Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 4:11 - 4:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_4:11-13. Conclusion by way of warning admonition.
σπουδάσωμεν ] not: festinemus (Vulg.), but: let our earnest effort be directed to this end.
οὖν ] deduces the inference from all that has been hitherto said, from Heb_3:7 onwards.
ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν ] that very κατάπαυσις , of which the discourse has heretofore been, which was described as a κατάπαυσις of God, as one already promised to the fathers, and then again to us, as a possession which they, on account of their disobedience and unbelief, failed to obtain, but which is still open to us as an ideal Sabbatic rest and everlasting blessedness, if we manifest faith and confidence.
ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας ] lest any one fall into the same example of unbelief, i.e. lest any one fall into the same obstinate perversity as the fathers, and like them become a warning example for others. Thus the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Abresch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. πίπτειν ἐν is also quite usual in classical authors; see Passow and Pape ad vocem. From πίπτειν εἰς it is distinguished only by a greater degree of significance in that it does not merely like this express the falling into something, but also the subsequent lying in the same. Others, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Vatablus, Calvin, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Wolf, Bengel, Carpzov, Schulz, Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 664; the last-named because the expression “to fall into an example,” instead of “to afford an example,” is supposed to be a forced one,—the expression, however, is only a concise one (see above),—and because πίπτειν is probably chosen with a retrospective glance to Heb_3:17, the passage to which reference is here made, with the difference that the word there denoted the physical destruction. But such intention in connection with the choice of the word is not at all to be assumed), Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 774), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Ewald, take πέσῃ absolutely: “fall, i.e. to be brought to ruin, perish.” In that case ἐν is explained either by per (Wolf, Stengel, Ewald, al.), or “conformably to [gemäss]” (Tholuck), or propter (Carpzov), or, what with this construction would alone be correct, of the condition, the state in which one is (Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Maier, Moll): “in giving the same example.” But this whole construction is artificial. Opposed to it is likewise the position of πέσῃ . For had this word such emphasis as it must have so soon as it is taken in the absolute sense, it would not have been inserted in such subordinate, unaccentuated fashion between the other words, but have been introduced at the very beginning of the proposition: ἵνα μή τις πέσῃ κ . τ . λ .