Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 12:22 - 12:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_12:22-24. Contrast to Heb_12:18-19. Positive characterization of the communion into which the readers have entered by the reception of Christianity. The description, Heb_12:22-24, corresponds not in detail to the particulars enumerated, Heb_12:18-19 (against Bengel, who ingeniously constructs a sevenfold antithesis; as likewise against Delitzsch, Kluge, and Ewald, who have followed the same), although we should be led to expect this from the corresponding words of commencement, Heb_12:18; Heb_12:22. Moreover, the succession of clauses contained in Heb_12:22-24 is no strictly logical one, since at least καὶ πνεύμασιν δικαίων τετελειωμένων would have been more appropriately placed before than after καὶ κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων .
ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος , Ἱερουσαλὴν ἐπουρανίῳ ] but drawn near have ye to the mountain Zion and the city of the living God, namely, the heavenly Jerusalem. The three substantive-appellations contain a single idea, in that to the closely connected twofold expression: Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος , the following Ἱερουσαλὴν ἐπουρανίῳ forms an explanatory apposition. As Mount Zion (in opposition to the Mount Sinai, Heb_12:18) the heavenly Jerusalem is designated, because in the O. T. the Mount Zion is very frequently described as the dwelling-place of God, and the place whence the future salvation of the people is to be looked for. Comp. Psa_48:3 [2], Psa_50:2, Psa_78:68, Psa_110:2, Psa_132:13 ff.; Isa_2:2-3; Joe_3:5 [Joe_2:32]; Mic_4:1-2; Oba_1:17, al. Likewise also is the heavenly Jerusalem called the city of the living God (comp. too in relation to the earthly Jerusalem: πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως , Mat_5:35), not so much because the living and acting God is its architect (Heb_11:10), as because He has His throne there.
καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων ] and to myriads of angels, the servants, and as it were the court of God. καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων belongs together (Beza, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, Braun, Kypke, Carpzov, Cramer, Baumgarten, Storr, Dindorf, Tholuck, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others), without, however, our having, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, Piscator, Grotius, Tischendorf (ed. 2), Bloomfield, Conybeare, Ewald, and others, to refer likewise πανηγύρει , Heb_12:23, to the same as an apposition. For such apposition, consisting of a bare individual word, would be out of keeping with the euphonious fulness of the whole description; and, if this construction had been intended, καὶ μυριάδων ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει would have been written. But just as little must we with others (also Bleek and de Wette) take καὶ μυριάσιν alone, as standing independently; whether, as Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Griesbach, Knapp, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, Bisping, Maier, Moll, we regard as apposition thereto merely ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει , or, as Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Ernesti, Schulz, Lachmann, Bleek, Tischendorf (ed. 1), Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 117), Alford, Kluge, Woerner, both the following members: ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς —in connection with which latter supposition, however, the more nearly connecting τε καί , of frequent use with the author (Heb_2:4; Heb_2:11, Heb_4:12, al.), would have been more naturally expected than the bare καί before ἐκκλησίᾳ . For μυριάσιν is a very indefinite notion, which, where its reference is not self-evident from the connection, requires a genitival addition; besides, the accentuation of the idea of plurality alone would here be meaningless. Further, the reasons advanced against our mode of explanation, that in such case we ought, after the analogy of the following members, to expect a καί before πανηγύρει (Seb. Schmidt, Bleek, Ebrard); that πανηγύρει and that which follows would become in the highest degree dragging (Bleek); that πανηγύρει would be superfluous (de Wette),—are without weight. For καί was omitted by reason of the euphonious πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ , into which a καί placed also before πανηγύρει would have introduced a discordant note; the charge of dragging would have been justified, only if a καί had really been added before πανηγύρει ; nor, again, is πανηγύρει , superfluous, since it contains a very significant notion, and one different from that of ἐκκλησίᾳ .