Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 2:3 - 2:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_2:3. The apodosis follows in the form of a question, which for the rest extends only to σωτηρίας , not to the close of Heb_2:4.
πῶς ] how is it possible that.
ἡμεῖς ] has the emphasis. The Christians in general are meant, in opposition to the men once belonging to the O. T. theocracy, of whom the writer has spoken at least by implication in Heb_2:2.
ἐκφευξόμεθα ] stands absolutely, as Heb_12:25; 1Th_5:3. Needlessly do Heinrichs, Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and many others supplement from Heb_2:2 : τὴν ἔνδικον μισθαποδοσίαν .
ἀμελήσαντες ] Instancing of the case or condition, after the arising of which an escape or deliverance from punishment becomes an impossibility: in case that, or if, we shall have neglected (slighted). The participle aorist is properly used, since the culpability must first have been incurred before a punishment can ensue.
τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας ] such a salvation, i.e. one so great, so far surpassing in exaltedness that of the O. T. Theodorus Mopsuestenus: ἐκεῖνο νομίμων δόσις ἦν μόνον , ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ χάρις πνεύματος καὶ λύσις ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ βασιλείας οὐρανῶν ἐπαγγελία καὶ ἀθαναδίας ὑπόσχεσις · ὅθεν καὶ δικαίως τηλικαύτης εἶπεν .
τηλικαύτης does not in itself contain a reference to ἥτις (Tholuck and others; the former will then have ἥτις taken in the sense of ὥστε ), but stands there independently of any correlative; it is then, however, after the question has closed with σωτηρίας , enforced by the clause with ἥτις (quippe quae).
ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου , ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη ] which indeed, at first proclaimed by the Lord, was handed down with certainty to us by them that heard it. Wrongly does Ebrard translate: “which was confirmed to us by the hearers, as one proclaimed by the Lord from the very first,” in supposing that ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα depends upon ἐβεβαιώθη as an “apposition of object.” For how can ἀρχὴν λαβὸν λαλεῖσθαι denote something proclaimed “from the very beginning,” or “from the commencement”? And how unskilfully would the author have proceeded in the choice and position of his words, if—as Ebrard supposes—he had wished to express the thought, “that the σωτηρία was directly revealed by the Lord, has been transmitted to us as a certainty, and thus as a divine legitimation of the σωτηρία by the ἀκούσαντες , the ear- (and eye-) witnesses!” Ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν , to begin, always presupposes an opposition, expressed or understood, to a being continued, or to a being brought to an end. When thus in our passage there is mention made not only of an ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν λαλεῖσθαι by the Lord, but also of a βεβαιωθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς on the part of those who heard the Lord, it is clear that the author will have these two factors regarded as statements of two distinct but mutually corresponding periods of time.
In general, it is wrong when Ebrard, in connection with his explanation just adduced, will find in Heb_2:3 the twofold contrast with the law—(1) That the law was a mere word ( λόγος ); the gospel, on the other hand, a deliverance, a redemption, an act. (2) That the σωτηρία was manifested and proclaimed to men as at first hand, by the Lord Himself; the law, on the contrary, only at second hand, by the angels. For, as concerns the first alleged point of difference, assuredly the emphasis rests neither upon λόγος , Heb_2:2, nor upon σωτηρίας , Heb_2:3; but, Heb_2:2, upon διʼ ἀγγέλων , and, Heb_2:3, upon τηλικαύτης . The second alleged point of difference falls, however, with the consideration that the author employs the preposition διά , as before ἀγγέλων , Heb_2:2, so also before τοῦ κυρίου , Heb_2:3; thus indicates that the supreme Author alike of the Mosaic law and of the gospel is God Himself, both consequently are proclaimed to man “only at second hand.”[42] The pre-eminence of the gospel can accordingly have been discovered by our author only in the fact that in connection with this the Lord Himself was the intervening agent; in connection with the law, on the other hand, only the angels, who, according to chap. 1., are subordinate to the Lord.
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων ] by them that heard it (sc. from the Lord; παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου , Chrysost.), thus by His apostles and immediate disciples. From these ἈΚΟΎΣΑΝΤΕς the author distinguishes himself and his readers ( ΕἸς ἩΜᾶς ). As well he himself as the Palestinian Christians to whom he writes must consequently have already belonged to a second generation of Christendom, and the author of the epistle cannot have been Paul (comp. Introd. p. 11). When Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. p. 378, 2 Aufl.) objects to this: “from εἰς ἡμᾶς is in truth evident only that the author belonged not to the number of those who could testify that they had with their own ears heard the Lord, at the time when He was upon earth proclaiming that salvation which they now preached,” this is indeed perfectly correct. But when he adds that Paul likewise had certainly only heard the word of salvation from the mouth of those who had listened to Jesus, this is—so long as the solemn asseveration of Paul himself (comp. expressly Gal_1:12) has any value for us—decidedly false. For Paul reckons himself not among the disciples of the ἈΚΟΎΣΑΝΤΕς , but among the ἈΚΟΎΣΑΝΤΕς themselves. For the circumstance that the ἈΚΟΎΕΙΝ was otherwise brought about in his case than in the case of the original apostles, inasmuch as these had stood in the relation of ἈΚΟΎΣΑΝΤΕς to the Christ walking upon earth, Paul, on the other hand, stood in the relation of an ἈΚΟΎΣΑς to the exalted or heavenly Christ, left the essence of the matter itself untouched. Nor even by the assumption of a so-called ἈΝΑΚΟΊΝΩΣΙς , to which recourse has very frequently been had, can the conclusion resulting with stringent necessity from the words of our verse be set aside; for that which the writer of a letter says to his readers by means of an ἈΝΑΚΟΊΝΩΣΙς is always of such nature as to be likewise true of himself; never can it stand in excluding opposition to himself.
ἘΒΕΒΑΙΏΘΗ ] corresponds to the ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ ΒΈΒΑΙΟς , Heb_2:2; and ΕἸς ἩΜᾶς ἘΒΕΒΑΙΏΘΗ is a well-known blending of the notion of rest with that of the preceding movement. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 386 f. Theophylact: διεπορθμεύθη εἰς ἡμᾶς βεβαίως καὶ πιστῶς , it came to us in a firm, trustworthy manner, so that it has become for us a σωτηρία βεβαία . Wrongly Heinrichs (and so also Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Wolf, Cramer, Paulus, and others), according to whom ΕἸς ἩΜᾶς signifies ad nostra tempora, or usque ad nos.
[42] I cannot bring myself to recall this remark, although Delitzsch takes so great offence at it that he finds therein “a toning down of the opposition in gross misapprehension of the sense of the author.” The conception of an “immediate” speaking on the part of Jehovah in the N. T., on which Delitzsch insists, p. 49, 51, is regarded in general unbiblical; it is, moreover, remote from the thought of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the whole chapter in itself shows; only by forcing upon him dogmatic notions already a priori determined, and entirely disregarding the laws of grammar, can it be brought out from his statements.