Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 3:15 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_3:15-16. With regard to the construction of Heb_3:15 the views of expositors greatly differ. It is assumed—(1) That Heb_3:15 forms an independent, complete sentence. It is then supposed that the citation introduced by ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι embraces only the words σήμερον … ἀκούσητε , and that afterwards with μὴ σκληρύνητε κ . τ . λ . the author proceeds, it is true, in the following words of that Biblical citation, but appropriates them to himself, and employs them only for the clothing of the admonition to be uttered on his own part. So Flacius Illyricus, Jac. Cappellus, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Winer, Gramm., 5 Aufl. p. 620, and Bloomfield; comp. also Hofmann ad loc. As, however, the same words: μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασμῷ , had already been adduced, Heb_3:8, in the midst of the Biblical citation, and as a constituent part thereof, it could not possibly occur to the reader here at once to detach them from σήμερον … ἀκούσητε , and to understand them as words of the author addressed to themselves; and the less so, because Heb_3:16 ff. there follows a comment on the passage, in which Heb_3:16 glances back to σήμερον … παραπικρασμῷ , Heb_3:15 (Heb_3:7 f.); Heb_3:17 to the προσώχθισα κ . τ . λ ., Heb_3:10; Heb_3:18, finally, to the ὤμοσα κ . τ . λ ., Heb_3:11, so that the natural explanation can only be, that the author intended to refer back to the whole Scripture citation already previously adduced, Heb_3:7-11, but that—inasmuch as he might presuppose it as known from that which precedes—he expressly repeats it only to the point at which the first member of his comment could attach itself. (2) Heb_3:15 is connected with that which precedes, in that ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι κ . τ . λ . is either regarded as epexegesis to μέχρι τέλους , Heb_3:14 (Primasius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bisping, Reuss), or is attached to the conditional clause ἐάνπερ … κατάσχωμεν there occurring (Erasmus Schmid, Wolf), or to all the words of Heb_3:14 : μέτοχοι … κατάσχωμεν (Ebrard, Alford), or, finally, is construed with παρακαλεῖτε , Heb_3:13 (Cameron, Peirce, Bengel, Cramer, Baumgarten, Abresch). But in the first case one must expect ἄχρις οὗ λέγεται , or something similar, in place of ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι . In the other cases Heb_3:15 would drag as a feeble addition; in the last, moreover, Heb_3:14 would, contrary to all probability, become a parenthesis. (3) Heb_3:15 is combined with that which follows. With φοβηθῶμεν οὖν , Heb_4:1, it is connected by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Olearius, Wittich, Valckenaer. Heb_3:16-19 must then be regarded as a parenthesis, and οὖν , Heb_4:1, as a particle of resumption. But of a resuming of the, as yet, incomplete thought, Heb_3:15, in Heb_4:1, there is no appearance in the form of discourse in the latter passage, notwithstanding the accuracy of style on the part of our author. On the contrary, from the tenor of Heb_4:1, it is indubitable that this verse is represented by virtue of οὖν as a consequence from Heb_3:16-19. These verses, therefore, can form no parenthesis. But thus every possibility of connecting Heb_3:15 with Heb_4:1 falls away.
There remains, therefore, no course open but to take Heb_3:15 with the first question of Heb_3:16 : τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν ; as one whole. This is done by Semler, Morus, Storr, Heinrichs, Dindorf, Böhme, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 532; Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, and Woerner. The sense is: “When it is said: ‘to-day,’ etc., (now, I ask:) who then were they who, although they heard (the voice), resisted? was it not all, etc.?” On ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι , comp. ἐν τῷ λέγειν , Heb_8:13.
γάρ serves for the strengthening of the particle of interrogation, but, at the same time, confirms the state of the fact expressed, Heb_3:14. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245 f. Comp. also Mat_27:23; Joh_7:41; Act_19:25; 1Co_11:22.
From what has been already observed, it is evident that Heb_3:16 contains two questions, of which the second forms the answer to the first. This view of Heb_3:16, appearing only rarely in antiquity (in the Peshito, with Chrysostom and Theodoret), and only asserted afresh since the beginning of last century, is now almost universally regarded as the true one. According to the mode of interpretation formerly current, two affirmative statements were recognised in Heb_3:16, the first of which was limited by the second. τινές was accordingly written instead of τίνες ,[61] and the thought was found expressed that some, it is true, but by no means the totality of the Israelites, proved rebellious. As those who formed an exception to the rebelliousness or unbelief of the τινές , expositors accordingly thought either of Joshua and Caleb only (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, and others), or else, with reference to Num_14:29 ff; Num_1:45; Num_1:47, at the same time of all the Israelites who, at the numbering, had not attained an age of twenty years, as also the Levites and women (so Cornelius a Lapide, Braun, Carpzov, al.). But, considering the small number of responsible believers, which, in comparison with the enormous total mass of responsible unbelievers (more than six hundred thousand), retires altogether into the background, the latter could not possibly be designated by the mere τινές ; nor can appeal be made for the opposite view to 1Co_10:7-10, since the ΤΙΝΈς there several times recurring specializes only the ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΠΛΕΊΟΣΙΝ , Heb_3:5, in its different subdivisions. In addition to this, the interrogatory form in the parallel clauses, Heb_3:17-18, already presupposes the interrogatory form also for Heb_3:16, and, as follows of necessity from the whole subsequent disquisition (comp. Heb_4:1-2; Heb_4:6; Heb_4:8), the thought must be expressed in Heb_3:16 that the whole of the Israelites were disobedient in the wilderness, and therefore came short of the promised goal, in connection with which the wholly isolated exceptions are passed over unnoticed as not being taken into account.
ἈΛΛΆ ] decides the preceding question with the expression of astonishment conveyed in a counter-question: but (can there be a doubt as to the answer?) was it not all of those who came forth out of Egypt?
πάντες οἱ ] Erroneously Bengel, Schulz, Kuinoel, and others: only such as, etc.
διὰ Μωϋσέως ] by Moses, i.e. by his agency and under his guidance. Διά is used with considerable freedom, since we should properly expect with it, instead of ἘΞΕΛΘΌΝΤΕς , a passive notion as ἘΞΑΧΘΈΝΤΕς . Comp. ΔΙʼ ὯΝ ἘΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΤΕ , 1Co_3:5.
[61] Wrongly is it supposed by Bisping, who (equally as M‘Caul) espouses afresh this interpretation formerly current, that it is a matter of indifference whether in connection therewith the two clauses be taken as questions or as absolute statements. For, in reality, οὐ has in a question, like the Latin nonne, always an affirmative sense. See Kühner, II. p. 579; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 88. ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντες cannot consequently signify, as Bisping maintains, “but certainly not all,” but, on the contrary, only “but certainly all.”