Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 1:3 - 1:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_1:3. Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main declaration of the verse, ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς , is established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles ὢν … φέρων τε … ποιησάμενος . The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inasmuch as the participles present still relate to Christ as the Λόγος ἄσαρκος , and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its contents the redeeming act of the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος . Of the two present participles, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, Heb_1:2, and the second to the latter half.
ὢ ἀπαύγασμα ] not: quum esset, but: quum sit ἀπαύγ ., or as ἀπαύγασμα . For the εἶναι ἀπαύγασμα κ . τ . λ . and φέρειν τὰ πάντα κ . τ . λ ., which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place, become again appropriate to Him.[31]
ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ] an Alexandrian word, occurring Wis_7:26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i.e. as a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun. So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, Calov, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heumann, Böhme, Reiche. Or (2) as image, reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection. So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wittich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 661, and in his Lexic. N. T. p. 36), Nickel (Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 279). In favour of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius paraphrases ἀπαύγασμα by ἩΛΊΟΥ ΦΈΓΓΟς ; and in Lexic. Cyrilli ms. Brem. are found the words: ἀπαύγασμα ἀκτὶς ἡλίου , ἡ πρώτη τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς ἀποβολή , as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ by Φῶς ἘΚ ΦΩΤΌς , the latter with the addition ΤῸ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ἩΛΊΟΥ ΚΑῚ ΟὐΧ ὝΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ ; and Theodoret observes: ΤῸ ΓᾺΡ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ΚΑῚ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΥΡΌς ἘΣΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΣῪΝ Τῷ ΠΥΡΊ ἘΣΤΙ · ΚΑῚ ΑἼΤΙΟΝ ΜῈΝ ἜΧΕΙ ΤῸ ΠῦΡ , ἈΧΏΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΔΈ ἘΣΤΙ ΤΟῦ ΠΥΡΌς · ἘΞ ΟὟ ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΠῦΡ , ἘΞ ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥ ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ . But without reason does Bleek claim, in favour of this first interpretation, also the usage of Philo and Wis_7:26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. § 11 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 356), which Bleek regards as “particularly clear” ( Τὸ δʼ ἐμφυσώμενον [Gen_2:7] ΔῆΛΟΝ Ὡς ΑἸΘΈΡΙΟΝ ἮΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΚΑῚ ΕἸ ΔΉ ΤΙ ΑἸΘΕΡΊΟΥ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ΚΡΕῖΤΤΟΝ , ἍΤΕ Τῆς ΜΑΚΑΡΊΑς ΚΑῚ ΤΡΙΣΜΑΚΑΡΊΑς ΦΎΣΕΩς ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ), there is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by Bleek, tell less in favour of it than against it. For in the former of these ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is explained by ἘΚΜΑΓΕῖΟΝ [impression] and ἀπόσπασμα [shred] as synonyms, in the latter by μίμημα [copy]. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D, in Mangey, I. p. 35: πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ , τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς , κατὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ σώματος κατασκευὴν ἅπαντι τῷ κόσμῳ .
De plantat. Noë, p. 221 C, Mang. I. p. 337: Τὸ δὲ ἁγίασμα οἷον ἁγίων ἀπαύγασμα , μίμημα ἀρχετύπου · ἐπεὶ τὰ αἰσθήσει καλὰ καὶ νοήσει καλῶν εἰκόνες .) Finally, there are found also, Wis_7:26, as kindred expressions, besides ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ , the words ἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝ and ΕἸΚΏΝ . ( ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ΓΆΡ ἘΣΤΙ ΦΩΤῸς ἈΪΔΊΟΥ ΚΑῚ ἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝ ἈΚΗΛΊΔΩΤΟΝ Τῆς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΝΕΡΓΕΊΑς ΚΑῚ ΕἸΚῺΝ Τῆς ἈΓΑΘΌΤΗΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ .) The decision is afforded by the form of the word itself. Inasmuch as not ἈΠΑΥΓΑΣΜΌς , but ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is written, an active notion, such as would be required by Bleek’s acceptation, cannot be expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result thereof must be intended. For as ἀπήχημα denotes that which is produced by the ἈΠΗΧΕῖΝ , the resonance or echo, and ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ that which is produced by the ἈΠΟΣΚΙΆΖΕΙΝ , the shadow cast by an object, so does ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ denote that which is produced by the ἈΠΑΥΓΆΖΕΙΝ . ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is therefore to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in the word—(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.
τῆς δόξης ] of His (the divine) glory or majesty. For the following αὐτοῦ belongs equally to Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς as to Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς .
ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ ] and as impress of His essential being, so that the essential being of the Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and counterpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noë, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 332), where the rational soul ( ἡ λογικὴ ψυχή ) is called a coin which stands the test, ΟὐΣΙΩΘΩΕῖΣΑ ΚΑῚ ΤΥΠΩΘΕῖΣΑ ΣΦΡΑΓΊΔΙ ΘΕΟῦ , Ἧς Ὁ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἈΐΔΙΟς ΛΌΓΟς . In the N. T. the word ΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡ is found only in this place. To interpret ὙΠΌΣΤΑΣΙς , however, in the sense of ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ , or “Person” (Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Calvin [in the exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, Sebastian Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, Wolf, Suicer), is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ , the Apostle Paul expresses, Col_1:15, by ΕἸΚῺΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΤΟῦ ἈΟΡΆΤΟΥ , and, Php_2:6 (comp. 2Co_4:4), by ἘΝ ΜΟΡΦῇ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ .
ΦΈΡΩΝ ΤΕ ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ Τῷ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ Τῆς ΔΥΝΆΜΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ ] and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power. Comp. Col_1:17 : καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ; Philo, de Cherub. p. 114 (ed. Mang. I. p. 145): ὁ πηδαλιοῦχος καὶ κυβερνήτης τοῦ παντὸς λόγος θεῖος .
τὰ πάντα is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace, but is identical with ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ; and ΤΟῪς ΑἸῶΝΑς , Heb_1:2, thus denotes the complex of all created things. On ΦΈΡΕΙΝ in the signification: to uphold anything, so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull. 6 : φέρειν τὴν πόλιν ; Valerius Maximus, xi. 8. 5 : Humeris gestare salutem patriae; Cicero, pro Flacco, c. 38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep. 31: Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iii. 9. 14: Nomen Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus ab eo sustentatur orbis.
τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ ] more emphatic than if Τῷ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ ΑὐΤΟῦ Τῷ ΔΥΝΑΤῷ were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent. Oecumenius: ῬῆΜΑ ΔῈ ΕἾΠΕ ΔΕΙΚΝῪς ΠΆΝΤΑ ΕὐΚΌΛΩς ΑὐΤῸΝ ἌΓΕΙΝ ΚΑῚ ΦΈΡΕΙΝ . Theophylact: ΤΗΛΙΚΟῦΤΟΥ ὌΓΚΟΝ Τῆς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς ΤῸΝ ὙΠΈΡΜΕΓΑΝ Ὡς ΟὐΔῈΝ ΑὐΤῸς ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΆΖΕΙ ΚΑῚ ΛΌΓῼ ΜΌΝῼ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΔΥΝΑΜΈΝῼ .
Not the gospel, however, is meant by ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως ; but as by the word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. Heb_11:3), so is it also by the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.
ΑὐΤΟῦ ] goes back to Ὅς , thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus).
ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜῸΝ ΤῶΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΠΟΙΗΣΆΜΕΝΟς ] after He had accomplished a cleansing from the sins. Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the Son as the eternal Logos incarnate, or the Redeemer in His historic appearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the declaration: καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ,—with regard to the grammatical expression of which LXX. of Job_7:21, 2Pe_1:9, may be compared,—was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which the ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜΌς was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the world of mankind, which until then was under the defiling stain of sins, without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, however, by which the καθαρισμός was accomplished, the atoning death of Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations, i.e. purifications by sacrifice, and cites Lucian’s ῥίψομεν μὲν αὐτὸν τοῦ κρημνοῦ καθαρισμὸν τοῦ στρατοῦ ἐσόμενον , “We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.”] To conceive of the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ themselves as a direct object to ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜΌΝ , to which Bleek and Winer, Gramm. 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168, 7th ed. p. 176), were inclined, and in favour of which Delitzsch and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc.) pronounce themselves with decision,—in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the human race, which is healed or put away by Christ,—is not at all warranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression: ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα , Mat_8:3. Nor is it requisite to supply ἈΠΌ before ΤῶΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ , and assume a pregnancy of expression, since ΚΑΘΑΡΌς and its derived words are not only connected by ἈΠΌ , but likewise, with equal propriety, by the bare genitive. See Kühner, II. p. 163.
ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ ἘΝ ΔΕΞΙᾷ Τῆς ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΨΗΛΟῖς ] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Culminating point of the description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed work of redemption, in the period of His return to the Father, which followed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of God is a well-known figure, derived from Psa_110:1, in order to designate supreme honour and dominion over the world (Rom_8:34, al.).
ἐν ὑψηλοῖς ] Comp. Psa_93:4; Psa_113:5; tantamount to ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς , Heb_8:1; or ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἘΠΟΥΡΑΝΊΟΙς , Eph_1:20; or ἘΝ ὙΨΊΣΤΟΙς , Luk_2:14; Luk_19:38, al. The addition belongs not to μεγαλωσύνης (Beza, Böhme, Bleek, Ebrard, Alford),—since otherwise the article would be repeated,—but to ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ . The plural ἘΝ ὙΨΗΛΟῖς is explained from the supposition of several heavens, in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed.
[31] Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.; comp. also his remarks in the Commentary, p. 64 ff.) believes that the ὢν ἀπαύγασμα κ . τ . λ . and the φέρων τὰ πάντα κ . τ . λ . must be referred exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on untenable grounds. For from the consideration that φέρων τε τὰ πάντα “forms the most unambiguous contrast to the condition of Christ’s life in the flesh,” nothing is to be argued in favour of this view; because this contrast is equally to be supposed, when we understand these words alike of the premundane as of the exalted Christ. The further assertion, however, that in the case of a referring of ὢν ἀπαύγασμα κ . τ . λ . to that which Christ is apart from His humanity, the declaration ver. 3 must have been connected by means of ὅς ἐστιν instead of ὤν , is lacking in all grammatical support. For, so far as concerns the sense, there is no difference whatever between ὅς ἐστιν and ὤν ; only regard for rhetorical euphony and the due rounding off of the periods determined the author upon expressing himself as he did.