Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 2:9 - 2:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_2:9. Proof that, notwithstanding the circumstances just mentioned, the matter itself which has been asserted is perfectly true. Certainly we do not, at the present moment, as yet see all things made subject to Christ, the Son of man; but we do see Him already crowned with glory and honour, in that after suffering and dying He has been exalted to the right hand of the Father. From the reality of the one, however, which we see, follows of necessity the reality of the other, which we do not yet see. For if the word of Scripture: δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν , has already been fulfilled in His case, there can be no kind of doubt but in like manner also the further word of Scripture: πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ , inseparably connected as it is with the former, has already attained its realization in Him.
The words of Heb_2:9 have undergone a strange misinterpretation on the part of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 45 ff. 2 Aufl.). As Hofmann with regard to Heb_2:7 already denies that the two members of the sentence in that verse: ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους and δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν , form in the mind of the writer an opposition to each other, so just as little is the writer in Heb_2:9 supposed to have had present to his mind in connection with τὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον the humiliation of Christ, and with δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον the exaltation of Christ. Heb_2:9 is thought rather to refer exclusively to the Jesus “living in the flesh,” and the connection is thus explained: “Far from its being the case that we see all things subjected to man, He, on the contrary, of whom that which the psalm speaks of man holds good in full truth, Jesus namely, stands before our eyes in a position of divine appointment, as such demanded by the existing calamity of death, which, according to Heb_2:14, makes the devil a ruler and us bondsmen.” For by βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένος there is reference made, in the opinion of Hofmann, to the person of man, of which the psalm is treating, with regard to the dignity belonging thereto as conferred by God,—inasmuch as βραχύ τι is to be taken of degree,—but by τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου is indicated the misfortune consisting in death itself, and not his suffering of death; and δόξα καὶ τιμή finally expresses, according to Heb_3:3, Heb_5:4-5, the glorious character of his position by virtue of his vocation. The sense of Heb_2:9, then, is supposed to be: “What He, in whom the wealth of human nature has appeared in full truth, denotes and represents on the part of God,—for the former is meant by τιμή , the latter by δόξα ,—that He denotes and represents, for the reason that mankind is obnoxious to the suffering of death, and to the end that He might taste a death which should redound unto good for every one!” See, on the other hand, the remarks of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 333 ff., note.
τὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττω μένον is the object, and δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον the predicate to βλέπομεν , while Ἰησοῦν is the appositional nearer definition of the object brought in only at the close. The sense thus is: “But we do indeed see the one for a time abased below the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour.” Wrongly others: “As the one for a time abased below the angels do we recognise Jesus, who is crowned with glory and honour.” For, in order to express this thought, Ἰησοῦν τὸν … ἐστεφανωμένον must have been placed. Wrongly likewise Ebrard, with whom Delitzsch agrees in substance, who takes Ἰησοῦν as object, ἠλαττωμένον as adjectival attribute to Ἰησοῦν , and ἐστεφανωμένον as predicate to the object. The sense then is: “mankind is not yet exalted; but Jesus, who was indeed abased for a while below the angels, we see already crowned with glory and honour.” This construction, which at any rate rests upon the false supposition that the subject of discourse, Heb_2:6-8, is not already Christ, the Son of man, but only man in general, and that the author of the epistle had regarded as fully identical the two utterances of the psalm: δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν , and πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ , would only be permissible in the case that Ἰησοῦν δέ , τὸν βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον , βλέπομεν κ . τ . λ ., or τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον Ἰησοῦν βλέπομεν κ . τ . λ ., had been written. By the position of the Ἰησοῦν after βλέπομεν it becomes impossible; since in consequence thereof Ἰησοῦν appears as entirely unaccentuated, consequently can be regarded only as a supplementary addition by way of elucidation with regard to the question who is to be understood by the ὁ βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένος . Ἰησοῦν might even have been entirely left out without detriment to the sense and intelligibility of that which the author would imply; it is nevertheless inserted, in order, by the express mention of His name, to cut off every kind of doubt upon the point that it is no other than Christ, the historic Redeemer, of whom the citation adduced, Heb_2:6-8, is treating.
βλέπομεν ] we see, perceive; namely, with the eyes of the mind; comp. Heb_3:19, al. For it is openly testified that Christ rose from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven; and Christians feel that He is reigning in power and glory by means of the Holy Spirit, which He has conferred upon them.
διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου ] on account of His suffering of death, belongs not to βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον (Origen, in Joann. t. ii. c. 6; Augustine, contra Maximin. Heb_3:2; Heb_3:5; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Schlichting, Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron, Calov, Limborch, Semler, al.), but to δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον (Luther, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Böhme, Bleek, Tholuck, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 357; Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, and many others). Only this mode of referring the clause has the merit of naturalness from the position of the words; only this is grammatically and logically justified. For not only with this construction does διά with the accusative retain its only possible signification, but the thought likewise finds its confirmation in the sequel ( διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι , Heb_2:10), and accords with the view of Paul, Php_2:9, according to which the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father was the consequence and divine recompense of the voluntary abasement endured even to the death of the cross. Supposing the connection to be with that which precedes, διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου must contain a later added nearer definition to ἠλαττωμένον ; but a second supplementary nearer definition, seeing that Ἰησοῦν already occupies such a position, would be extremely improbable, when we consider the carefulness with regard to style which prevails in this epistle; it would not, like Ἰησοῦν , have a purpose to serve, but be merely an instance of linguistic negligence such as ought not to be readily laid to the charge of our author. Moreover, διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου , referred to that which precedes, does not even admit of any satisfactory explanation. For, as thus combined, it is interpreted either: humbled by reason of the suffering of death, i.e. by suffering death, or: humbled for the sake of the suffering of death, i.e. in order to be able to undertake it. But in the latter case the choice of the preposition διά would be an exceedingly ill-judged one, since we must, at any rate, have expected εἰς τὸ πάσχειν τὸν θάνατον , or something similar. In the former case, on the other hand, διά must have been combined with the genitive instead of the accusative, quite apart from the consideration that the author can hardly be supposed to limit the humiliation of Christ to the moment of His death, but rather (comp. Heb_2:14), like Paul, to comprehend in general the whole period of His life in the flesh.
ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου ] that He by the grace of God might taste death for every one, does not depend upon δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον . For the enduring of death was certainly not something which was to take place only after the exaltation, but already preceded this. The contorted interpretations, however: so that He died for all (Erasmus, Paraphr., Tena, Ribera, Morus, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), or: in order that He may have suffered death for all (Ebrard), or: postquam mortem gustavit (Schleusner), are grammatically impossible. But since a connecting of the final clause with ἠλαττωμένον (Akersloot, Bengel, Böhme, Bisping) is, considering the grammatical construction of Heb_2:9, quite inconceivable, ὅπως κ . τ . λ . can be only a further, but pregnant, exponent of the preceding τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου : on account of His suffering of death, namely, in order that He might, etc.
χάριτι θεοῦ ] for the grace and love of God is the supreme cause of the redeeming death of Christ (comp. Rom_5:8; Gal_2:21).
ὑπέρ ] on behalf of for the weal of.
παντός ] is not neuter, in such wise that the declaration should apply to the whole creation, including the angels (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Origen, in Joann. t. i. c. 40);[45] for this thought comes into collision with Heb_2:16, and the expression thereof would be incorrect, since we must expect in that case ὙΠῈΡ ΠΆΣΗς Τῆς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς , or at least ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΝΤΌς . ΠΑΝΤΌς is masculine, and has reference only to mankind. The singular, however, is placed, not the plural πάντων , in order distinctly to bring out the thought that Christ died on behalf of each single individual among men (namely, who will appropriate the salvation offered him), not merely for mankind as a totality, as a compact corporation. [Piscator and Owen understand: each and every one, sc. of the πολλοὶ υἱοί mentioned Heb_2:10. Cf. Act_20:28.]
ΓΕΎΕΣΘΑΙ ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ ] represents the experiencing of death under the figure of a tasting of the same. Comp. Mat_16:28; Mar_9:1; Luk_9:27; Joh_8:52. The formula corresponds to the rabbinical èÀòÇí îå ̇ úÈä (see Schoettgen and Wetstein on Mat_16:28), and has its manifold analogies in the Greek turns: ΓΕΎΕΣΘΑΙ ΜΌΧΘΩΝ (Soph. Trachin. 1101), κακῶν (Eurip. Hec. 379; Luc. Nigr. 28), πένθους πικροῦ (Eurip. Alcest. 1069), ΠΌΝΩΝ (Pindar, Nem. 6:41), ὀϊστοῦ (Homer, Odyss. xxi. 98), Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς , Τῆς ἘΛΕΥΘΕΡΊΗς (Herod. iv. 147, Heb_6:5), etc. The formula is only a more significant expression for the ordinary ἀποθνήσκειν . Neither the notion of the brief duration of Christ’s death (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Camerarius, Braun, Peirce, Cramer, Ch. F. Schmid), nor along with this the notion of the reality of that death (Beza, Bengel), nor, finally, the notion of the bitterness of the death sufferings (Calov, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz), lies in the expression.
[45] Ebrard, too, finds the thought expressed in ὑπὲρ παντός : “that Christ by His death has reconciled absolutely all things, heaven and earth;” but in connection therewith inconsistently takes παντός as a masculine.
REMARK.
In connection with the explanation of the reading χωρὶς θεοῦ (see the critical remarks) comes forth the main diversity, that these words were either taken as closely conjoined with ὑπὲρ παντός , or regarded in themselves as an independent nearer defining of the verb. The former mode of explanation is adopted by Origen, Theodoret, Ebrard, Ewald: “in order that He might suffer death for all beings, with the exception of God alone;” further Bengel, and Chr. F. Schmid: “in order that, with a view to purchasing or subjecting all things except God, He might suffer death.” But against both acceptations is the fact that παντός cannot be neuter (see above), against the latter, moreover, in particular the fact that the notion: “in order to purchase to himself,” cannot possibly be expressed by the mere ὑπὲρ παντός . As an independent addition χωρὶς θεοῦ is taken by Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Ambrose, Fulgentius, the Nestorians, and P. Colomesius (Observatt. Sacr. p. 603): “that He might taste death without God, i.e. without the participation of His Godhead, with the mere sharing of His humanity in death.” But that such a thought, in itself entirely alien as it is to the Biblical writers, could not have been expressed by χωρὶς θεοῦ , is at once apparent. There must at least have been written χωρὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος . To this place further belongs Paulus, with an appeal to Mat_27:46 : “as without God, as one abandoned by God, not delivered.” But the added “as,” by which alone the interpretation becomes tolerable, is without grammatical justification the expositor’s own additamentum.