:12), and indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same term פל The usage in Wis 6:9 (μ πρπστ) 12:2 (τὺ πρππσνα) paves the way for this sense of a deliberate renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to ἑοσω ἁατνι in 10:26. The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious ἁαταπὸ θντνof 1Jn_5:16, and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into. Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless.
Ἀύαο (sc. ἐτ) is now (v. 6) taken up in ἀαανζι (for which Paul prefers the form ἀαανῦ), a LXX term (e.g. Psa_51:12) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by Barnabas (6:11 ἀαανσςἡᾶ ἐ τ ἀέε τνἁατῶ), and naturally of the divine action. Πλνis prefixed for emphasis, as in Isokr. Areopag. 3, τςἔθα τςπὸ τνβσλαπλνἀαεανσέη.
There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of the statement. Erasmus took ἀύαο (like d = difficile) as “difficult”; Grotius said it was impossible “per legem Mosis”; others take ἀαανζι to mean “keep on renewing,” while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer thought of any subject to ἁαανζι, it was probably a Christian δδσαο like himself; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced by God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like 10:28f. and 12:17 tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous tone is heard in Philo’s comment on Num_30:10 in quod deter. pot. insid. 40: φσμνδάοα …ἐββῆθικὶχρνθο, ἣι ἢγνςθίςο πρδξτ ἢπρδξμν έοσω αθςἐήβωε…ἡδ ἅα δαεκεσ κὶδοκσεσ ὡ ἄπνο μχιτῦπνὸ αῶο ἐττξυα, εςτνἀχῖνοκνἐαεθῖ ἁυαοσ.
The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given in ἀατυονα …πρδιμτζνα, where ἀατυονα is used instead of σαρῦτς for the sake of assonance (after ἀαανζι), but with the same meaning. Ἀατυονsimply means “to crucify,” as, e.g., in Plato’s Gorgias, 28 (τὺ ατῦἐιὼ πῖα τ κὶγνῖατ ἔχτνἀατυωῇἢκτπτωῇ Thucyd. 1:110 (Ἰάω …ποοί λφεςἀετυώη Josephus (Ant. xi. 6. 10, ἀατυῶα τνΜροαο), etc. The ἀα= sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrys. τ δ ἐτνἀατυονα; ἄωε πλνσαρῦτς and several of the versions (e.g. vg “rursum crucifigentes”), took it in the sense of re-crucify. Ἑυος it is their crucifixion of Jesus. “The thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment” (Vaughan).
In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part of the Acts of Paul (in, Joh. xx. 12), the phrase, “to be crucified over again” occurs in a different sense (Texte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Κὶὁκρο ατ επν εσροα εςτνῬμνσαρθνι ΚὶὁΠτο επνατ·Κρε πλνσαρῦα; επνατ·νὶ Πτε πλνσαρῦα. Origen, quoting this as Ἄωε μλωσαρῦθι holds that such is the meaning of ἀατυονin He Heb_6:5.
The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out of their life, they break off all connexion with him; he is dead to them. This is the decisive force of σαρῦθιin Gal_6:14. The writer adds an equally vivid touch in κὶπρδιμτζνα ( = τνυὸ θο κτπτσςκλ 10:29)—as if he is not worth their loyalty! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can do for themselves is to put him out of their life. Πρδιμτζι is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by τθνιεςπρδιμ in the LXX (Nah_3:6). Possibly the term was already associated with impaling (cp. Num_25:4 πρδιμτσνατὺ Κρῳ but our author does not use it in the LXX sense of “make an example of” (by punishing); the idea is of exposing to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Mat_1:19).
The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their desertion by maligning Christ—one of the things which, as he observed, no real Christian would do (“quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani”). “Omnes …Christi male dixerunt.” When the proconsul urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, λιόηο τνΧιτν(Mart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of Πὸ Ἑρίυ is echoed in the saying of Jesus quoted in Apost. Const. vi. 18: οτίεσ πρ ὧ κὶὁκρο πκῶ κὶἀοόω ἀεήαολγνὅιεσ ψυόρσο κὶψυοιάκλι ο βαφμσνε τ πεμ τςχρτςκὶὰοτσνε τνπρ ατῦδρὰ μτ τνχρν οςοκἀεήεα οτ ἐ τ αῶιτύῳοτ ἐ τ μλοτ. In Sir 31:30 (βπιόεο ἀὸνκο κὶπλνἁτμνςατῦ τ ὠεηε τ λυρ͂ατῦ) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Num_19:11, Num_19:12; the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain “to be followed by a hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation …patricide, matricide, killing a Doctor of Divinity (i.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred among priests.…Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative expression, after the manner of Heb_6:6” (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols, pp. 233, 234).
In the little illustration (vv. 7, 8), which corresponds to what Jesus might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences of the language about God’s curse upon the ground (Gen_3:17, Gen_3:18): ἐιαάαο ἡγ …ἀάθςκὶτιόοςἀαεε, and also of the words in Gen_1:12 κὶἐήεκνἡγ βτννχρο, though the writer uses ἐφρι for ἀαέλι, and prefers τκενto ἐφρι (in v. 7). The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. v. 11, 24) as a common instance of the πρβλ: “ut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat.” The best Greek instance is in Euripides (Hecuba, 592 f.: οκυ διό, ε γ μνκκ | τχῦακιο θόε ε σάυ φρι | χητ δ ἁατῦʼὧ χενατντχῖ | κκνδδσ κρό κλ Ποσ of land, as, e.g., in Deu_11:11 γ …ἐ τῦὑτῦτῦορνῦπεα ὕω: Isa_55:10f. etc. As εθτςgenerally takes εςwith the accusative, it is possible that τκοσ was meant to go with ἐενῖ. Γωγῖα, of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri (e.g. Syll. 429:9 τ τ χραε γωγῖα) as well as in the LXX.
(a) Origen’s homiletical comment (Philocalia, xxi. 9) is, τ γνμν ὑὸτῦθο τρσι οοε ὑτςἐτν α δ ποιέεςα δάοο οοε ἡγγωγμν γ ἐτ κὶἡἠεηέη μᾷτ φσιὡ γ τγάοσ—an idea similar to that of Jerome (tractatus de psalmo xcvi., Anecdota Maredsolana, 3:3, 90: “apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem, et reliqua”). (b) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 5:1), evidently because the second declares, “Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead” (rain quickening the earth), and the ninth runs, “Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant us a rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land.” Also, “on the occasion of the rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good” (Berachoth, 9:2). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, εχ Ἀηαω·ὗο, ὗο, ὦφλ Ζῦ κτ τςἀορςτςἈηαω κὶτνπδω.
Μτλμάε ( = participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in Wis 18:9 etc.; ελγα occurs again in 12:17 (of Esau the apostate missing his ελγα and there is a subtle suggestion here, that those alone who make use of their divine privileges are rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v. 10; that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the reminiscence of ἀρῦὃ ηλγσνΚρο (Gen_27:27).
The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v. 8).
Commenting on Gen_3:18 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word τίοο (like “trefoil”): ἓατνδ τνπθντιόι ερκν ἐεδ τιτ ἐτν ατ τ κὶτ πιτκνκὶτ ἐ τύω ἀοέεμ (leg. alleg. iii. 89). He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or farmer burning down weeds (de Agric. 4, πνʼἐκψ, ἐτμ …κὶεπκύωκὶτςῥζςατνἐιῖʼἄρ τνὑττντςγςφοὸ ῥπν but in our epistle, as in Joh_15:6, the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe discipline.
Ἀόιο is used as in 1Co_9:27; the moral sense breaks through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of εςκῦι may be illustrated by Deu_29:22 and by Philo’s more elaborate description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Abrah. 27); God, he says, showered a blast οχὕαο ἀλ πρςupon the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was consumed, ἐε δ τ ἐ φνρ κὶὑὲ γςἅατ κτνλσνἡφό, ἤηκὶτνγνατνἔαε…ὑὲ τῦμδ αθςπτ κρὸ ἐεκῖ ἢχοφρσιτ πρπνδνθνι The metaphor otherwise is inexact, for the reference cannot be to the burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds; our author is thinking of final punishment ( = κίαο αωίυ 6:2), which he associates as usual with fire (10:26, 27, 12:29). The moral application thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words κτρςἐγςactually occur in Aristides (Orat. in Rom. 370: τ μνποωενατῖ ἃἐολνο ἀήαο κὶκτρςἐγς There is no thought of mildness in the term ἐγς it being used, as in 8:13, of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Meanwhile there is the ἐδχ (10:27).
Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardonable sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern analogies are not awanting. Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck’s book, The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that “the Battak Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven; but if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour; he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and therefore as lost.”
9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better2 course that means salvation. 10 God is not unfair; he will not forget what you have done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to the saints. 11 It is my heart’s desire that each of you would prove equally keen upon realizing your full (πηοοίν 10:22) hope to the very end, 12 so that instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their steadfast faith.
The ground for his confident hope about his “dear friends” (Tyndale, v. 9) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v. 7) in what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly love (v. 10). The God who blesses a faithful life (v. 7) will be sure to reward them for that; stern though he may be, in punishing the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vv. 11, 12), the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherly love; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God’s blessing. As ἀαηο indicates (the only time he uses it), the writer’s affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not believe their case is desperate (v. 4). He has good hopes of them, and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to Lucilius, Ep. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy “is an art; let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it despairs—yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic remedies when everything seems hopeless.” Elsewhere, he encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend’s confidence and hope (Ep. xxxii. 2: “habeo quidem fiduciam non posse to detorqueri mansurumque in proposito”), and, in connexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred from attempting to reform certain people (Ep. xxv. 2): “I would rather lack success than lack faith.”
In κὶ(epexegetic) ἐόεα(sc. πάμτ) στρα, ἐόεα thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. e.g. Marc. Aurel. 1. 6, ὅατιῦατςἙλνκςἀωῆ ἐόεα Musonius (ed. Hence), 11., ζτῖ πιεα ἐόεα(v. l. ἐόεο): Philo, de Agric. 22, τ δ κρείςκὶσφούη …ἐόεα for what has a bearing upon, or is connected with; here, for what pertains to and therefore promotes στρα(the opposite of κτρ and κῦι). The reason for this confidence, with which he seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical service (τῦἔγυὑῶ κλ which God is far too just to ignore. After all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity (v. 10). Ἐιαέθιis an infinitive of conceived result (Burton’s Moods and Tenses, 371c; Blass, §391, 4), instead of ἱαc. subj., as, e.g., in 1Jn_1:9, or ὥτ c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 20, δκιςε ἀτχρζσα.1 The text of τῦἔγυὑῶ κὶτςἀάη was soon harmonized with that of 1Th_1:3 by the insertion of τῦκπυafter κὶ(so Dc K L 69*, 256, 263, 1611*, 2005, 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative ἣ after ἀάη has been attracted into the genitive ἧ (as in 9:20). One practical form of this δαοενis mentioned in 10:33, 34. Here εςτ ὄοαατῦgoes closely with δαοήατςκλ as well as with ἐεεξσε in the sense of “for his sake.” In Pirke Aboth, 2:16 R. Jose’s saying is quoted, “Let all thy works be done for the sake of heaven” (literally לשֵ, i.e. εςὄοα as here and in Ign. Rom_9:3 ἡἀάητνἐκηιντνδξμννμ εςὄοαἼσῦΧιτῦ Τῖ ἁίι, the only place (except 13:24) where the writer uses this common term for “fellow-Christians”; God will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to “his own.”
The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in the ἀαηο of v. 9, but again (v. 11) in the deep ἐιυομν a term charged with intense yearning (as Chrysostom says, πτιῆ φλσογα), and in the individualizing ἕατν(cp. 3:12, 13). He is urgent that they should display τνατνσοδνwith regard to their Christian ἐπςas they display in the sphere of their Christian ἀάη This does not mean that he wishes them to be more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven than about their duties of brotherly love; his point is that the higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians implied a strict social morality (see below on 13:4), or that the same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral discrimination (Php_1:9), so our author pleads with his friends to complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of φλδλί (13:1), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very devotion to Christ for which he pleads (10:19-24). Πηοοί (not a LXX term) here is less subjective than in 10:22, where it denotes the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of fulness, scope and depth in their—ἐπς This is part and parcel of the τλιτςto which he is summoning them to advance (6:1). The result of this grasp of what is involved in their faith will be (v. 12) a vigorous constancy, without which even a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For ἐδίνσα σοδνcompare Herodian’s remark that the soldiers of Severus in a.d. 193 πσνἐεεκυτ πουίνκὶσοδν(2:10:19), Magn 53:61 (iii. b.c.), ἀόεξνπιύεο τςπρ τ μγσασοδς and Syll. 342:41 (i. b.c.) τνμγση ἐδίντισοδνεςτνὑὲ τςπτίο στρα. The Greeks used the verb as we use “display,” in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour has to be kept up ἄρ τλυ (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Epp. 1, in Hercher’s Epistolog. Graeci, 401 f.: τρῦτςδ ἣ ἔοσ ννπόει ἄρ τλυ φλσφσι it is the sustained interest in essential Christian truth which issues practically in μκουί (v. 12), or in the confident attitude of hope (3:6, 14).
Aristotle, in Rhet. ii. 19. 5, argues that ο ἡἀχ δντιγνσα, κὶτ τλς οδνγργγεα οδ ἄχτιγγεθιτνἀυάω, a paradox which really means that “if you want to know whether the end of any course of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything—is possible, you must look to the beginning: beginning implies end: if it can be begun, it can also be brought to an end” (Cope).
In v. 12 the appeal is rounded off with ἵαμ νθο γνσε that you may not prove remiss (repeating νθο from 5:11, but in a slightly different sense: they are to be alert not simply to understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith), μμτὶδ κλ Hitherto he has only mentioned people who were a warning; now he encourages them by pointing out that they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is left over for the time being; the writer returns to it in his panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content to emphasize the steadfast faith (πσεςκὶμκουίς a hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. Μκουί means here (as in Jam_5:7f.) the tenacity with which faith holds out. Compare Menander’s couplet (Kock’s Com. Attic. Fragm. 549), ἄθωο ὢ μδπτ τνἀυίν| ατῦπρ θῶ, ἀλ τνμκουίν and Test. Jos_2:7 μγ φραό ἐτνἡμκουί | κὶπλὰἀαὰδδσνἡὑοοή But this aspect of πσι is not brought forward till 10:35f., after the discussion of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. In κηοοονω τςἐαγλα the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise or promises. He has already mentioned ἡἐαγλα(4:1). Κηοοεντςἐαγλα can hardly mean “get a promise of something”; as the appended δὰπσεςκὶμκουίςsuggests, it denotes “coming into possession of what is promised.” This is proved by the equivalent ἐέυετςἐαγλα in v. 15.
Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast faith in God’s promises, the writer now (vv. 13-19) lays stress not upon the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a divine revelation; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God. From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph carries on the thought of vv. 11, 12; at the end, by a dexterous turn, the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (5:11f).
13 For in making, a promise to Abraham God “swore by himself” (since he could swear by none greater), 14 “I will indeed bless you and multiply you.” 15 Thus it was (i.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfastness obtained (so 11:33) what he had been promised. 16 For as1 men swear by a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends any dispute, 17 God, in his desire to afford the heirs of the Promise a special proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath; 18 so that by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where it is impossible for God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (πρκηι, see on 12:5) to seize the hope set before us, 19 anchoring the soul to it safe and sure, as it “enters the inner” Presence “behind the veil.”
As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or illustration (vv. 13, 14), God’s famous promise to Abraham, but the main point in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath.
Our author takes the OT references to God’s oath quite naively. Others had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo’s treatise de Abrahamo (46): “God, enamoured of this man [i.e. Abraham], for his faith (πσι) in him, gives him in return a pledge (πσι), guaranteeing by an oath (τνδʼὅκυββίσν the gifts he had promised …for he says, ‘I swear by myself’ (Gen_22:16)—and with him a word is an oath—for the sake of confirming his mind more steadfastly and immovably than ever before.” But the references to God’s oaths were a perplexity to Philo; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their realism. In de sacrif. Abelis et Caini (28, 29) he returns to the subject. Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as inconsistent with God’s character, since an oath implies (μρυί θο πρ πάμτςἀφσηομνυ God giving evidence in a disputed matter; whereas θῷοδνἄηο οδ ἀφσηομνν God’s mere word ought to be enough: ὁδ θὸ κὶλγνπσό ἐτν ὥτ κὶτὺ λγυ ατῦββιττςἕεαμδνὅκνδαέεν He inclines to regard the OT references to God’s oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull minds rather than as a condescension upon God’s part. In Leg. Allegor. iii. 72 he quotes this very passage (Gen_22:16, Gen_22:17), adding: ε κὶτ ὅκ ββισιτνὑόχσνκὶὅκ θορπῖ ὁᾷ γρὅιο κθ ἑέο ὀνε θό, οδνγρατῦκετο, ἀλ κθ ἑυο, ὅ ἐτ πνω ἄιτς But he feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God’s word required no formal confirmation—it confirmed itself by being fulfilled—and that it was absurd (ἄοο) to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to bear testimony to himself.1 Philo (ibid. 73) attempts to meet this objection by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else knows the divine nature truly; consequently it is appropriate for him to add confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself is amply deserving of belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Exo_32:13), it is asked, “What means ב? R. Eleazar answered: ‘Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), ‘Lord of all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever; so shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.’”
Εχ (v. 13) with infin. = ἐύαοas usual. Ὤοε. …ε μν…ελγσ. Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that ε μνafter ὀνενin oaths is common as an asseveration; in some cases, as here, the classical form ἦμν from which ε μνarose by itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v. 14) is from the promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen_22:16,