Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_1:4. The author has first, Heb_1:1-3, instituted a parallel between the mediators of the Old Testament revelations in general or in pleno, and the Mediator of the Christian revelation. But among the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, none attained in point of glory to the Mosaic; inasmuch as this was given not only through the medium of a man enlightened by the Spirit of God,—i.e. by one of the προφῆται , mentioned Heb_1:1,—but, according to the universal Jewish belief (vid. ad ii. 2), was given by the instrumentality not only of Moses, but also of angels. As, therefore, the author has maintained the superiority of Christ, as the Son of God, over the προφῆται , so is he now naturally further led to show the superiority of Christ over the angels also. This is done in the declaration, Heb_1:4, which in a grammatical sense is closely connected with that which precedes, and serves for the completing of the description of Christ’s characteristic qualifications; at the same time, however, logically regarded, affords the theme for the following disquisition, which constitutes the first section of the epistle (Heb_1:5 to Heb_2:18).
The supposition of Tholuck, that the addition of Heb_1:4 “has an independent object,” i.e. is occasioned by polemic reference to the opinion spread abroad among the Jews, in addition to other conceptions with regard to the person of the Messiah, that He was an intermediate spirit or angel,[32] is entirely erroneous. It finds no countenance whatever in the reasoning of the author, and is opposed to the whole scope of the epistle, that of showing in detail the inferiority of the Old Covenant as compared with the New, and of influencing in a corresponding manner the conduct of the readers.
The oratorical formula of comparison: τοσούτῳ … ὅσῳ , which recurs Heb_7:20-22, Heb_8:6, Heb_10:25, is found likewise with Philo, but never with Paul.
ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝ ] better, or more excellent, namely, in power, dignity, and exaltedness; comp. Heb_7:19; Heb_7:22, Heb_8:6, Heb_9:23, Heb_10:34, Heb_11:16; Heb_11:35; Heb_11:40, Heb_12:24.
γενόμενος ] marks the having begun to be in time, whereas ὤν , Heb_1:3, expressed the timeless eternal existence. ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΓΓΈΛΩΝ did Christ become just at that time when, having accomplished the work of redemption, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς thus closely attaches itself to the ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ , Heb_1:3, and is more fully explained by the fact that Christ, by virtue of His incarnation, and so long as He dwelt on earth, was made lower than the angels; comp. Heb_2:7; Heb_2:9.
The comparative ΔΙΑΦΟΡΏΤΕΡΟΝ , found in the N. T. only here and Heb_8:6, serves, since even the positive ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ would have sufficed for the indication of the superiority, for the more emphatic accentuating of the signification of the word. The opinion of Hofmann, that the comparative is chosen because the name ἌΓΓΕΛΟς is in itself an ὌΝΟΜΑ ΔΙΆΦΟΡΟΝ , when the author contrasts the spirits of God with men living in the flesh, is quite remote from the idea of the passage.
ΠΑΡΆ ] after a comparative is very common in our epistle; cf. Heb_3:3, Heb_9:23, Heb_11:4, Heb_12:24. Comp. also Luk_3:13; 3 Esdr. 4:35; Thucyd. i. 4:23: ἩΛΊΟΥ ΤΕ ἘΚΛΕΊΨΕΙς , ΑἻ ΠΥΚΝΌΤΕΡΑΙ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤᾺ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΡῚΝ ΧΡΌΝΟΥ ΜΝΗΜΟΝΕΥΌΜΕΝΑ ΞΥΝΈΒΗΣΑΝ ; Herod. 7. 103; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 225. With Paul it never occurs. Similar is ὑπέρ with the accusative, Heb_4:12; Luk_16:8.
ὌΝΟΜΑ ] must not, with Beza, Calov, Wittich, Storr, Valckenaer, Zachariae, Heinrichs, be altered into the notion of “dignity.” For this ὌΝΟΜΑ never signifies in itself, and its substitution would in our passage, in relation to ΚΡΕΊΤΤΩΝ ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς , bring about only a tautology. The name of pre-eminence above the angels, which Christ has obtained as an inheritance, is the name ΥἹΌς , Son of God,—comp. Heb_1:5 and Heb_1:1,—while the angels by their name are characterized only as messengers and servants of God. Contrary to the context, Delitzsch says: the name ΥἹΌς suffices not to express the thought in connection with ὌΝΟΜΑ . The supra-angelic name, to which the author refers, lies beyond the notionally separating and sundering language of men. It is the heavenly total-name of the Exalted One, His ùÑÅí äÇîÌÀôÉøÈùÑ , nomen explicitum, which in this world has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human tongue, the ὄνομα ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ αὐτός , Rev_19:12. The following words of Scripture are, he supposes, only upward pointing signs, which call forth in us some foreboding as to how glorious He is. But this is opposed to the connection. For even though it be true, as advanced by Delitzsch in support of his view, that in the following O. T. passages there occur also, in addition to υἱός , the wider appellations θεός and κύριος ; yet, on the other hand, not merely ἐν υἱῷ , Heb_1:1, as likewise Heb_1:5 with its proof-giving γάρ , but also the antithesis πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους and πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν , Heb_1:7-8, shows that υἱός is the main conception, to which the words of address: ὁ θεός and κύριε , Heb_1:8; Heb_1:10, stand in the relation of subordination, inasmuch as they are already contained in this very idea of Son.
The perfect κεκληρονίμηκεν , however, not the aorist ἐκληρονόμησεν , is employed by the author; because Christ did not first obtain this name at the time of the καθίζειν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλ ., Heb_1:3, but had already as pre-existing Logos obtained it as an abiding portion and possession. We have not, in connection with κεκληρονόμηκεν , to think “quite in general of the O. T. time, in which the future Messiah received in the Word of God the name of Son,” as is asserted by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 274), whose statement is endorsed by E. Woerner.[33] For this view is contradicted by the διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας , Heb_1:2, in its relation to ἐν υἱῷ , Heb_1:1, according to which Christ already existed as the Son before all time. The declarations of Heb_1:5, which Riehm has urged in favour of the construction put by him on our passage, have only the object of affording vouchers for a condition of things already existing.
The difficulty raised, for the rest, that the name of Son is here insisted on as a distinguishing characteristic of Christ, while, nevertheless, in single passages of the O. T. (Job_1:6; Job_2:1; Job_38:7; Gen_6:2; Gen_6:4; Psa_29:1; Psa_89:7; Dan_3:25), angels too are called sons of God, is already disposed of by the reflection that this is not the characteristic name for the angels as such. There is no need, therefore, of the justification of the author made by Bleek, that this writer, since he was not at home in the Hebrew text of the O. T., but only in the Alexandrine version thereof, which latter freely renders the majority of those passages by ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ , may easily have overlooked, or perhaps have otherwise interpreted, those passages in which the literal translation is found in the LXX. (Psa_29:1; Psa_89:7 [Gen_6:2; Gen_6:4?]).
[32] That the defective view with regard to Christ, which saw in Him only an angel, must have called for rectification, has likewise been thought probable by Schneckenburger, who sought further to confirm this probability. Comp. the “Observations on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” contributed by Riehm from Schneckenburger’s remains, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, H. 3, p. 544 ff.
[33] Der Brief St. Pauli an die Hebräer, Ludwigsb. 1876.