Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 12:17 - 12:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_12:17. Warning reference to the pernicious result of Esau’s behaviour. Comp. Genesis 27
ἴστε ] not imperative (Vulgate: scitote; Luther: wisset aber), but indicative, since to the readers as born Jews the fact itself was a perfectly familiar one.
ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα , θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν , ἀπεδοκιμάσθη ] that later also, when he wished to inherit (to receive as a possession) the blessing, he was rejected. καί accentuates the ἀπεδοκιμάσθη , as the appropriate natural consequence of the ἀπέδοτο , Heb_12:16. ἡ εὐλογία , however, is the blessing absolutely, i.e. the more excellent blessing, which, was appointed to the first-born as the bearer of the promises given by God to Abraham and his seed. To ἀπεδοκιμάσθη , finally, there is naturally supplemented: by Isaac, in consequence of the higher occasioning or leading of God.
μετανοίας γὰρ τόπον οὐχ εὗρεν , καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν ] for he found no room for change of mind, although he eagerly sought it with tears, i.e. for Esau did not succeed in causing his father Isaac to change his mind, so that the latter should recall the blessing erroneously bestowed upon the younger brother Jacob, and confer it upon himself the elder son; in this he succeeded not, though he besought it with tears. This acceptation of the words, which Beza,[121] H. Stephanus, Piscator, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Owen, Er. Schmid, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Storr, Schulz, Böhme, Klee, Paulus, Stengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmst. A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 677), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, March, p. 210), Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others insist on, is most naturally suggested by the context itself, yields a clear, correct thought, and best accords with the narrative in Genesis. Comp. LXX. Gen_27:33 : εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ εὐλογημένος ἔσταΙ . Gen 12:34: ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ ΔΈ , ἩΝΊΚΑ ἬΚΟΥΣΕΝ ἨΣΑῦ ΤᾺ ῬΉΜΑΤΑ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΑὐΤΟῦ ἸΣΑΆΚ , ἉΝΕΒΌΗΣΕ ΦΩΝῊΝ ΜΕΓΆΛΗΝ ΚΑῚ ΠΙΚΡᾺΝ ΣΦΌΔΡΑ ΚΑῚ ΕἾΠΕΝ · ΕὐΛΌΓΗΣΟΝ ΔῊ ΚἈΜῈ ΠΆΤΕΡ . Gen 12:35: ΕἾΠΕ ΔῈ ΑὐΤῷ · ἘΛΘῺΝ Ὁ ἈΔΕΛΦΌς ΣΟΥ ΜΕΤᾺ ΔΌΛΟΥ ἜΛΑΒΕ ΤῊΝ ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑΝ ΣΟΥ . (It was thus a question not of a blessing in general,—that Esau also still received afterwards, comp. Gen 12:39 f.,—but about the definite blessing pertaining to the first-born.) Gen 12:38: Εἶπε δὲ Ἠσαῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ · μὴ εὐλογία μία σοι ἔστι πάτερ ; εὐλόγησον δὴ κἀμὲ πάτερ . Κατανυχθέντος δὲ Ἰσαάκ (this addition, peculiar to the LXX., accentuates afresh the fact that Isaac’s resolution remained inflexible, since he regarded the blessing already bestowed as irrevocable), ἀνεβόησε φωνῇ Ἠσαῦ καὶ ἔκλαυσεν . Nor is that which Bleek, de Wette, and Delitzsch have advanced against this mode of interpretation of great force. They assert (1) that there is here nowhere any mention of Isaac, so that we cannot think of him in connection with ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς either. But a distinct allusion to Isaac, though not an express mention of him, is certainly contained in that which precedes. Partly in ΤῊΝ ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑΝ , partly in ἈΠΕΔΟΚΙΜΆΣΘΗ , there is found a reference to him; since it was just he who had to bestow the blessing, and afterwards under God’s disposing refused it to Esau. An addition of ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς to ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς was therefore unnecessary. (2) That the formula: “he found no place or room for a change in the mind of his father,” in the sense: “he could not bring about such change in him,” would be a very unnatural one. But why, pray, may not ΤΌΠΟΝ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς ΕὙΡΊΣΚΕΙΝ equally well and naturally signify: “to gain room for a ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ to unfold and assert itself,” as at Act_25:16 ΤΌΠΟΝ ἈΠΟΛΟΓΊΑς ΛΑΜΒΆΝΕΙΝ signifies: “to obtain room for an ἈΠΟΛΟΓΊΑ to unfold and maintain itself,” or ΤΌΠΟΝ ΔΙΔΌΝΑΙ Τῇ ὈΡΓῇ , Rom_12:19 (comp. Eph_4:27): “to give room to the divine wrath to unfold itself and make itself felt”? (3) That the expression ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ itself is unsuitable, inasmuch as “this word can surely only denote an inner emotion of the mind, but not the bare outward recalling of a measure or a verdict” (Bleek), or, as de Wette expresses himself, “in the N. T. is ordinarily employed of human penitence.” Nevertheless there attaches likewise to the notion of the “change of mind,” as above insisted on as its primary requisite, the notion of a proceeding in the inner or spirit-life of the man; which, however, naturally does not exclude the accessory notion that this inner process has also as its necessary consequence an external action. If, further, ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ in the N. T. “ordinarily” serves for the designation of human penitence, this presents no difficulty to the supposition of its having on one occasion preserved its original verbal signification (comp. e.g. Josephus, de Bello Jud. i. 4. 4 : ἐμίσουν τὴν μετάνοιαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ τρόπου τὸ ἀνώμαλον ); specially in a passage where not an article of faith is to be expressed, but simply an historic fact to be related. (4) That the thought thus obtained would not accord with the object of the author and the parallel Heb_6:4-6 (de Wette). But the author’s object is no other than to show, by the warning example of Esau, that the member also of the Christian community who is ΒΈΒΗΛΟς may for ever come short of the attainment of salvation; that, however, Heb_12:17 is to be explained in accordance with the standard furnished by Heb_6:4-6, is an arbitrary presupposition. (5) That this interpretation did not enter into the mind of the Fathers. But this argument, added by Delitzsch, as it in like manner frequently recurs with him, is an unscientific one. For to the Greek Fathers and their expositions can only be applied that which was said of them long ago by Joh. Gerhard (tom. I. of the Loci Theologici, chap. v. p. 30): “sint et habeantur lumina, non autem numina.”
Others, as Theophylact, Calvin, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bleek, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 771), Ewald, Hofmann, Rönsch in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1874, H. 1, p. 127 ff, and already τινές in Oecumenius, refer ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς to Esau himself, and then regard the words ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς ΓᾺΡ ΤΌΠΟΝ ΟὐΧ ΕὟΡΕΝ as a parenthesis, and make ΑὐΤΉΝ glance back to ΤῊΝ ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑΝ . The statement: ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς ΓᾺΡ ΤΌΠΟΝ ΟὐΧ ΕὟΡΕΝ , is then understood either objectively: he found no place for the repentance, which he actually experienced, or subjectively: he found no place in his heart for the feeling of repentance; in the former sense, e.g., Calvin: “nihil profecit vel consequutus est sera sua poenitentia, etsi cum lacrymis quaereret benedictionem, quam sua culpa amiserat,” and Bleek: “he found no longer any place for repentance, change of mind, inasmuch as it was too late for that, and it could avail him nothing now, however much he might regret it;” in the latter sense, e.g., Bengel: “It could no longer be awakened in Esau. Natura rei recusabat.” But against the first modification of this rendering decides the thought which would thus arise, false at least for the application of the statement, since in the Christian domain a repentance that is worthy of the name can never be too late, never ineffectual (comp. Luk_23:39-43); against the second, the internal contradiction in which this interpretation is involved with the concession καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν , since surely by this very fact the actual presence of a repentance was manifested; against both, finally, the harshness and unnaturalness of the grammatical construction, by which the syntactical order is forced out of its simple connection. Others, finally, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Primasius, Luther, Grotius, Nemethus, de Wette, Alford, Reuss, rightly indeed refer αὐτήν back to ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς , but then understand ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ of Esau’s change of mind. Luther: “for he found no room for penitence, although he sought it with tears.” De Wette: “For repentance (penitence, amendment, i.e. for the return to the theocratic union by the laying aside of his unhallowed, frivolous character) he found no room, no place, no scope (i.e. there was not granted him, by the delaying of the sentence of reprobation, the possibility of manifesting a more worthy spirit, and of becoming reconciled to God), although he sought it with tears.” But if one takes the statement with Luther subjectively, it yields a harsh, repulsive, contradictory thought; if one takes it, with de Wette, objectively, it would be incorrectly expressed, since in that case αὐτόν (sc. τόπον ) must of necessity have been written in place of ΑὐΤΉΝ (sc. μετάνοιαν ). Moreover, for this whole mode of explanation the narrative in Genesis affords no point of support.
[121] Yet Beza, as likewise Er. Schmid and Bisping, then refers back, without justifying reason, αὐτήν to τὴν εὐλογίαν instead of μετανοίας .