Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 4:2 - 4:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_4:2 corroborates in its first half the καταλειπομένης , Heb_4:1, while the second half shows the danger of the ὑστερηκέναι in the example of others. The emphasis in the first half lies upon ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελισμένοι . The sense is not: for we, too, like them, have promise (to express this the addition of ἡμεῖς after καὶ γάρ would have been called for), but: for promise (sc. of entering into the κατάπαυσις , cf. Heb_4:1; Heb_4:3) have we indeed, even as they (the fathers), sc. had it.
Most arbitrarily is the meaning of this and the following verse apprehended by Ebrard. According to Ebrard, Heb_4:2 ff. proclaims as the reason why the Jews did not attain the promised κατάπαυσις , not their “subjective unbelief,” but “the objective imperfection of the Old Testament revelation.” With the second half of Heb_4:2, namely, a gradation (!) is supposed to begin, and the progress of thought to be as follows: “The word which we have received is even infinitely better than the word which the Israelites received through Moses. For, first, the word spoken by Moses was unable to bring the people to faith—it remained external to them; it set forth a promise, it is true, and also attached a condition, but it communicated no strength to fulfil this condition (Heb_4:2-5, comp. Heb_4:12-13); but, secondly, the promise there given was not even in its purport the true one; there, earthly rest was promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (Heb_4:6-10).” That the context affords no warrant for the bringing out of such a meaning is self-evident. For neither does the author here distinguish such twofold word of promise, nor a twofold κατάπαυσις , nor can λόγος … μὴ συγκεκραμένος signify a word which “could not prove binding.”
Erroneous, too, is the view of the connection on the part of Delitzsch, to whom Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 798 ff.) accedes in all essential particulars. According to Riehm, the (as yet unproved) presupposition is first provisionally expressed in the parenthesis, Heb_4:1, in a simply assertory manner, viz. that there is still in existence a promise of entering into the rest of God, a promise of which the fulfilment is yet outstanding, and this presupposition is then repeated, Heb_4:2, in other expressions of a more general bearing, no doubt, but essentially in the same way of simple assertion. Upon this, however, the author now wishes to furnish proof that such presupposition is fully warranted. Accordingly, Heb_4:3, he formulates that presupposition in the most definite manner, inasmuch as in the opening words of Heb_4:3, εἰσερχόμεθα … πιστεύσαντες , he lays down the theme which is to be proved in the sequel. This proof is afforded in the following way: the rest of God has existed long; nevertheless, in the oath of God, mentioned in the words of the psalm, a rest of God is spoken of as yet future, and of a truth it is one and the same rest of God which, according to Gen_2:2—in so far as God enjoys it alone—has existed from the beginning of the world, and, according to the word of the psalm,—in so far as the people of God are to participate therein,—is one yet approaching. Although thus the long present rest of God was the aim and end of the creative activity of God, yet it is not the final aim which God has proposed to Himself. On the contrary, it is clearly apparent, from a comparison of the word of God pronounced upon the Israelites in the time of Moses, a word confirmed by an oath, with the account of the rest of God on the seventh day, that, according to the gracious designs of God, the rest, which He has enjoyed alone from the foundation of the world, should eventually become a rest of God which He enjoys in communion with His people. It is therefore indubitably certain, that even after the completion of the work of creation and the ensuing of the rest of God, there is still something outstanding [unfulfilled], an ἀπολειπόμενον , and this consists in the fact that some, received by God into communion with Himself, are made partakers of that repose of God. This view is a mistaken one, because—(1) As regards the assumed proof, the assertion that in the oath of God, spoken of in the words of the psalm, mention is made of a yet future rest of God, is entirely untrue. Not of a particular form of the rest of God, which is still future, is the discourse, but only the fact is represented as future that it is shared on the part of men who enter into it. For a rest of God which has already existed long is not opposed to a rest of God which is still future, nor is the rest of God, mentioned. Genesis 2., distinguished as of another kind than that mentioned in the psalm. On the contrary, the rest of God, or—what is identical therewith—the Sabbath-rest of God, has existed in fact and without change from the time of the completion of the works of creation, and this same rest of God it is, the participation in which was once promised to the Israelites on the condition of faith, and now upon the same condition is promised to the Christians; it is a question therefore only of the Christians taking warning from the example of the fathers, and not, like them, losing the promised blessing through unbelief. (2) That the author was desirous of still proving the καταλείπεσθαι ἐπαγγελίαν , cannot at all be supposed. For this was a fact which, as self-evident from that which precedes, stood in no need of a demonstration; it is therefore expressed not only Heb_4:1, but also Heb_4:6, in a mere subsidiary clause, consequently in the form of logical subordination; and even Heb_4:9, in which it is introduced in an apparently independent form, decides nothing against our explanation, because Heb_4:9, while forming a certain conclusion to that which precedes, yet contains only the logical substructure for the exhortation attaching itself afresh at Heb_4:11. That at which the author alone aimed, in connection with Heb_4:2 ff., was therefore the impressive confirmation of the paraenesis, Heb_4:1; and just this paraenetic main tendency of our section likewise fails of attaining due recognition in connection with the explanation of Delitzsch and Riehm. But when Delitzsch thinks he can support his view, that the καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας , Heb_4:1, is first proved in the sequel, by declaring the otherwise to be accepted “thought that the promise of entering into God’s rest has remained without its fulfilment in the generation of the wilderness, and thus is still valid,” to be “entirely false,” and exclaims: “What logic that would be! The generation of the wilderness perished indeed, but the younger generation entered into Canaan, came to Shiloh (the place in the heart of the land, which has its name from the rest, Jos_18:1), and had now its own fixed land of habitation, whither Jehovah had brought and planted it, and where He fenced it in (2Sa_7:10);” such conclusion would be justified only if the author had not understood the promise given to the fathers in the time of Moses, of entering into God’s κατάπαυσις , at the same time in a higher sense, but had regarded it as fulfilled by the occupation of Canaan under Joshua; such, however, according to the distinct statement of Heb_4:8, is not the case.
καί ] after καθάπερ , the ordinary καί after particles of comparison. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 409.
ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ] Periphrasis of the notion ἐπαγγελία , Heb_4:1 : the word of that which is heard ( ἀκοή in the passive sense, as Rom_10:16; Gal_3:2; 1Th_2:13; Joh_12:38), i.e. the word of promise which was heard by them, or proclaimed to them. This periphrasis is chosen in order already at this stage to point out that it was by the fault of the fathers themselves that the word of promise became for them an unprofitable word, one which did not receive its fulfilment. It remained for them a word heard only externally, whereas, if it was to profit them, they must manifest receptiveness for the same, must believingly and confidingly appropriate the same. This culpability on the part of the fathers themselves is brought into direct relief by the participial clause μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν , containing the indication of cause to οὐκ ὠφέλησεν , wherein τῇ πίστει forms an emphatic opposition to the preceding τῆς ἀκοῆς . The sense is: because it was not for the hearers mingled with faith; the dative τοῖς ἀκούσασιν denoting the subject, in relation to which the μὴ συγκ . τῇ πίστει took place. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 206. Thus interpret Erasmus, translation, Calvin, Castellio, Gerhard, Owen, Calov, Limborch, Bengel, Kypke, Storr, Stuart, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 30; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 696, note; Maier, and others.[63] But that the fault of this not being mingled was not in the word but in the men, was naturally understood from the connection. συγκεκραμένος is not to be connected with τοῖς ἀκούσασιν , so that τῇ πίστει would have to be taken as the dativus instrumentalis: “because it did not, by means of faith, mingle with them that heard it, become fully incorporated with them” (Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Dorscheus, S. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Klee, Paulus, Stein, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner). For manifestly the centres of thought for the adversative clause lie in τῆς ἀκοῆς and τῇ πίστει , while τοῖς ἀκούσασιν only takes up again the indication of the persons, already known to us from the ἐκείνους , although now as characterizing these persons in attaching itself to τῆς ἀκοῆς .
τοῖς ἀκούσασιν , however, not the mere demonstrative pronoun, is put by the author in order thus once more to place hearing and believing in suggestive contrast. Further, the author did not write μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τῶν ἀκουσάντων , because he would thereby have conveyed the impression that the Israelites in the wilderness possessed indeed πίστις , but the word of promise which was heard did not blend into a unity with the same; whereas by means of μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν he denies altogether the presence of πίστις in them.
[63] Heinsius, Semler, Kuinoel, al., take τοῖς ἀκούσασιν as equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων , which is open to no grammatical objection (cf. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 206), and makes no alteration in the sense.