Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 4:13 - 4:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_4:13. Transition from the word of God to God Himself. That the twofold αὐτοῦ and the ὅν , Heb_4:13, cannot be referred to Christ,[69] follows from the correct interpretation of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ , Heb_4:12. That, however, in general not the total notion ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (so Ebrard still) can form the subject of the pronouns, Heb_4:13, but only the ὁ θεός to be deduced therefrom, is evident from the expression τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ , which is appropriate only to the latter, not to the former. The transition from the word of God to God Himself was, moreover, a very natural one, inasmuch as in the word of God, God Himself is present and operative.
κτίσις ] as Rom_8:39, and frequently, in the most universal sense: any creature, and indeed here not merely as regards its external existence, but also as regards its inner essence. Quite mistakenly Grotius, who is followed by Carpzov: Videtur mihi hoc loco κτίσις significare opus hominis, quia id est velut creatura hominis.
δέ ] on the contrary. See on Heb_2:6.
τετραχηλισμένα laid bare. Hesychius: πεφανερωμένα . τραχηλίζειν means: to bend back the neck of the victim, in the act of slaying, in order to lay bare the chest, then generally: to lay bare, disclose, expose to view. See the Lexicons of Passow and Pape on the word. Comp. Hom. Il. 1:459: αὖ ἔρυσαν , sc. τὸυ τράχηλον τοῦ ἱεροῦ ; Orpheus, Argon. 311: ταῦρον σφάζον , ἀνακλίνας κεφαλὴν εἰς αἰθέρα δῖαν ; P. Fr. Ach. Nitsch, Beschreibung des häuslichen, gottesdienstlichen u. s. w. Zustandes der Griechen, 2 Aufl. Th. I. p. 667. Others, as Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, and Maier, would, after the precedent of Perizonius, ad Aeliani Var. Hist. 12:58, derive the signification “lay bare” to τραχηλίζειν , from the practice in antiquity of laying hold of transgressors by the neck when they were being led away to execution, and bending back the head, that they might be exposed to the gaze of all. Appeal is made not amiss to Suetonius in favour of this custom, Vitell. 17: donec (Vitellius) religatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, seminudus in forum tractus est … reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ad visendam praeberet faciem neve submitteret. In like manner to Pliny, Panegyr. 34. 3 : Nihil tamen gratius, nihil seculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum supina ora retortasque cervices. Yet a Roman custom cannot in itself afford a standard for determining the signification of a Greek word. Yet others, as Cameron, Brochmann, and Klee, suppose the general signification: “to lay bare,” for τραχηλίζειν , to arise from the circumstance that the verb is used also of the wrestler, who grasps his opponent by the throat, and hurls him down backwards, whereby the face of the latter is exposed to the full view of the spectators (Cameron: Videtur esse metaphora petita a re palaestrica. Nam luctatores turn demum adversarium dicuntur τραχηλίζειν , cum obstricto collo ita versant, ut objiciant spectatorum oculis nudum conspiciendum et retectum undiquaque, id quod turn demum maxime fit, quum ejus cervicibus inequitant). But the exposing of the face of the thrown opponent was a circumstance of no importance in the τραχηλίζειν of the athlete, because not at all necessarily connected therewith. Further, and not less improbable derivations, see in Bleek.
πρὸς ὅν κ . τ . λ .] is to be taken in close combination only with the αὐτοῦ immediately preceding, not likewise, as is done by Michaelis, Bloomfield, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 2 Aufl. p. 104), with the first αὐτοῦ , and upon ἡμῖν falls no emphasis (against Ebrard and Alford). The words for the rest have too little the character of independence to justify our taking them alone, with Alford, and separating them by a colon from that which precedes.
πρὸς ὅν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ] towards whom exists for us the relation, i.e. with whom we have to do. Calvin: vertendum erat: cum quo nobis est ratio: cujus orationis hic est sensus, Deum esse, qui nobiscum agit, vel cum quo nobis est negotium, ideoque non esse ludendum quasi cum homine mortali, sed quoties verbum ejus nobis proponitur, contremiscendum esse, quia nihil ipsum lateat. Comp. 1Ki_2:14 and 2Ki_9:5 : λόγος μοι πρὸς σέ .
Aristides, Leuctr. iv. p. 465: ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο θαυμαστὸν φαίνεται , εἴ τις τὸ μὲν Θηβαίους μόνους ἀντιπάλους ἡμῖν καταλειφθῆναι δέδιε , τὸ δὲ πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἡμῖν εἶναι τὸν λόγου , οὐδενὸς ἄξιου κρίνει φόβον . Further examples in Wetstein and Bleek. Incorrectly do Luther, Vatablus, Cameron, Schlichting, Cornelius a Lapide [Piscator hesitates between this and the rendering above given], Grotius, Calov, Wolf, Schulz, Stengel, al., generally with an appeal to πρός , i. 7, 8, and a comparison of Heb_5:11, take πρὸς ὅν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος as equivalent to περὶ οὗ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος . Moreover, something entirely foreign is imported by Ewald when, with a reference to ii. 10 f., he finds in the words the sense: “to whom, as a friend and brother, we can always most confidently speak.” Finally, the Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus Paraphr., Clarius, Zeger, Owen, Limborch, Michaelis, Whitby, Cramer, Stuart, Hofmann, al., explain: to whom we shall have to give an account of our actions. In itself this interpretation would be admissible; but, inasmuch as the words must in consequence thereof be taken in reference to an event yet future, we should necessarily expect the addition of ἔσται .
[69] As is done even by Dorscheus, Calov, Wittich, Braun, Brochmann, and Schöttgen, although they do not explain hypostatically the word of God in ver. 12.