Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 12:4 - 12:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Their sufferings are profitable chastisements of the paternal love of God
Heb_12:4-13
[Heb_12:4.— ἀíôéêáôÝóôçôå , ye resisted, Aor.; Words, lays stress on the Aor.=“as ye might have done on several occasions.” Alf., with most, makes it=perfect. With ïὔðù the Aor. rendering is harsh, unless we render not in any way, not at all, and take ἀíôéêáô . of a specific internal conflict with the sin of disobedience and apostasy, as the Saviour’s in Gethsemane; then ìÝ÷ñéò áἵìáôïò , refers to the Saviour’s sweating drops of blood. I incline with Barnes to this interpretation.
Heb_12:5.— ἐêëÝëçóèå , ye have forgotten, much better than interrog., have ye forgotten? as Bl., De W., Lün., in order to soften what otherwise seems too harsh; but this forgetting is virtually assumed below, and the interrog. would be awkward.— ὀëéãùñåῖí , make little account of, not so strong as despise.— ἐëåã÷üìåíïò , while being probed, sifted, corrected, rather than rebuked.
Heb_12:7.— åἰò ðáéäåßáí ὑðïìÝíåôå , so the best authorities; it is for chastening or discipline that ye are enduring. Alf. argues that ὑðïìÝíåéí can hardly have the incidental meaning which the ordinary reading requires.— ôßò ãÜñ ἐóôéí õἰüò ,for who is a son?
Heb_12:8.— ìÝôï÷ïé ãåãïíáìåí , we have become partakers.
Heb_12:9.— Ýἶôá , then, in the next place. Unless we take Ýἶôá as a particle of indignant emotion, which I think better. This would indeed require, in a regular construction, ïὐ ðïëὺ äὲ ìἀëëïí (not as Bl. and Alf., êáὶ ïὐ ðïëὺ ìᾶëëïí ); but that the author began with this construction in his mind, is shown by the ìÝí after ôïýò , which has not its answering äÝ .
Heb_12:10.— ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò , with reference to a few days, or, perhaps, with Moll, etc., during.
Heb_12:11.— ôïῖò äἰ ἀõôῆò ãåãõìíáò , to those that have been trained by means of it.— ἀðïäßäùóéí , it renders back, yields.— äéêáéïóõíçò , emphatically placed.
Heb_12:12.— ἀíïñèþóáôå , right up, bring back to erectness or straightness.— ðáñåéíÝíáò , slackened, unstrung.— ðáñáëåëõìÝíá , paralyzed, relaxed.
Heb_12:13.— êáὶ ôñï÷éὰò ὀñèὰò , etc., is a regular Dactylic Hexameter: ἴíá ìὴ ôὸ ÷ùëὸí ἐêôñáðῆ , part of an Iambic trimeter, as in Heb_12:14, ïὗ ÷ùñὶò ïὐäåὶò ὄøåôáé ôὸí êýñéïí , is a perfect Iambic verse.—K.].
Heb_12:5. And ye have forgotten, etc.—If with Calv., Beza, Bl., Lün., etc., we take these words interrogatively, the tone of reproof is softened [and the passage enfeebled]. The citation is from Pro_3:11-12, where in Heb. the concluding clause runs, “and as a father to the son, He is good to him” (or, receives him kindly). instead of åּëְàָá the Sept. read either éְëָàֵá or as Job_5:17, éַëְàִá , he occasions pain. The Cod. A. of the Sept. reads with fifteen other MSS. ðáéäåýåé ; the remainder have ἐëÝã÷åé .
Heb_12:7. For chastisement.—The lect. rec. åἰ has the parallels, Heb_12:8, in its favor; still this cannot decide us against the authorities, which by no means present us an unmeaning clerical error, but assign the object of the suffering, which is the first mentioned ðáéäåßá . Åἰò , denoting purpose, is frequent in our Epistle, Heb_4:14; Heb_3:5; Heb_4:16; Heb_6:16; Heb_9:15; Heb_10:19; Heb_11:11. The Indic. construction corresponds better with the connection (Chrys., Del.) than the Imper. (Ebr.), especially considering the pregnant signification of ὑðïìÝíåéí and the äÝ in Heb_12:8. Again ôßò is not to be taken adjectively with õἱüò (Bl., De W., Thol., Lün.), nor as predicate=of what sort perchance is the son? (Böhme) but as a substantive, as also õἱüò and ðáôÞñ , are without the article. Thus the sense is, according to Del., “where is there one who stands in truth in the relation of son, whom He does not chastise, who stands to Him in truth in (the relation of father?”
Heb_12:9. Again, [in the next place].— åἶôá continues the argumentation.—To take the word as ironical, or as a question of surprise=to ita ne (Valck., Alberti, etc.) is consistent with classical usage, but is here forced, besides which also, the second member of the sentence should have commenced with êáß .
Father of spirits.—This is not Christ (Hammond), but God, who, however, receives this designation not as one caring for our souls (Böhm. after Morus, and others), nor as bestower of the gifts of the Spirit (Theodoret), nor in the moral sense, as Father, in respect to the higher spiritual province of life (De W., Ebr., Lün.); but inasmuch as all spirits are derived from Him (Thol., Del., Riehm). We must not, however, refer the “spirits” exclusively to angels (Chrys., Œc., Theoph.); nor find here a one-sided and extreme statement of creatianism (Calv., Beng., Este, Carpz., etc.), but only a moderate and authorized form, as at Heb_7:10, of Traducianism.
Heb_12:10. For a few days.—The ðñüò stands here, and Heb_12:11; Luk_8:13; 1Co_7:5; 2Co_7:8; 1Th_2:17, of the duration of the chastisement. The majority of expositors, with Calvin, regard the “few days” as the days of our earthly life; and thus find a contrast expressed between the purpose of the chastisement of children by our earthly parents, as being with reference to, or for ( ðñüò ), a few days, and the eternity, which is the end and scope of the Divine chastisements. Such an interpretation, however, introduces at once a false statement into the first member of the antithesis—that, viz: which restricts the end of human training in all cases to our earthly life, and creates a contrast for which the original furnishes no basis. But neither, on the other hand, is the ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò to be attached equally to both members of the antithesis, as stating the common period of time during which, for their respectively different purposes, and in their different ways, the human and the Divine training are carried forward (Bleek, etc.). The few days point to the brief period of minority, during which, as shown by the Imperfect ἐðáßäåõïí , the readers, as children, were the subjects of parental discipline. But neither again does the author contrast with this limited period of parental training the life-long continuance of the Divine education. Of this the text contains nothing whatever. Its phraseology shows rather that any such special contrast with ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò is utterly out of the author’s mind; and, in fact, Delitzsch is obliged to extract it artificially and unnaturally from the åἰò ôὸ ìåôáëáâåῖí ôῆò ἁãéüôçôïò áὑôïῦ , making ðñüò unite the ideas of time and purpose, and åἰò those of purpose and result, while the clause with ðñüò expresses the limit as to time, and that with åἰò that of aim and object. The diversity of the human and the Divine ðáéäåßá is briefly given in their respective characteristic features, and the preëminence of the latter is urged upon the attention of the readers (who have had personal experience of the former), that they may the more willingly submit themselves to it. The abstract ἁãéüôçò is found elsewhere only at 2Ma_15:2. [In regard to the construction of the vexed passage above, we may, in the first place, set aside at once the idea of Wets., Storr, Kuin., Böhm., and Bleek, that ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò is to be understood of the second member of the sentence, as implying a restriction in the time of the discipline, alike of the human and the Divine, both being confined to the present life. This, however true, is clearly not expressed in the sentence; ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò belongs only to the first member. But, so restricted, are we to explain it as “for, i.e., during a few days,” viz: the few days of our minority, in which we were subject to their chastisement, or, as “with reference to a few days,” viz., the days of our earthly life? The objection to this latter, hinted at by Moll, and more fully expressed by Alford, viz., that it is not true that the discipline of earthly parents always “has regard only to the present life,” seems to me without force; inasmuch as the author’s statement is simply a general one, not referring to what may be the possible scope of the training of Christian parents, but what is the natural scope of human and earthly discipline as such. Alford’s next objection (as also Moll’s), viz., that the contrast thus implied between the transitory purpose of human chastisement, and the eternal purpose of the Divine, is superinduced on the passage because “there is not one word in the latter clause expressing the eternal nature of God’s purpose,” he subsequently answers himself by placing the ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò in contrast with the ἐðὶ ôὸ óõìöÝñïí , in which, he says, “we have set over against one another the short time during which, the temporary reference with which their chastisement was inflicted, and the great purpose implied as eternal from its very expression, as ôὸ óõìöÝñïí for an immortal being, in which he chastises us.” The question, then, is whether, with Moll, we are to take ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò as simply like our “for=during a few days,” or, with many others, to take it as= “with reference to a few days.” If the former, then the clause êáôὰ ôὸ äïêïῦí áὐôïἴò , of the first member is set over against the two clauses in the second. If the latter, then we have a double antithesis, and the question arises, whether we are to take it, with Alford, in the natural order of the clauses (“for a few days” against “for our profit,” and “according to their pleasure” against “in order to participate in his holiness”) or, with Delitzsch, chiastically, the second of the one corresponding to the first of the other, and the first of the one to the second of the other. It does not follow, however, necessarily, that, even if we take ðñüò , with reference to, there still is any such exact antithesis intended as either of these explanations implies. I incline, on the one hand, to take ðñὸò ὀëßãáò ἡìÝñáò as in reference to a few days (which seems to me to have much more point than the other), and, on the other, to doubt even then if the writer intends any exactly balanced antithesis. He puts the two grand points of earthly correction, viz., its being but for and with reference to a few days, and its possessing, even in the best, the character more or less of arbitrariness, against the one grand point of the Divine, viz., its intrinsic and essential profitableness, in which, however, a contrast to both the other characteristics is virtually implied.—K.].
Heb_12:11. Peaceful fruit of righteousness.—As the tree which bears the fruit is the ðáéäåßá , äéêáéïóýíçò cannot be the Gen. Subj.—as even recently Klee supposes. The Gen. is Gen. of apposition (Jam_3:18). The adj. åἰñçíéêüò stands in relation to äé ’ áὐôῆò ãåãõìíáóìÝíïéò , so that the ðáéäåßá is regarded under the point of view of ãõìíáóßá = ἀãþí (Thol., Del., etc.).
Heb_12:12. Wherefore raise up again, etc.—The first clause borrows both thought and language from Isa_35:3; the other from Pro_4:26. The Pass. Signif. given by many since and with Grot. to ἐêôñÝð ., to be dislocated, distorted, is unsustained by usage. The original text, the expression of the Sept. ðïßåé óïῖò ðïóß , and partially the following clause with ἵíá , lead us to take the ôïῖò ðïóßí ὑìῶí , not as Dat. instrum. (It., Vulg., Luth., Bl., De W., Thol., Lün.), but as Dat. commodi (Böhm., Ebr., Del., Riehm, Alf.). [We may call attention to the lofty and rythmical character of the language here. Êáὶ ôñï÷éὰò ὀñèÜò , etc., is a perfect Dactylic hexameter; ἵíá ìὴ ôὸ ÷ùëüí , etc., is a rough and irregular Iambic trimeter, while the general cast of the expression is decidedly poetic. See textual note, and Heb_12:14-15.—K.].
2. Yet even where matters do not come to extremities, still there are frequently sorrows and sufferings, painful and heavy. In them we must recognize not mere violent acts of men, not mere undeserved strokes of fortune, but the hand of God, yet still, as of a father who regards our interests, and by his discipline of suffering, is bringing into clear recognition, and stamping with the seal of validity, that filial relation to which he has received us in Christ.
3. There are, thus, sufferings which stand indeed in connection with our own sinfulness, and have the significance of chastisement, yet still are not punitive sufferings, such as would give us to taste the wrath of God, but strokes inflicted by Divine love, as means of paternal chastisement for the purpose of educating us for the heavenly kingdom.
4. If we recognize this Divine purpose, and find in the painful, yet salutary chastisings, a recognition, confirmation, and development of our filial relation to God, then we shall all the more readily submit ourselves, in humility and patience, to these chastisements, which have their ultimate ground in the love of God, and their true end and aim in His desire for our salvation, the more clearly we perceive that this loving chastisement of our heavenly Father immeasurably transcends that of earthly fathers.
5. This submission is entirely authorized, obligatory and salutary: for, while our parents can only endow us with merely natural life, but cannot change our fleshly nature, and during our minority are influenced by personal, and sometimes selfish views, in the application of the means of chastisement, so that the results are often either inconsiderable or uncertain, God, as the Father of spirits, is also the author of our spiritual nature, and by the means of education which He employs, makes us partakers of His holiness, of the Divine nature (2Pe_1:4). Thus life, in its fullest sense, is the consequence of such a subjection to the dispensations and leadings of God; and the end of this discipline of suffering, is a fruit which consists in righteousness, and the taste of which is peace.
6. “The entire falling away of the unconfirmed, wavering members of the Church, can be guarded against, and their recovery be rendered possible, only by the opening of straight paths on the part of the entire body, only by their going forward in a plain, simple, upright course of thought, confession and action, which shall exercise upon the weak such a salutary and restorative influence as straight and even paths upon lame and diseased feet” (Del.).
Starke:—The thing which is not pleasant to us, we can easily forget (Psa_88:13); but he who often calls to mind the cross, will be less surprised by it when it comes (1Pe_4:12).—To make an honest application to one’s self, is the most important thing in the reading of the Holy Scripture (Rom_4:23-24).—The dearer a child the sharper his discipline under the rod.—The community of sufferings which visits in the world all the brethren, is the consolation of all the children of God.—Do not vex thyself in relation to long continued sufferings; our whole life is but short.—We must regard the cross not in reference to our outward sensibilities, as being painful and afflictive to flesh and blood; but according to the salutary uses which God brings out of it (Rom_8:17).—Every cross has a bitter beginning, but a sweet termination.—In tears lies hidden the seed of all joy and glory.—Hands and feet should, in the spiritual sense, be properly employed; the former for valiant strife, the latter for nimble running.—The stumbler must not be immediately rejected, but restored and raised up with words of comfort and admonition (Psa_73:2; Psa_17:15).
Rieger:—Those are sure steps which are made in accordance with the course and conflict which God has ordained, with our eye on the goal of joy and glory that is set before us, and in confidence in the grace of God, accompanying us at every step.
Heubner:—How much less are our sufferings than the sufferings of the early Christians! Now, those who confess Christ have peace. This should shame, warn, and incite us.
Fricke:—Every chastisement of God is, in His children, a seed, which subsequently produces fruit.
Footnotes:
Heb_12:7.—Instead of åἰ read åἰò , after Sin. A. D. E. K. L., and most minusc. Reiche, however, defends the Rec.
Heb_12:9.— Ïὐ ðïëὺ ìᾶëëïí , sanctioned by Sin. A. D*., instead of the lect. rec. ïὐ ðïëëῷ ìᾶëëïí .
Heb_12:15.—Instead of äéὰ ôáýôçò , we should read after A., 17, 67***, 137, 238, äé ’ áὐôῆò , and instead of ðïëëïß , read after Sin. A., 47, ïἱ ðïëëïß .