Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 2:6 - 2:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_2:6 attaches itself closely to Heb_2:5, in that the adversative δέ (different from the disjunctive ἀλλά , but, on the contrary. Comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171), as Heb_4:13; Heb_4:15, Heb_9:12, Heb_10:27, Heb_12:13, 1Co_7:15; 1Co_7:25 fin., and frequently, as it were correcting the preceding negative statement, now places in opposition the actual state of the question: Some one, however (some one, on the contrary), testified in a certain place and said. Quite wrongly does Heinrichs suppose an entirely new section of the epistle to begin with Heb_2:6.
πού τις ] The wavering character of this form of citation is derived by Grotius from the consideration that the Psalms were the work of different authors, and the authors of particular psalms were often unknown. But the eighth Psalm, here cited, is, both in the Hebrew and the LXX., expressly ascribed to David. According to Koppe (Excursus I. ad epist. ad Roman., 2d ed. p. 379), Dindorf, Schulz, Heinrichs (comp. also Stengel), the indefiniteness of the formula is to be explained by the fact that the author is citing from memory. But the words agree too exactly with the LXX. to be a citation from memory, and, moreover, the indefinite που occurs again, Heb_4:4, in connection with the citation of Gen_2:2, thus in connection with an appeal to a passage of the O. T. Scripture, of which the place where it is found could not possibly escape the memory of our author. De Wette, after the precedent of Bleek [cf. Peshito: the Scripture witnesses, and says], regards it as the most correct supposition that the author “was not concerned about the particular writers of Scripture, since for him God or the Holy Ghost spoke through the Scripture.” Yet, if the reason for the form of expression is to be sought in this, then in general we should hardly expect the personal indication τίς to be added, but rather a passive construction to be chosen. According to Hofmann, finally, ̔ πού τις is intended to declare “that it is indeed a matter of indifference for his purpose who said this, and where it is found; that it is adduced as the utterance of some man, only an utterance which comes invested with the authority of Scripture!” The indefinite mode of citation has probably no other than a rhetorical ground, inasmuch as the author presupposes a universal acquaintance with the passage, without concerning himself to learn whether it is known to all or not. So substantially also Chrysostom ( τοῦτο δὲ αὐτό , οἶμαι , τὸ κρύπτειν καὶ μὴ τιθέναι τὸν εἰρηκότα τὴν μαρτυρίαν , ἀλλʼ ὡς περιφερομένην καὶ κατάδηλον οὖσαν εἰσάγειν , δεικνύντος ἐστίν , αὐτοὺς σφόδρα ἐμπείρους εἶναι τῶν γραφῶν ), Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Jac. Cappellus, Cornelius a Lapide [Owen: “the reason is plain; both person and place were sufficiently known to them to whom he wrote”], Calov, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, al. The same reticence in the mode of citation is often found with Philo. Comp. e.g. de ebrietate, p. 248 (ed. Mangey, I. p. 365): εἶπε γάρ πού τις (sc. Abraham, Gen_20:12). Further examples see in Bleek, Abth. II. 1 Hälfte, p. 239.
The citation, which extends to ̔ ποδῶν αὐτοῦ , Heb_2:8, is from Psa_8:5-7 (4–6). The utterance in its historic sense contains a declaration with regard to man in general; but the author, on the ground of the ideal import of the passage, as likewise in particular on the ground of the expression υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου , which in consequence of Dan_7:13 was current with the Jews as an appellation of the Messiah (comp. Joh_12:34), which, too, was one often bestowed by Jesus upon Himself, finds in it a declaration concerning the Son of man κατʼ ἐξοχήν , i.e. concerning Christ.[44] Paul, too, has Messianically interpreted the psalm, 1Co_15:27 f. (comp. Eph_1:22).
Τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος κ . τ . λ .] What is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou regardest him! i.e., in the sense of the original, How small, weak, and insignificant, as compared with the majestic heavenly bodies, is man, that Thou shouldst nevertheless take a loving and careful interest in him! In the application: How great and full of dignity is man, that Thou so greatly distinguishest him with loving care! (Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Böhme, Bleek, Stein; otherwise, de Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45, 2 Aufl.; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 361; Alford, Moll, Kurtz, al.). Thus the author could understand the words, although the “being mindful” and “looking upon” do not very well accord therewith, in that he was guided in his acceptance of them pre-eminently by the final clause δόξῃ … αὐτοῦ .
ἤ ] instead of this å is found in the Hebrew, thus introduces a purely parallel member, in such wise that υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου is identical with ἄνθρωπος in the first member, and is distinguished therefrom only as a more sharply defined presentation of the same notion.
[44] In contradiction with the design of the whole explication, as this clearly manifests itself from the context, do Beza, Piscator, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch (p. 57, 59), Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45, 2 Aufl.), Alford, Moll, and others, refer ἄνθρωπος , even in the sense of our author, and νἱὸς ἀνθρώπου to man generally, namely, to the man of the New Covenant, inasmuch as he shall receive the dominion over all things, in the possession of which Christ is already set. When Ebrard, p. 84, asserts that the “Messianic” interpretation “of the non-Messianic eighth Psalm” cannot be laid to the account of the author of the epistle, without charging him with “a downright Rabbinical misunderstanding of a psalm;” and when, in like manner, Delitzsch, p. 57, declares it “not at all conceivable that the author of our epistle should without any explanation have referred ἄνθρωπος and υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου of the psalm to Christ,” unless we are to attribute “the uttermost limitation of thought to the N. T. exposition of Scripture,” that is nothing else than a controlling of the author of the epistle by preconceived opinions of one’s own, from which, in the face of 1Co_15:27 f., one ought to have shrunk. For the rest, against the view espoused by Ebrard, Delitzsch, and Hofmann, comp. also Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 368 ff., note.