Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 2:5 - 2:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
[Heb_2:5.— ïὐ ãὰñ ἀããÝëïéò , for not unto angels=it is not to angels that he subjected, etc. ἈããÝëïéò without the Art., as marking not the individuals, but the class, and emphatic in its position.— ὑðÝôáîåí , he subjected, Aor.; not, hath subjected.— ôÞí ïἰêïõìÝíçí . There are three words commonly rendered, world: 1. Êüóìïò properly the world as a harmoniously adjusted and orderly system of things; this is never used in the phrase, the “world to come;” 2. áἰþí , age, duration of time, and hence the world as constituting a particular period of time, or age; so commonly ὁ áἰὼí ïὗôïò , this age, this world, and áἰὼí ὁ ìÝëëùí , the coming or future age or world; 3. ἡ ïἰêïõìÝíç ( ãῆ ), the world as a locality and as inhabited; the world in a more concrete character than is expressed by áἰþí .
Heb_2:6.— ôß ἔóôéí ἄíèñùðïò . De Wette, Del., Alf. render as= ὁ ἄíèñùðïò , man, collectively, as Eng. Ver.: Moll and Lün. a man, individually, which accords better with the absence of the article.
Heb_2:7.— âñá÷ý ôé , some little, in the Hebr. text, and in the citation, Heb_2:7, in relation to man, is “a paululum of degree;” in its application by the author to Jesus, Heb_2:9, it becomes a “paululum of time,” Del., contrasting his temporary humiliation with his permanent exaltation.
Heb_2:9.— äéὰ ôὸ ðÜèçìá ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ , on account of his suffering of death, referring forward to ἐóôåö , crowned. The Eng. ver. “for the suffering,” etc., suggests an erroneous reference, or is at least ambiguous.—For the general construction of Heb_2:9 see exegetical notes.—K.].
Heb_2:6. But some one testified in a certain place.—Here is not the commencement of a new section (Heinr.), but the adversative äÝ subjoins a contrast to the idea referred to and denied in the preceding clause, and over against that idea presents in a contrast indicated by its Scriptural citation, the real nature of the case. The indefiniteness of the form of citation ( ðïý , somewhere), occurring also with Philo, (Carpz.), and with many Rabbins (Schöttg.), implies not that, as against the inscription which refers the Psalm to David, the author would ascribe it to some unknown person (Grot.), which would imply a critical habit not at this time existing; nor that, quoting from memory, he did not know the precise locality of the passage (Koppe, Schulz),—a supposition negatived partly by the verbal exactness of the citation, partly by the like mode of citing a passage entirely familiar, Heb_4:4 (Lün.); nor that, regarding God or the Holy Spirit as the proper Author of the passage, he was indifferent to its human writer (Bl.), in which case ôὶò would hardly have been employed; but is probably a usage purely rhetorical (so the majority after Chrys.). For that God Himself is addressed in this well known passage (Ebr.) is a matter on which no stress need be laid, since the author either might have made the Scripture the subject, or employed a passive construction.
What is a man—all things under his feet.—The connection of the words in Psa_8:5-7 shows that man, as àֱðåֹùׁ , in contrast with heaven and the shining stars which God has ordained, is conceived immediately in his frailty and earthly lowliness, and it is purely arbitrary to introduce here,—whether into the original text, or the conception of our author (Kuin., Heinr., Böhm., Bl., Stein, Lün.),—the idea of the glory and dignity of man. We find rather the preceding words of the Psalm expressing the idea that God is not stumbled, so to speak, by this natural inferiority of man, but displays His own glory in selecting from such an humble sphere His instruments of victory for the confusion of His enemies. After reminding us, Heb_2:2, that God, whose majesty is extolled above the heavens, has also a mighty name upon the earth, the Psalmist declares in Heb_2:3 that out of the mouth of children and sucklings He has prepared to Himself a power against His adversaries, to subdue the enemy, the seeker of vengeance. On this follows (Heb_2:4) the wondering gaze at the heavens, the work of the fingers of God, and then, Heb_2:5, the contrasted reference to the twofold nature of man, appearing, on the one hand, frail and impotent, as a mortal dweller on the earth, as a creature of dust, and, on the other, not merely an object of loving care, but an instrument, preferred before all creatures, for the execution of the will of God. The subsequent delineations of the Psalm show that the reference is to that position of sovereignty which, according to the account of creation, man has received by virtue of his possession of the Divine image. Precisely for this reason it is added: “Thou hast made him to fall short but little of Deity.” Elohim without the Art. expresses abstractly the Divine in its super-terrestrial character,—nay, 1Sa_28:13; Zech. 12:19, the super-terrestrial in general, such as appertains to spirits. The Psalmist thus says, not that man is made almost equal to Jehovah, but that he has received almost a supra-terrestrial nature and position. Hence the LXX. in place of Elohim put ðáῤ ἀããÝëïõò . But the words of the text do not justify Calov, Vitr., Stier, Ebr., in taking not merely the âñá÷ý ôé of the Sept., but even the Heb. îְòַè , not, of degree, but, of time, in the sense, “Thou hast for a season let him fall short of Elohim, i.e, of the intercourse and presence of the world-ruling Deity in His glory, which the angels, as inhabitants of heaven, always enjoy.” Equally unwarranted is the assumption that this glory of man is a glory as yet merely promised by God, and that the hope of the Psalmist looks to its speedy realization. For the “falling short” or “lacking” is not transferred back to the past, nor the ‘crowning’ carried forward to the future; but the two are represented as contemporaneous, and the description refers to man, not after the Fall, but in his primitive and normal condition. Precisely for these reasons can the words be applied to the Messiah, and the application made by our author, Heb_2:9, is facilitated by the expression, “Son of Man.” But it finds in this expression, neither its occasion nor its substantial reason, and the nature of the argument rather requires us here to regard the author as applying the parallel terms, ‘man’ and “Son of man,” to mankind in general (Bez., Storr, Ebr., Del.), than to assume in the original a direct reference of these words to Christ (Bl., Lün.), and thus interpolate here the quite differently applied train of thought which is found at 1Co_15:25 ff.
Heb_2:8. For in subjecting to him all things he has left nothing.—The author proceeds to draw from the words of the Psalmist a conclusion which introduces the proof of the position laid down in Heb_2:5. The subject of the verb is not the Psalmist, but God (Heb_3:15; Heb_8:13), and áὐôῷ refers not to the Son of man, either as appealing in Christ as a historical person (Calv., Gerh., Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Lün., etc.), or simply as ideally conceived, but to man as such, as immediate object of Psalms 8 (Bez., Grot., Schlicht, Ebr., Del.). But neither is it his purpose to make good and justify the declaration of the Psalmist (Hofm.). This rests on the statement of Gen_1:28. It is rather to justify the declaration of the author that God has not subjected to angels the future world of which we speak. This is done by an appeal to the infallible word of Scripture that God has subjected every thing to man: this declaration admits no exception. It cannot be objected to the legitimacy of this conclusion, that the Psalmist is speaking of the present, and our author of the future world, and that he is thus unwarranted in including the ïἰêïõì . ìÝëë . in the category of the “all things.” With partial correctness, Del. remarks, after Hofm.: The world, as collective aggregate of what is created, coincides with the generic term, “all things,” and the present and future world are not two different things, comprehended under the ôὰ ðÜíôá , but they are the ôὰ ðÜíôá —the all things themselves, only in two distinct and successive forms. Still I would rather lay the emphasis on the fact that in ïἰê . ìÝëë . denotes the Messianic world as that in which alone the Divine destination of man to dominion over all things can have its accomplishment. By this, attention is at once directed partly to the present position of the human race, not yet corresponding with its destiny, and partly to that fulfilment of the Divine declaration which, through Jesus the Messianic King, has been already commenced, and is pledged to an absolute completion.
But now we see not as yet all things subjected to him.—The íῦí äÝ is not logical,=but as the case stands, in fact, but directs our eyes to the earthly present, which shows the universe as yet not in a condition answering to its destination. By this the certain fulfilment of the divine declaration, is indeed held out in prospect for a more perfect future. But this aspect of the subject the author is not now unfolding. To assume (with Lün), a contrast between that which we now see and that which we shall yet see, disturbs the connection, and is inconsistent with the following verse. The purpose of the author is to prove that the future or Messianic world—the world of redemption—that world which forms the proper subject of communication between him and his readers—is as far as the original world, which began with creation, from being subjected to angelic beings. Hence he institutes a double contrast of that which we now do not see: primarily a contrast with the declaration immediately preceding [viz. the inferential statement that God subjecting to man all things, has left nothing unsubjected to him]; and, secondly, a contrast with that which we now already see [viz., Jesus glorified in advance, and for the sake of, humanity.] Even the äÝ in our passage should have awakened a suspicion against the common assumption that we have here an objection to the declaration of the Psalm, or a limitation of our author’s previous position inferentially derived from it. [ Íῦí has here, with nearly all interpreters, the temporal signification. While entirely coinciding with the author’s general exposition, which cites the passage from the Psalm in its primary literal acceptation, and then draws out from it, by legitimate reasoning, its proper Messianic application, I yet incline strongly to the logical explanation of íῦí . The closing clause of Heb_2:8 : “For in subjecting to Him all things, etc.,” is purely logical. It seems more natural that the next should commence with a logical particle, and it is precisely because the author (as Moll maintains above) is not yet contrasting the present with the future; but an actual condition with an ideal condition, that I prefer to take íῦí in the purely logical sense, which is not inconsistent with the not yet, (or possibly not at all) of the ïὔðù . I would thus render, “But as it is, in no way,” or, “But as it is, not yet do we see,” etc. Still, if we forbear to press the íῦí , its temporal acceptation harmonizes nearly as well with the reasoning as the logical. I wish to add that the passage, rightly expounded, is a beautiful specimen of the author’s skilful and profound manner of dealing with Scripture; or, perhaps we should rather say, it is a striking example of a commentary by the Spirit of inspiration on a passage which the Spirit had indited.—K.].
Heb_2:9. But him who has been for a little humbled below the angels, Jesus, we behold—honor. The position and import of the word ‘Jesus,’ standing in close connection with the finite verb âëÝðïìåí , and between the two Perf. Part. ἠëáôô . and ἐóôåö ., of which the former has the Art. the latter not, present to us the historical Saviour as the person in whom the language of the Psalm has its fulfilment. The object is not a direct contrast between as yet unexalted humanity, and the already exalted Jesus, nor between the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah; but simply this, to declare that that Jesus who was once, for a little, humbled below the angels, is well known as a person crowned on account of His suffering of death with glory and honor, and that to Him must be referred the words of the Psalm, because also now, i.e, in the period of redemption and the time of the Messiah, these infallible words of the Psalm can apply to no other “man” and “Son of man” than Jesus. While Hofmann formerly (Weiss. II. 28) regarded ôὸí ἠëáôô . as predicate, I̓ çóïῦí as obj. and ἐóôåö . as its apposition, he now more correctly regards (Schriftb. I. 187) ôὸí ἠëáôô . as object., Ἰçó . as in apposition with it, and ἐóôåö . as predicate. This construction is, on grammatical grounds, preferable to that adopted by Ebr. and Del., which makes Ἰçó . the proper object of âãÝð ., and ἠëáôô . its apposition, placed before it on purely rhetorical grounds. True, Lün. goes too far in maintaining that Ἰçó . is wholly unemphatic, and could even be dispensed with. But the emphasis lies certainly on the predicates formed from the words of the Psalm, which describe the two contrasted conditions of the Lord, and hence inclose as it were between them the historical name of His person. The subjection of the world under man we as yet see not; but we see the man really characterized by the Psalm, viz: Jesus, in whose history we at the same time recognize the deeper significance of its words, and learn to give to the words, “lowered a little below the angels” a new and profounder import. The Messianic application of Psalms 8 is made in a different way by Jesus Himself at Mat_21:16, and again in still another way by Paul 1Co_15:27. In both cases, however, Jesus is regarded as the ‘Lord,’ equal to God; and as such is also the doctrine of our author, we need not, by our anxiety to retain the historical sense of the âñá÷ý ôé , be misled into the rendering of Hofm., “Him who was well-nigh equal to the angels.” The transition of the âñá÷ý ôé of degree into the âñá÷ý ôé of time is all the more easy, from the fact that on the one hand the meaning of the phrase is in clasical Greek more commonly temporal, and that, on the other, the actual state of the case, man’s inferiority to angels, having its ground in his corporeal and mortal nature, is but transient, and limited to his earthly life; while for Jesus, this period of His life, being already completely finished, belongs now to the past. We are, in like manner, to reject Hofmann’s reference of the words: “crowned with glory and honor,” to the furnishing out and endowing of Jesus at His entrance into the world, or to His designation and appointment as Saviour; also his idea that the “suffering of death” refers to that suffering of death to which man, instead of enjoying his destined sovereignty, is subjected, and which, consequently, becomes thus the occasioning cause of the appointment of Jesus as Saviour. For Christ’s appointment as Saviour is indicated in the words, “lowered for some little below the angels,” while His “crowning” is constantly referred in the New Testament to His heavenly reward, obtained after His successful and victorious life-conflict of suffering and of faith; while again, His suffering of death appears as the ground and procuring cause of His glorification, (Heb_5:10; Php_2:9). Precisely for this reason also we are to refer the äéὰ ôὸ ðÜè ôïῦ èáí ., not (with Orig., Chrys., Theod., Aug., Bez., Calov, etc.,) to ἡëáôô . but to ἐóôåö . as is also indicated by its position in the sentence.
That by the grace of God, on behalf of every man, he might taste of death.—The clause commencing with ὅðùò [in order that= ἴíá ] and thence introducing not a mere result (Eras., Kuin., etc.) but purpose, cannot, from the nature of the thought, be connected directly with ἐóôåö . [“crowned in order that”], nor from the structure of the sentence with ἠëáôô ., but must be regarded either as a pregnant exponent of ðÜèçìá ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ , (Thol., Lün.), or as belonging to the entire participial predicative clause—[i.e., “crowned on account,” etc.]—(Del.) and thus assigning the reason why Jesus was exalted, not without the suffering of death, and even on account of it; or, according to my view, as final object of the two-fold declaration respecting Christ’s transfer into His two successive states of humiliation and glorification. With this explanation accords best the reasoning of the following verse; and in the present final clause itself, the author’s main point is not to explain why Jesus has gone through suffering to glory (with which understanding Grot., Carpz., Storr, Bleek, etc., supply, from the preceding ðÜèçìá , an explanatory ὃ ἔðáèåí ) but to declare the object to be subserved alike by the incarnation of the First Born, and the exaltation of the Crucified One in the inseparable unity of the theanthropic person Jesus, viz.: the fulfilment of the divine purpose, that Jesus should, by the grace of God, for the benefit of every one, taste of death. There is no reason for laying the entire stress on ὑðὲñ ðáíôüò , although the masc. sing is employed with a designed emphasis. The weight of the thought is rather distributed nearly equally between the impressive closing words ãåýóçôáé èáíÜôïõ , taste of death, the ὑðὲñ ðáíôüò , which declares the universality of the purpose and merit of His death, accomplished by His entrance into glory, and the ÷Üñéôé èåïῦ which refers back the whole, for its efficient and originating cause, to the grace of God. (We add, in passing, that the ãåýóçôáé èáíÜôïõ taste of death refers neither to brevity of duration—simply “tasting,” (as Chrys., Primas., Braun, etc.,) nor to the bitterness of the death (Calov), nor to its reality (Beza, Bengel), but presupposes Jesus’ personal experience of the suffering of death and his incarnation). Even the reading ÷ùñὶò èåïῦ would not necessarily require more than a secondary stress to be laid upon ὑðὲñ ðáíôüò . This would be the most natural, as also would the neuter rendering of ðáíôüò (every thing), only in case we take the thought to be that Jesus suffered death for all existences, with the single exception of God (Orig., Theodor., Ebr.), contrary to Heb_2:16; or, in order, with the exception of God, to gain and subjugate every thing to Himself (Beng., Chrys., Fr. Schmidt); the thought in this case being parallel to that Eph_1:10, and the form of expression to 1Co_15:27. Other interpreters take the words ÷ùñὶò èåïῦ as an independent characterization, either of the subject of the clause [Christ separately from God], or of the verb [taste of death apart from God]. The former is advocated by Theod. Mops. and his pupil Nestorius, by Ambros., Fulgent., and Colomesius, (Obb. sacr. 603), who thus made Christ to have died in His humanity, without participation of His divinity: the latter, with a reference to Mat_27:46, by Paul., and Baumgart., (Sach. I. 359, and in the Sermon: “How the sight of Jesus, amidst the woes of life, suffices for our blessedness, Brunsw. 1856). Hofm., who formerly explained thus (Weiss. I. 92): “Jesus has tasted death, ÷ùñὶò èåïῦ , by surrendering to death a life (commencing in time), separated from God,” has abandoned both the interpretation and the reading on which it was based. The dispute regarding its genuineness is ancient. For while Orig. (at Joh_1:1) declares that he had found the reading ÷Üñéôé only ἔí ôéóé ἀíôéãñÜöïéò , Jerome (ad Gal_1:2) has, in like manner, found absque Deo only in quibusdam exemplaribus.
Heb_2:10. For it became him—perfect through sufferings,—it seems, at first view, more natural to find the stress of the thought in äéὰ ðáèçìÜôùí (Lün., Del.) than in ôåëåéῶóáé (Thol.), by which äéὰ ðáèçìÜôùí is reduced to a mere secondary and incidental place. In the former case, the way so offensive to the Jews, which leads the Messiah to glory through suffering and death, is here justified as entirely worthy of God. In the other case, we should have the thought expressed that it was indispensable that He should be glorified Himself, who became to others the author of salvation. But the connection demands an equal emphasis upon both points, to which also corresponds the two-fold description of God as the Being by whom and for whom are all things. God—not Christ, as (Prim., Hunn., Dorsch., Cram., etc.)—is designated as the final cause (for whom), and the instrumental cause (by or through whom) of all, in order, at the same time, to remind the reader that alike the ôåëßùóéò , perfecting, which is the end, and the ðáèÞìáôá , sufferings, which are the means, stand respectively in corresponding relation to those respective aspects of God’s being and agency. The perfecting ( ôåëåéïῦí ) embraces at once the outward and the inward, the formal and the spiritual elements of perfecting, Heb_9:9, the bringing the person to the goal by the complete realization and fulfilment of his entire destiny (Thol.), so that the reaching of the highest outward goal is the consequence of internal moral perfection (Camero, de W.). For the perfect ( ôÝëåéïí ) stands in contrast alike with the incipient, the imperfect, and the unrealized (Köstl.). Lün. takes the idea too restrictedly as identical with äüî . êáὶ ôéì . ἐóôåö .
As leading many sons—perfect through sufferings.—We might be inclined to refer the participial clause, “leading many sons,” etc., to Jesus, as in apposition with “Leader of their salvation,” ( ἀñ÷çãὸí ôῆò óùôçñßáò ), but placed emphatically before it as in Heb_2:9 (so Primas., Erasm., Este, Ebr., Win.). And to this neither the absence of the Art. before ἀãáãüíôá (Böhm., Bl.), nor the expression õἱïýò , sons (Lün.), constitutes any objection. For as to the former, the participial clause is only made by the failure of the Art., subordinate to its noun [the Leader, as one who led] instead of being coördinated with it as in case of the employment of the Art. [the Leader who led]; and as to the latter we might say that while those brought to glory are indeed brethren of Christ, yet here they are mentioned not, in their relation to Him, as brethren, but in their relation to God as sons, especially as God is the subject of the entire sentence. But the word ἀñ÷çãüò . (Heb_12:2; Act_3:15; Act_5:31) needs no explanatory apposition (Lün.). It is an abridged form of ἁñ÷åãÝôçò , with which, Philo designates the first Adam, and it denotes him who, at the head of a company, goes in advance of them, and leads them to a like goal; it thus passes over into the sense of author, originator, and becomes= áἴôéïò (Bl. II. 1, p. 302). The goal is here ‘salvation’ ( óùôçñßá ), to which ‘glory’ ( äüîá ) in the participial clause is entirely equivalent. We refer, therefore (with Chrys., Luth., Calov, and most intpp.), this participial clause more fittingly to God, of whom then the same is said, as the expression, “Leader of their salvation,” declares in reference to Christ. He is author of salvation for a great number of children, who are styled ‘many,’ not in the sense of ‘all,’ (Seb. Schmidt), and not in antithesis to all, but in contrast to ‘few,’ and in relation to ‘the One’ (Del.). The irregular Acc. ἀãáãüíôá (for Dat. ἀãáãüíôé ) cannot be urged (as by Carpz., Mich., etc.) against this construction; for the Accus. is the natural case for the subject of the Inf., whence also transitions into it are frequent in spite of a preceding Dat. (Kühn., Gr. II., 346; Bernh. Synt., 367; Buttm. Gr. N. Test., 1859, p. 262).
The Aor. Part. ( ἀãáãüíôá ) was formerly commonly taken in the sense of the Pluperf., and was applied, if it was referred to God as subject, to the saints of the Old Test., as Hofm. even still says (II., 1, 39): “The God who has led many sons to glory, a Moses to the prophetic, an Aaron to the high-priestly, a David to the royal dignity, must render this Son, to whom He had given as His distinguishing vocation, the realization of that destiny of humanity which is set forth in Psalms 8, perfect through suffering.” If, on the contrary, the Part. were referred to Christ, then they were applied (as still by Win. Gr. Ed. 6) to the men already saved through the personal instructions of Jesus. But it is alike inadmissible to weaken the idea of äüîá , glory, hitherto used of Christ’s heavenly glorification, into the lower conception of an earthly, prophetic, priestly, or kingly dignity, and to make the teachings of Jesus, exclusively of His glorious exaltation acquired by sufferings, the cause of salvation. All more recent investigations, however, show that the restricting of the Aor. Part, to the past—a restriction already previously abandoned in reference to the Infin.—is inadmissible. The future signification which many expositors, as even Grotius and Bleek, following Erasmus, give to the participle, is certainly unwarrantable. And to refer it again (with Grot., Limb., Schlicht.), to the eternal purpose and decree of God, though justified by Kuinoel on the ground of an utterly erroneous canon of the earlier Rhetoricians, that the Aor. can be used de conatu, is, of course, to be rejected. “Customary” action may, indeed, be denoted by the Aor., but we are forbidden to assume such a use here, by the fact that we are required by the term ἀñ÷çãüò to restrict the “Sons” spoken of to the New Testament times, excluding those of the Old. [I would add, that there is no such use of the Aor. Participle to denote customary action, as would, in any case, justify the construction here supposed.—K.]. This difficulty is evaded by Tholuck’s assumption, that, here, without respect to relations of time, the Part. expresses the simple way and manner of the perfection, claiming that the Aor. connected with the finite verb, may express that which is contemporaneous with the finite verb, whether mention of this be present or future. To this Lün. objects, that while the Aor. Infin. may be thus used irrespectively of time, this usage does not extend to the Part., and that ἀãáãüíôá cannot express the way and manner of the ôåëåéῶóáé —the perfecting—inasmuch as the personal objects of the two verbs are different, ἀãáãüíôá having for its object õἱïýò , sons, and ôåëåéῶóáé , the Captain, ôὸí ἀñ÷çãüí . The former remark, however, does not touch the examples adduced by Tholuck; and the latter appears to rest on a misapprehension. For the “perfecting” of Jesus, as ‘Leader of salvation,’ has been historically accomplished in His person in no other way and manner than by having had personally His career and course of life in a communion and fellowship of men believing on Him, and transformed by Him into children of God, who, after His manner and type, were led to glory—(a manner and type which Jac., Cappell. and Grot. restrict too exclusively to sufferings). To this also comes substantially the explanation of Lün. himself, viz., that from the stand-point of the writer, the participial clause stands in causal relation to the main proposition, and that the Aor. Part. is justified by the fact that in reality God, from the moment Christ came upon earth as Redeemer, and found faith existing, led to glory, that is, put upon the way to glory, those who had become believers in Him.
[The knot of the difficulty of the Aor. Part. ἀãáãüíôé is scarcely yet untied. That it may grammatically be equally well referred either to God, or to the ‘Leader of salvation,’ Christ, seems unquestionable; and in either construction it makes nearly equally good sense, and is liable substantially to the same difficulties. Granting it, however (as with most, I, on the whole, prefer), to be connected with God (to which, as Moll justly remarks, and for the reason which he assigns, the Acc. case of the Part. constitutes no objection), it still remains a question why, and in precisely what sense, the Aor. Part. is used. That, like the Inf., it can be used without specific reference to past time, and that, in a certain sense, it takes its time from its accompanying finite verb, is unquestionable. It usually thus either denotes an act actually, or ideally and logically separable from that expressed by the finite verb, and conceived as logically prior to it, or, as remarked by Thol., expresses its way and manner. Thus to give examples of its several uses:
1. Of its frequent use as applied to past time: “God, after speaking ( ëáëÞóáò ) to the Fathers, spoke to us,” etc. “Opening ( ἀíïßîáíôåò ) their treasures, they presented.” They opened their treasures and presented.
2. Of contemporaneous action actually distinct: “On seeing ( ἰäüíôåò ) the star, they rejoiced.” They saw the star before they could rejoice, and yet they rejoiced as soon as they saw the star. Logically, the seeing preceded the rejoicing: chronologically they were simultaneous.
3. A still stronger case of the merely logical separation: “Answering ( ἀðïêñéèåßò ) he said=he answered and said. The ‘answering’ and ‘saying’ are absolutely and completely one and the same act, but the mind views it under two distinct aspects, and of these the ‘answering’ is logically anterior to the ‘saying.’ So “Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father,” etc., here, as in the preceding, the distinction of time is purely logical, the ‘crying’ and ‘saying’ being two aspects of the same act.
4. These latter examples often run into way and manner: “Answering, he said”=“he answered and said,” or nearly=he said in the way of answering. Ðéὼí öÜñìáêïí ἀðÝèáíåí , ‘he drank poison and died,’ or here more exactly, “he died of drinking poison.” Plato does not mean to say (Phæd. I.) “after drinking poison he died,” but “he drank poison and died,” or better, “he died by drinking poison.” Hence the Aor. Part. sometimes denotes almost or quite purely, ‘way and manner.’
5. We may remark, that the Aor. Part. may be employed to denote an idea that is strictly subordinate to that of the accompanying verb, or really coördinate with it, and of equal, or even superior importance. Thus, ‘He directed me coming ( ἐëèüíôá ) to inform him,’ might be either, ‘he directed me after coming, to inform him,’ or ‘to come and inform him;’ and only the connection can show whether the act expressed by the Part. is included in the command, or only presupposed by it. Thus “He commanded him, arising, ( ἐãåñèÝíôá ) to take the child and flee,” might be either “on or after arising, to take the child and flee,” or to arise and take, etc. The connection only can positively determine.
In view of the above, the natural renderings of the Aor. Part. here would be: 1. (with Hofm.). It became him, etc., “after leading many sons to glory,” which, however, is nearly impossible as to the thought, even after rejecting Hofmann’s absurd reference of it to Christ’s Old Testament predecessors, and referring it, as we might possibly do, to all the righteous whom God had formerly led to glory. One grand objection to this is, that the Old Testament saints had not as yet been led to glory (Heb_11:39-40). Or 2. It became him “by leading many sons to glory,” with Thol. making the Part. express the way and manner. To this, however, Lönemann’s objection is valid, that then the Part. and the verb ought to have the same personal object, as it seems difficult to see how God could perfect Jesus, one being, by leading many sons, other beings, to glory, unless we reply with Moll that the career of our Lord was so intimately blended with the life of His people, that His perfection was really accomplished in the process—not exclusively of suffering—by which they were brought to glory. This answer is ingenious, but hardly satisfactory. Or 3. Taking the Part. not as expressing a subordinate, but a coördinate or principal idea: It became him to lead many sons, etc., and to make: which, however, it must be confessed, hardly seems to be the writer’s idea. To render the Part. as future, being about to lead, or for the purpose of leading ( ἄîïíôá or ὡò ἄîïíôá ), or as present while leading ( ἄãïíôá ), is out of the question. It is, indeed, possible to render it ‘as leading’ absolutely,=‘as one who led;’ and this perhaps, all things considered, is the best mode of constructing it. But this is harsh, and I know of no strictly parallel examples in Greek prose. Exceptional constructions in the poets are hardly worth the citing, even if they can be found. Were there even any slight external authority for ἄãïíôá or ἄîïíôá , on internal grounds I should hardly hesitate to adopt it. The rendering of the Eng. vers., ‘in bringing many sons,’ etc., would naturally require ἐí ôῶ ἅãåéí , or at the least, the Pres. Part., ἄãïíôá .—K.].
Heb_2:11. For both he that sanctifieth and they—are all from one.—Having designated Jesus as the ‘Son of God,’ the author now justifies his application of the same term to those who believe in Him. Not barely the One, but also the others ( ôå — êáß ); not merely the Sanctified (Peirce, Beng.), but they together with the Sanctifier, i.e., with Jesus Christ (Heb_9:13; Heb_13:12), are from One. “From one” ( ἐî ἑíüò ) expresses not likeness of nature and character (ejusdem naturæ et conditionis spiritualis, Calv., Camero), but simply community of origin; and this not ex communi massa (J. Cappell, Akersloot); not “from one seed, or blood, or stock,” ( ἐî ἑíüò scil. óðÝñìáôïò , or áἵìáôïò , or ãÝíïõò , as Carpz., Abresch, etc.); nor from Adam (Erasm., Bez., Este, etc.), but from God. For the language relates not to that relationship subsequently adverted to Heb_2:14, by joint participation in humanity, but to spiritual brotherhood with Christ, a brotherhood founded in that translation from the darkness of a life estranged from God into a union with Him as the perfectly pure and absolute and essential light, which Christ, as the Sanctifier, has wrought for us as the sanctified. This is effected, as is subsequently shown, by the high-priestly work, which Jesus Christ, as eternal Priestly King, accomplishes in heaven. For by ἁãéÜæåéí our Epistle denotes the accomplishment of the actual commencement of the true fellowship of individuals with God, in the Covenant relation which God Himself has instituted, on the basis of the expiation wrought by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in virtue of the purification obtained through the blood of Jesus Christ, under the point of view of dedication to a Divine relationship, Heb_9:13 f.; Heb_10:10; Heb_10:14; Heb_10:29; Heb_13:12. This expression also has its origin in the terminology of the Old Testament, but has within the sphere of New Testament fulfilment and realization, a more than merely nominal and ritual significance. The Pres. Part. may stand without reference to distinction of time, in the sense of substantives (Winer), [that is, any Participle may, with the Article, be employed in the sense of a concrete substantive, as the Infinitive with the Art. is employed in the sense of the abstract ( ôὸ ἁãéÜæåóèáé , the being sanctified: ὁ ἡãéáóìÝíïò , he who has been sanctified), while the Pres. tense denotes, according to the nature of the case, that which is going on at the time specified by the principal verb, or that which from time to time or habitually takes place. Thus ïἱ ἁãéáæüìåíïé may denote “those who are being sanctified, or are in process of sanctification,” or, “those who, from time to time, are sanctified,” i.e., the successive classes of the sanctified.—K.]. It is a characteristic of Christ to exercise this ministry: of us to receive its influence and efficient power. Thus we are ‘from God’ (Joh_8:47; 1Jn_4:6), and the language can be applied to Jesus, as here the subject is the Saviour’s earthly and historical relation to God. Hence we need not find the ‘Father’ in Abraham (Drus., Peirce, Beng.), nor again refer to God as creative (Chrys. and the Fathers), but as spiritual Father (Grot., Limb., etc.). And thus, under this connection, we need not take the words as denoting a properly universal relation (Hofm.) restricted in its application to Christ and Christians by a reference to the O. T. priesthood (Schlicht., Gerh., etc.). They refer directly to Christ and Christians.
For which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren.—In accordance with the character of the Epistle, the author appeals not to the words of Jesus Himself regarding this his fraternal relation, but regards it as belonging essentially to the fulfilment of the Messiah’s vocation; and hence, as so typified in the O. Test., that alike David the Theocratic Ruler, and Isaiah the prophetic Servant of Jehovah, recognize, feel, and express this their relation in the Church, and embrace in a unity with themselves those who otherwise are subordinated to them, and dependent upon them. In subjoining, therefore, his proof passages, the writer adds: “for which cause he is not ashamed,” an expression which points on the one hand to the distinction between Christ’s Sonship and that of believers (Chrys., Theod.); and on the other, to his sincere and hearty condescension to this fellowship, in proof of which are now given three citations from the Scripture.
Heb_2:12. Saying, I will declare, etc.—The first passage is from Psa_22:23, according to the LXX, except that ἀðáããåëῶ is substituted for äéçãÞóïìáé . David, amidst the sore distress of his flight from before Saul, reposes in faith, as one whom Samuel had anointed, upon the promise made to him of the throne, and declares, in the midst of affliction, not merely this assurance of deliverance and exaltation, but also his determination to declare on this account to his brethren in the congregation, to the seed of Jacob, to them that fear Jehovah, the name, the grace, the help of the Lord, and summon them to join him in praising God. We need assume neither that Christ speaks in David, nor that the Psalmist has transferred himself into the person of Christ. Nor need we interpose the ideal or abstract righteous person (Heng.) in order to justify the Messianic application of this Psalm. We can conceive it as purely typical (Hofm.), or, regarding the prophecy of history as here united with verbal prophecy, we may regard it as typico-prophetical (Del.).
The second passage is found three times in the form ðåðïéèὼò ἔóïìáé ἐð ’ áὐôῶ —I will put my trust in him,—so that the author has merely reversed the order of the first two words, and prefixed an emphatic ἐãþ . The passage Isa_12:2, cannot possibly be referred to; while that 2Sa_22:3 is intrinsically suitable. Still we are not necessarily forced to this from the fact that a êáß ðÜëéí separates it from the third (Isa_8:17) as well as from the first (Ebr.). Rather we may more naturally refer it to Isa_8:17, because the immediately following verse in Isaiah is employed as the third citation, and the separation of the two verses springs not from the author’s wish to accumulate proofs (Lün.), but from the two passages presenting the relation in question under two different aspects (Del.); first, that the speaker associates himself with his brethren in a common attitude of spirit toward God, viz., that of confidential trust, which belongs properly to all the children of God; secondly, that he embraces in one himself and the children that God has given him. Of course these two passages refer but typically to Jesus; but this typical view is entirely legitimate. For Isaiah, whose very name points to the Saviour, not merely prophesies with prophetic words, but has also begotten children who are partly pledges for the salvation of Jehovah, which is to come after affliction and through judgment, and partly, like him, point by their names symbolically to this relation, and by their position prefigure it. It is hence needless to assume (as Bl., Lün.) that the author has been led by the êáὶ ἐñåῖ , introduced by the LXX. before Isa_8:17, to suppose that the Messiah is the speaker, in that these words appeared to point to another subject than the prophet, who, in the whole section, has spoken in the first person, and also to another subject than God, since the latter is in the ἐð ’ áὐôῶ named as He in whom the speaker puts his trust.
2. The destination of man to the dominion of the world, has the possibility of its realization in his possession of the divine image. Hence, under the dominion of sin, the actual condition of man cannot correspond to his Divine destination. But on account of man’s susceptibility of redemption, and in reference to his future redemption, the attainment of this destination becomes the goal of history, and is an essential part of the Divine promises.
3. The attainment of this destination of our race, can be reached by individuals only on the ground of redemption, and that, too, in that new world, which, in its hidden ground and germ, is already present; but in its glorified form of manifestation, is still in the future. It is linked completely, and in all respects, with the mediation of Christ as the Redeemer. But those who, through Him, have become children of God, will, by virtue of their birthright, enter into the possession of the promised land (Mat_5:6), and of the world (Rom_4:13), and sitting with Him upon the throne of His glory (Mat_19:28), and on the seat of His Father (Rev_3:21; Rev_5:10) will reign with Him as priestly kings (Rom_5:17; 2Ti_2:12), and as His saints will judge the world (1Co_6:2), and the angels (Heb_2:3).
4. That which for humanity is still in the future, we see