Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 1:2 - 1:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_1:2. As far as τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ , Heb_1:3. The dignity of the Son as the premundane Logos.
Τιθέναι with double accusative, in the sense of ποιεῖν τινά τι , is no Hebraism ( ùÒåÌí , ùÑÄéú ), but is very frequent with the classics. Comp. e.g. Herodian, Hist. v. 7. 10 : Ἐφʼ οἷς Ἀντωνῖνος πάνυ ἤσχαλλε καὶ μετεγίγνωσκε , θέμενος αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ κοινωνὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς ; Xenophon, Cyrop. iv. 6. 3 : ὥσπερ ἄν εὐδαίμονα πατέρα παῖς τιμῶν τιθείη ; Aelian, Var. Hist. xiii. 6; Homer, Odyss. ix. 404, al. Comp. also Elsner ad loc.; Kühner, II. p. 226.
Ἔθηκεν , however, has reference not so much to the time when Christ, having completed the work of redemption, has returned to the Father in heaven (so the Greek expositors; and in like manner Primasius, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Cameron, Corn. a Lapide, Grotius, Schlichting, Calov, Hammond, Braun, Limborch, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 295 ff.;[30] Maier, Moll, and others), but relates to the appointment made in the eternal decree of God before all time; thus has reference to Christ as the premundane Logos. This application is required in order to a due proportion with the declarations immediately following, and to the logical development of the well thought-out periods, in which the discourse reaches the exaltation of the incarnate Redeemer only with ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς , Heb_1:3. The idea of the pre-existence of Christ or the Son of God as the eternal Logos with its nearer definitions, as this comes forth here and in that which immediately follows, is the same as is met with also in Paul’s writings. Comp. Col_1:15 ff.; Php_2:6; 1Co_8:6; 1Co_10:4; 1Co_15:47; 2Co_4:4; 2Co_8:9. Yet, in the shaping of this idea on the part of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only the teaching of Paul, but likewise the Logos-speculations of Philo, with whose writings the Epistle to the Hebrews has manifold points in common, have not been without influence.
κληρονόμον πάντων ] heir, i.e. (future) Possessor and Lord of all things, namely, of the world. Chrysostom: Τῷ δὲ τοῦ κληρονόμου ὀνόματι κέχρηται , δύο δηλῶν , καὶ τὸ τῆς υἱότητος γνήσιον , καὶ τὸ τῆς κυριότητος ἀναπόσπαστον . Comp. Gal_4:7; Rom_8:17.
διʼ οὗ ] by whom. Grammatically unwarranted, Grotius: propter quern ( διʼ ὅυ ). Comp. also Heb_2:10.
καὶ ἐποίησεν ] The emphasis falls upon the word ἐποίησεν , on that account preposed, while τοὺς αἰῶνας only takes up again under a varying form a notion already expressed in that which precedes, and καί indicates no heightening of the expression (even, or more than this; Wolf and others), but is intended to bring out the accordance between the statement in the second relative clause and that in the first; so that the fact that by the Son the αἰῶνες were created is made to follow as something quite natural, from the fact that He was by God constituted κληρονόμος πάντων (by whom He also created, etc.). Wrongly does Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 298 f.) invert the relation of the two members indicated by καί , in finding out the sense: “the installation of the Son in the office of the world’s dominion is in entire accordance with the fact that by the Son the world was created; in other words, from the relation of the Son to God and the world, revealed in the latter fact, His installation in the office of the world’s dominion presents nothing extraordinary, but rather appears something which we could not at all expect to be otherwise.” [So in substance Owen, who seeks to combine the two meanings of τιθέναι .] Had this been meant, then δι ̓ οὗ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας , ὃν καὶ ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων must have been written. For the καί of the second clause accentuates the fact that what follows is in accord with that which precedes, not that what precedes is in accord with that which follows. Comp. Php_3:20, where by means of καί the fact that we expect the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as a deliverer is represented as something quite natural, since our πολίτευμα is in heaven; but not conversely is the fact that our πολίτευμα is in heaven deduced from the presupposition of our expecting Christ from thence.
τοὺς αἰῶνας ] does not here denote the ages; either in such wise that the totality of the periods of time from the creation of the world to its close is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Daniel Heinsius), for this thought would be too abstract; or in such wise that the two main periods in the world’s history—the pre-Messianic and the Messianic—are to be understood thereby (Paulus, Stein), for in connection with the absolute τοὺς αἰῶνας no one could have thought of this special division into two parts. Nor must we either apprehend τοὺς αἰῶνας of the Aeons in the sense of the Gnostics (Amelius in Wolf, Fabricius, Cod. Apocryph. N. T. I. p. 710); for at the time when our author wrote this notion of the word did not yet exist. τοὺς αἰῶνας is to be understood of the worlds, of the totality of all things existing in time (and space), so that it is identical with the preceding πάντων and the following τὰ πάντα of Heb_1:3. ὁ αἰών , it is true, has always with the classics the strict notion of duration of time; but, as in the case of the Hebrew òå ̇ ìÈí , this notion might easily pass over into the wider notion of that which forms the visible contents of time, thus into that of the complex of all created things. This interpretation is confirmed by the reading of Heb_11:3, where αἰῶνες cannot possibly be used in any other sense.
As parallel passages to this second relative clause of Heb_1:2, expressing the thought of a creation of the universe by the premundane Son of God, comp. in Paul’s writings, Col_1:16; 1Co_8:6; in those of John, Joh_1:3; Joh_1:10. Philo, too, supposes the world was created by the Logos, as the earliest or first-born Son of God. Comp. de Cherubim, p. 129 (ed. Mangey, I. p. 162): ἼΔΕ ΤῊΝ ΜΕΓΊΣΤΗΝ ΟἸΚΊΑΝ Ἢ ΠΌΛΙΝ , ΤΌΝΔΕ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ · ΕὙΡΉΣΕΙς ΓᾺΡ ΑἼΤΙΟΝ ΜῈΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤῸΝ ΘΕΌΝ , ὙΦ ̓ ΟὟ ΓΈΓΟΝΕΝ , ὝΛΗΝ ΔῈ ΤᾺ ΤΈΣΣΑΡΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕῖΑ , ἘΞ ὯΝ ΣΥΝΕΚΡΆΘΗ , ὌΡΓΑΝΟΝ ΔῈ ΛΌΓΟΝ ΘΕΟῦ , ΔΙ ̓ ΟὟ ΚΑΤΕΣΚΕΥΆΣΘΗ , Τῆς ΔῈ ΚΑΤΑΣΚΕΥῆς [ ΑἸΤΊΑΝ ΤῊΝ ἈΓΑΘΌΤΗΤΑ ΤΟῦ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΟῦ .
De Monarch. lib. ii. p. 823 B (ed. Mangey, II. p. 225): λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεοῦ , δι ̓ οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο .
Legg. allegor. lib. iii. p. 79 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 106): ΣΚΙᾺ ΘΕΟῦ ΔῈ Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ ἘΣΤΙΝ , ᾯ ΚΑΘΆΠΕΡ ὈΡΓΆΝῼ ΠΡΟΣΧΡΗΣΆΜΕΝΟς ἘΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΊΕΙ .
[30] According to Riehm, the author first (ver. 2) glanced at the final point of the power of the Redeemer, and then at the beginning thereof, and after this (ver. 3) described the way to that final point with respect to the beginning. But however delicate and acute this conception of the subject, it is too greatly refined and artificial. In point of simplicity and naturalness it falls short of the view that at vv. 2, 3 the various phases of the life of Christ are described in their historic succession, so that only in connection with the intermediate member
ὢν … φέρων τε κ . τ . λ ., ver. 3 (see on the verse)—there resounds throughout, in addition to the main reference to an earlier condition of the life of Christ, at the same time the subordinate reference to a later condition of His life. That which Riehm urges in support of his own view, and in refutation of the opposite one, is easily disposed of. When he thinks, in the first place, that only by his apprehension the whole structure of the period becomes thoroughly clear, this is already shown to be inaccurate by the fact that the simple is always more clear than the complex. For even if it be admitted in some respects that a new division of thought begins with the ὅς , ver. 3, which specially brings into relief the subject, whereas before ὁ θεός was the subject, yet nothing is to be inferred from this, because the character of the relative statements, ver. 2, is not changed thereby, inasmuch as the reference to God assuredly appears in the third relative clause, namely, in κεκληρονόμηκεν , ver. 4. When Riehm further contends that in his explanation ver. 2 agrees much better with that which precedes,—inasmuch as by the υἱός , ver. 1, the historic Christ is confessedly to be understood, but now an inexplicable leap in the thought would arise, if the author had first ascribed to the historic Christ a number of predicates, which were appropriate to Him only as the premundane Logos, and should only afterwards speak of His present glory,—this contention is already sufficiently refuted by the wholly parallel procedure of the Apostle Paul, Php_2:5 ff., who likewise takes his departure from the historic Christ, and then, in the same order which Riehm calls an “inexplicable leap in the thought,” attaches thereto further statements with regard to the person of the Redeemer. Moreover, in our passage the order of succession censured as an “inexplicable leap in the thought” is perfectly justified, because υἱός , ver. 1, is the total expression, which, as such, includes in itself all the stadia in the life of Christ; and thus from it one might proceed with equal justice immediately to the premundane Christ as to the exalted Christ. If Riehm further supposes that in connection with the appointment as heir, ver. 2, we cannot think of a destination made in the eternal decree of God, then the analogous declaration of Scripture: πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε , Rom_4:17, already proves the opposite; and if he finds the expression κληρονόμος appropriate only to the incarnate Son, inasmuch as the name could hardly otherwise occur in connection with τιθέναι than in reference to a possession which the κληρονόμος once had not, there underlies this objection only this amount of truth, namely, that the expression κληρονόμος no doubt includes in itself a reference pointing to the future; but that which it is designed to express by the first relative clause is assuredly also only the thought that Christ was in the ideal sense before all time appointed or made something, which in the real sense He could only be in the full extent at the end of all time. When, finally, Riehm believes that ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων , ver. 2, must be understood of the dominion of the exalted Christ, for the reason that the passage Heb_1:8-9, bearing upon the dominion of the exalted Christ, is supposed to refer back to those words, this is altogether erroneous, since a special referring back on the part of Heb_1:8-9 to the opening proposition of ver. 2 is not by any means to be admitted. See below, the analysis of contents of vv. 5–14.