Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 13:9 - 13:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_13:9. The exhortation itself, for which preparation was made at Heb_13:8, now follows.
Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε ] By manifold and strange doctrines do not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. As is shown by the connecting of the two halves of the verse by the γάρ , expressive of the reason or cause, the διδαχαὶ ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι are related to the βρώματα mentioned immediately after as the genus to a species coming under particular notice; and, as is manifest from Heb_13:10 ff., both belong to the specifically Jewish domain. By διδαχαὶ ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι , therefore, the ordinances of the Mosaic law in general are to be understood, the observance of which was proclaimed among the readers as necessary to the attainment of salvation, while then under βρώματα a special group of the same is mentioned. ποικίλαι the same are called, because they consist in commands and prohibitions of manifold kind; ξέναι , however, because they are opposed to the spirit of Christianity.
καλὸν γάρ ] for it is a fair thing, i.e. praiseworthy and salutary.
χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν ] that by grace the heart be made stedfast, in it seek and find its support. For no other thing than the grace of God is that which determines the character of the New Covenant, as the law that of the Old, Rom_6:14, al. Erroneously, therefore, Castellio and Böhme, χάριτι means by thanksgiving or gratitude towards God; yet more incorrectly Bisping and Maier: by the Christian sacrificial food, the Holy Communion.
οὐ βρώμασιν ] not by meats. This is referred by the majority, lastly by Böhme, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 158), Alford, Moll, Ewald, and Hofmann, to the Levitical ordinances concerning pure and impure food. But only of the sacrificial meals can οὐ βρώμασιν be understood. For rightly have Schlichting, Bleek, and others called attention to the fact that (1) the expression, Heb_13:9, is more applicable to the enjoyment of sacred meats than to the avoiding of unclean meats. Schlichting: Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed comestis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiae, opponitur hic gratia; that (2) it is said of the Christians, at Heb_13:10, in close conjunction with Heb_13:9, that they possess an altar of which the servants of the Jewish sanctuary have no right to eat; that, finally, (3) at the close of this series of thoughts, Heb_13:15, the reference to the sacrifices is retained, inasmuch as there, in opposition to the Levitical sacrifices, it is made incumbent on Christians through Christ continually to offer sacrifices of praise unto God. Tholuck, it is true, objects to this reasoning: (1) that βρώματα may denote “the clean, legally permitted meats, with (the mention of) which is at the same time implied the abstinence from the unclean.” But this expedient is artificial and unnatural; since, if we had in reality to think of the Levitical precepts with regard to food, in the exact converse of that which happens the avoiding of unclean meats would be the main idea brought under consideration. (2) That the connection of Heb_13:10 with Heb_13:9 would only apparently be lost, since one may warrantably assume the following line of thought: “Do not suffer yourselves to be led astray by a variety of doctrines alien to the pure truth—surely it is a fairer thing to assure the conscience by grace than by meats, by means of which no true appeasement is obtained; we Christians have an altar with such glorious soul-nourishment, of which no priest may eat.” But this supposed thought of Heb_13:10 would be highly illogical. For how does it follow from the fact that Christians have an altar of most glorious soul-nourishment, that no priest may partake of the same? Logically correct, certainly, would be only the thought: for we Christians possess an altar with such glorious soul-nourishment, that we have no need whatever of the Levitical ordinances regarding food. Then again, at Heb_13:10, nothing at all is written about “glorious soul-nourishment;” but, on the contrary, the design of this verse can only be to make good the incompatibility of the Christian altar with the Jewish. (3) That the exhortation to the spiritual sacrifices, Heb_13:15, may be more immediately referred back to Heb_13:10. But Heb_13:10 stands to Heb_13:9, in which the theme of the investigation, Heb_13:8-15, is expressed, in the relation of subordination. The following οὖν , Heb_13:15, may therefore serve for the introducing of the final result from the whole preceding investigation. (4) Finally, that it cannot be perceived how the participation in sacrificial meals could have been looked upon as a means of justification. But the participation in the sacrificial meals was certainly a public avouchment of participation in the sacrifices themselves. Comp. 1Co_10:18. Very easily, therefore, might the author be led finally to take up this preference of his readers for the Jewish sacrificial cultus in this particular form of manifestation, which had hitherto remained unnoticed in the epistle.
The supports, too, which Delitzsch has more recently sought to give to the referring of οὐ βρώμασιν to ordinances regarding clean and unclean meats, are weak. For that βρώματα is a word unheard of in the sacrificial thora, but familiar in the legislation regarding food, and that βρῶμα is used elsewhere in the N. T. of that which is prohibited or permitted for eating, does not in any way fall under consideration; because our passage claims before everything to be intelligible per se, nothing thus can be determinative of its meaning which is opposed to its expression and connection. That, however, the author cannot by διδαχαὶ ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι have meant the ordinances of the law in general, because he has recognised their divine origin, and therefore could not have indicated them with so little reverence, is a mere prepossession. For the Apostle Paul, too, speaks of them, as is already shown by Gal_4:9 f., Heb_5:2, with no greater reverence. We are prevented from thinking, with Delitzsch, of “erroneous doctrines invented in accordance with one’s own will, though it may be attaching themselves to the O. T. law,” by the relation in which διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις stands to βρώμασιν , Heb_13:9, and this again to ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες , Heb_13:10.
ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφελήθησαν οὑ περιπατοῦντες ] from which those busied therein have derived no profit, inasmuch, namely, as by such partaking of the sacrifice they did not attain to true blessedness.
ἐν οἷς belongs to οἱ περιπατοῦντες , since these words cannot stand alone, not to ὠφελήθησαν .