Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 2:10 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_2:10. Not without design has the author, Heb_2:9, added to the declaration δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον the indication of the cause, διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου , and then brought into relief this superadded clause by the final statement: ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου . For the Redeemer’s death of the cross, ridiculed by the Gentiles as folly, was to the Jews an offence (1Co_1:23). Even to the Hebrews, to whom the author is writing, the thought of a Messiah who passed through sufferings and death might be a stumbling-block not yet surmounted, and, with other things, have contributed to shake their confidence in Christianity, and incline them to relapse into Judaism. Without, therefore, further giving express utterance to the conclusion to be expected after Heb_2:9 (see on Heb_2:9, init.), but rather leaving the supplying of the same to the readers, the author passes over, Heb_2:10 ff., at once to the justification of that fact regarded as an offence, in bringing into relief the consideration that the choice of that way, so apparently strange, of causing the Messiah to attain to glory through sufferings and death, was altogether worthy of God (Heb_2:10), and necessary (Heb_2:14-18), in order that Christ might be qualified to be the redeemer of sinful humanity.
Wrongly does Tholuck suppose that Heb_2:10 attaches itself to δόξῃ ἐστεφανωμένον , Heb_2:9, and expresses the thought that the glorification of Him could not fail of its accomplishment, who became to others the author of salvation. For the centre of gravity in the proposition lies not in τελειῶσαι , but in διὰ παθημάτων , which Tholuck erroneously degrades to a mere “secondary thought.”
ἔπρεπεν ] it was befitting; not an expression of necessity (Kuinoel, Bloomfield, al.), but of meetness and becomingness, in relation partly to the nature of God (comp. διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα ), partly to the ends He would attain (cf. Heb_2:14-18). Comp. Philo, Legg. allegor. I. p. 48 E (with Mangey, I. p. 53): πρέπει τῷ θεῷ φυτεύειν καὶ οἰκοδομεῖν ἐν ψυχῇ τὰς ἀρετάς .
De incorrupt. Mundi, p. 950 B (with Mangey, II. p. 500): ἐμπρεπὲς δὲ θεῷ τὰ ἄμορφα μορφοῦν καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις περιτιθέναι θαυμαστὰ κάλλη .
αὐτῷ , διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα ] does not relate to Christ (Primasius, Hunnius, Königsmann, Cramer, al.), but is a periphrasis for God. This periphrastic delineation, however, of the divine characteristics justifies the ἔπρεπεν in its truth and naturalness. For He who is the Supreme Cause and Creator of the Universe cannot have done anything unworthy of Himself.
τὰ πάντα ] the totality of all that exists, not merely that which serves for the bringing about of salvation (Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Paulus).
διʼ ὅν ] for the sake of whom,[46] characterizes God as the One for whom, i.e. to accomplish whose ends, all things are designed, and corresponds to the εἰς αὐτόν , Rom_11:36, 1Co_8:6; while διʼ οὗ characterizes Him as the One by whom all things have been effected or created, inasmuch as, according to the popular conception, the notion of the originating is not strictly separated from that of effecting, since both are summed up under the more general notion of disposing, preparing [ ποιεῖν , παρασκευάζειν , ἑτοιμάζειν ]; comp. 1Co_1:9; Gal_1:1. In the case of our author, moreover, the placing of the inaccurate διʼ οὖ instead of the more accurate ἐξ οὖ (comp. Rom_11:36) or ὑφʼ οὗ , may also have been occasioned with a view to the paronomasia produced by the use of the twofold διά with different cases.
πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα ] is not a preposed apposition to τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν : “it became God to make Him,—as one who led many sons unto glory,—namely, the Beginner of their salvation, perfect through sufferings” (Primasius, Erasmus, Paraphr.; Estius, Heinrichs, Stuart, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl., p. 321 f.; Ebrard, Nickel, in Reuter’s Repert. 1857, Oct. p. 20, and many others). Such construction is not indeed to be opposed, as Böhme and Bleek think, on the ground that the article τόν could not in that case have been wanting also before πολλούς . On the contrary, either the addition or the omission of the article before πολλούς would be justified; only a modification of the sense results from the choice of the one or the other course. If the article is placed, then τὸν πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα and τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν are two parallel but co-ordinate utterances, in such wise that the second repeats the first only in more sharply-defined form of expression. In connection with the omission of the article, again, the first expression stands in the relation of subordination to the second, and is a preposed statement of the reason for the same. But what really decides against that view is—(1) That according to Heb_2:11 the believers are brethren of Christ, and sons of God; consequently πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα would be unsuitable as an utterance with respect to Christ, while the interpretation of the υἱούς as sons of God, adopted by Nickel, l.c., in connection with the referring of the ἀγαγόντα to Christ, would be unnatural. (2) That, assuming the identity of the subject in ἀγαγόντα and ἀρχηγόν , both expressions would in effect cover each other, consequently become tautological. We must accordingly take, as the subject in πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα , God; in τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν , Christ. So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Annott.; Luther, Vatablus, Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Bengel, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Delitzsch, Buttmann (Gramm. p. 262), Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 51 f.), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 581), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Woerner, and many others. It cannot, however, be urged against the referring of ἀγαγόντα to God (Carpzov, Michaelis, and others), that we have not, instead of the accusative ἀγαγόντα , the dative ἀγαγόντι , which no doubt would have been more accurate on account of the preceding αὐτῷ ; since this very accusative is otherwise the general case of the subject grammatically construed with the accusative. Transitions to the latter, spite of a preceding dative, are accordingly nothing rare; comp. Act_11:12; Act_15:22; Luk_1:74; Kühner, Gramm. II. p. 346 f.; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 367, fin.
Πολλούς ] not equivalent to πάντας (Seb. Schmidt). Πολλούς renders prominent only the notion of multitude or plurality, quite apart from the question whether or not this plurality is to be thought of as the totality of mankind; comp. Heb_9:28; Rom_5:15; Rom_8:29; Mat_20:28; Mat_26:28.
εἰς δόξαν ] The δόξα is not distinguished, as to the thing itself, from the σωτηρία mentioned immediately after. The Messianic glory and blessedness is intended thereby. The word δόξα , however, was chosen in accordance with the words: δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον , Heb_2:9, taken over from the psalm cited.
ἀγαγόντα ] cannot signify: “since He would lead” (Bleek, Stengel, Bloomfield, and Bisping; after the precedent of Erasmus, Annott.; Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Peirce, Starck, Wolf, Storr, Ernesti, Dindorf, Schulz, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee). For the aorist has never a future sense. But neither is ἀγαγόντα to be rendered by “qui adduxerat,” with the Vulgate, Estius, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 39, 1 Aufl.; Komm. p. 121; differently Schriftbew. 2 Aufl. p. 51), and others; in such wise that the thought were directed to the saints of the O. T., already led to glory. For the characterizing of Christ as the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν shows that the υἱοί , in whom was accomplished the εἶ δόξαν ἄγεσθαι on the part of God, must already have been in communion with Christ,[47]—the communion with Christ was the conditioning cause of their attainment to the δόξα . According to Tholuck, who is followed by Moll, the participle aorist indicates, “as the nearer defining of the infinitive aorist ΤΕΛΕΙῶΣΑΙ , the specific character of the same without respect to the relation of time.” But only the infinitive, not the participle aorist is used non-temporally; and the “specific character” of τελειῶσαι cannot be expressed by ἈΓΑΓΌΝΤΑ , for the reason that the personal objects of ἈΓΑΓΌΝΤΑ and ΤΕΛΕΙῶΣΑΙ are different, ἈΓΑΓΌΝΤΑ can have no other meaning than: since He led, and is the indication of the cause from the standpoint of the writer. The participle aorist has its justification in the fact that, from the moment Christ appeared on earth as a redeemer, and found faith among men, God in reality was leading εἰς δόξαν those who believed, i.e. caused them to walk in the way to the δόξα . For only this notion of title to the ΔΌΞΑ in reversion, not that of the actual possession of the same, can be meant; inasmuch as the possession of the δόξα will only come in at the Parousia. The causal relation, however, of the participial clause: ΠΟΛΛΟῪς ΥἹΟῪς ΕἸς ΔΌΞΑΝ ἈΓΆΓΟΝΤΑ , to the main statement: ἜΠΡΕΠΕ ΤῸΝ ἈΡΧΗΓῸΝ Τῆς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς ΑὐΤῶΝ ΔΙᾺ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ ΤΕΛΕΙῶΣΑΙ , and consequently the justification of the latter by the former, lies in the fact that the ΠΟΛΛΟῚ ΥἹΟΊ , just because they were not angels but men, could only be redeemed in that Christ for them became man, and for them suffered and died; even as the author himself will more fully show, Heb_2:14 ff. Others find the causal relation by supplying, in thought, ΔΙᾺ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ to the first clause also. So Jac. Cappellus: “quum tot filios suos per afflictiones consecrasset, afflictionum via perduxisset ad gloriam pater coelestis, decebat sane et aequum erat, ut principem salutis eorum eadem via perduceret ad coelestem gloriam.” In like manner Grotius: “quia fieri non potest, ut qui se pietati dedunt, non multa mala patiantur … ideo Deus voluit ipsum auctorem salutiferae doctrinae non nisi per graves calamitates perducere ad statum ilum perfectae beatitudinis.” But in this case the express addition of ΔΙᾺ ΠΑΘΗΜΆΤΩΝ in the first clause could not have been omitted.
ΤῸΝ ἈΡΧΗΓΌΝ ] Comp. Heb_12:2; Act_3:15; Act_5:31. Designation of the beginner, or first in a series, to which the further notion of author then easily attaches, so that the word is frequently used, as here, exactly in the sense of αἴτιος . Instances in Bleek, Abth. II. 1 Hälfte, p. 302.
ΤΕΛΕΙῶΣΑΙ ] to bring to perfection, to lead to the goal, does not here express “an inner moral perfection, which has as its consequence the attainment of the highest outward goal” (de Wette, Tholuck, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 343, 346; and, long ago, Cameron), nor does it denote the close of the appointed course with which God has brought Jesus to the goal of that which He was to become, to the end of His earthly temporal existence (Hofmann); but resumes the notion of the δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ στεφανοῦσθαι , Heb_2:9, and is identical with this.
[46] Not: “at whose command or will,” as Wieseler (Comm. üb. d. Br. an die Gal., Gött. 1859, p. 111) will have διʼ ὅν explained.
[47] For the same reason have we to reject the kindred interpretation of Kurtz, who takes the ἄγειν εἰς δόξαν as preceding the τελειῶσαι , and refers the νἱοί to the believing contemporaries of Jesus, with the inclusion of the believers under the Old Covenant.