Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5:7 - 5:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_5:7. Ὅς ] refers back to the last main idea, thus to ὁ Χριστός , Heb_5:5. The tempus finitum belonging thereto is ἔμαθεν , Heb_5:8, in that Heb_5:7-10 form a single period, resolving itself into two co-ordinate statements ( ὃς ἔμαθεν … καὶ ἐγένετο ). To connect the ὄς first with ἐγένετο , Heb_5:9 (so Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Stengel, and others), is impossible, since Heb_5:8 cannot be taken as a parenthesis.
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ ] in the days of His flesh, i.e. during the time of His earthly life. Theodoret: Ἡμέρας δὲ σαρκὸς τὸν τῆς θνητότητος ἔφη καιρόν , τουτέστιν ἡνίκα θνητὸν εἶχε τὸ σῶμα . On the whole expression, comp. Heb_2:14; on αἱ ἡμέραι , in the more general sense of ὁ χρόνος , Heb_10:32, Heb_12:10. False, because opposed to the current linguistic use of σάρξ (Gal_2:20; 2Co_10:3; Php_1:22; Php_1:24; 1Pe_4:2, al.), and because ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ obtains its opposition in τελειωθείς , Heb_5:9,—whereby, in general, the period of Christ’s life of humiliation is contrasted with the period of His life of exaltation,
Schlichting: what is specially meant is “tempus infirmitatis Christi, et praesertim illud, quo infirmitas ejus maxime apparuit … dies illi, quibus Christus est passus.” The note of time: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ , however, is to be construed with the main verb ἔμαθεν , not with the participles προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθείς , which latter form a simply parenthetic clause.
As the occasion of this parenthetic clause δεήσεις … εὐλαβείας ,—in connection with which we have neither, with Theophylact, Peirce, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, Kurtz, and others, to derive the colouring of the linguistic expression from the author’s having respect to certain utterances of the Psalms (as Psa_22:25 [24], ibid. Psa_5:3 [2], Psa_116:1 ff.), nor with Braun, Akersloot, Böhme, al., to suppose a reference to the loud praying of the Jewish high priest on the great day of atonement; neither is there an underlying comparison, as Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 399 f. 2 Aufl.) strangely supposes, of the supplication of Jesus, which He before (!) the learning of obedience offered for Himself as a sacrifice on account of weakness (!), with the sin-offering which, according to Heb_5:3, the Levitical high priest had on this day to present for himself before he could yet offer on behalf of the people,—the author has present to his mind, according to the prevailing and, beyond doubt, correct view, the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, as this was made known to him by oral or written tradition. Comp. Mat_26:36 ff.; Mar_14:32 ff.; Luk_22:39 ff. It is true we do not read in our Gospels that Christ at that time prayed to God μετὰ δακρύων . But, considering the great emotion of mind on the part of the Saviour, which is also described in the account given by our evangelists (comp. in particular, Mat_26:37 : ἤρξατο λυπείσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν ; Mar_14:33 : ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν ; Luk_22:44 : καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρῶς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ), that fact has nothing improbable about it; comp. also Luk_19:41; Joh_11:35. On account of the addition μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς , others will have us understand the loud crying of Christ upon the cross (Mat_27:46; Mar_15:34), either, as Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Stein, Stuart, Delitzsch, besides the prayer in Gethsemane, or, as Cajetan, Estius, Calov, Hammond, Kurtz, exclusively, or even, as Klee, the last cry, with which He departed (Mat_27:50; Mar_15:37; Luk_23:46). The supposition of such references we cannot, with de Wette (comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 70 f. 2 Aufl.), characterize as “entirely-unsuitable.” For de Wette’s objection, that the author “manifestly regarded the prayer as the preparation and condition of the ἔμαθε ,” that it must “thus precede the suffering,” does not apply, since προσενέγκας is not to be resolved into “after,” but into “in that,” or “inasmuch as.” Not as “preparation and condition of the ἔμαθε ” is the prayer looked upon by the author, but rather is the historic fact of the fervent prayer of Christ mentioned by him as an evidence that Christ in reality submitted Himself to God, even in the severest sufferings. For that which Hofmann (l.c. p. 67) objects hereto, that the author, if he had meant this, would have written: μαθὼν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοὴν δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας προσήνεγκεν , is devoid of sense; because, by means of such a transposition, that which is merely a secondary statement would be made the main statement. Yet the supposing of such references is not necessary, since also the plural δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας , to which appeal has been made, is sufficiently explained by the repetitions of the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane.
To ἱκετηρία , which conjoined with δέησις further occurs LXX. Job_40:22 [27], as also with the classic writers, ἐλαία or ῥάβδος (not κλάδος ) is originally to be supplemented, inasmuch as it denotes the olive branch which the supplicant pleading for protection bore in his hand. Later it acquired like signification with ἱκετεία or ἱκεσία . It implies thus the prostrate or urgent entreaty of one seeking refuge. As an intensifying of δέησις it is rightly placed after this.
πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου ] is most naturally referred to προσενέγκας (so Calvin, Abresch, al.). To the connecting with δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας (Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll) we are forced neither by the position before μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς , nor by the fact of the combination of προσφέρειν with the dative being chosen elsewhere in the epistle (Heb_9:14, Heb_11:4), as it is also the more usual one with classical writers, since likewise the conjoining with πρός is nothing out of the way. Comp. e.g. Polyb. iv. 51. 2 : προσενεγκάμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἀχαιὸν (equivalent to τῷ Ἀχαιῷ ) τὴν χάριν ταύτην . In the characteristic of God as the One who was able to deliver Christ from death, there lies, at the same time, the indication of that which Christ implored of God. σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου , however, may denote one of two things, either: to save from death, in such wise that it needs not to be undergone, thus to preserve from death, or: to save out of the death to which one is exposed, so that one does not remain the prey of death, but is restored to life. In favour of the former interpretation seems to plead the fact that Christ, according to the account in the Gospels, in reality prayed that He might be spared the suffering of death. Nevertheless what decides against this, and in favour of the second, is the consideration, in the first place, that Christ in reality still suffered death, and then the addition in our verse that the prayer of Christ was answered. And then, finally, we have to take into account the fact that, according to our Gospels also, Christ does not pray absolutely to be preserved from death, but makes this His wish dependent upon the will of the Father, thus entirely subordinates Himself to the Father.
καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας ] and being heard by reason of His piety, or fear of God. In this sense is εὐλάβεια (cf. Heb_12:28) rightly taken by Chrysostom, Photius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, the Vulgate (pro sua reverentia), Vigil. Taps., Primasius, Lyra, Luther, Castellio, Camerarius, Estius, Casaubon, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Rambach; Heinrichs, Schulz, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 327), Alford, Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others.[72] ἈΠΌ , as an indication of the occasioning cause, is also of very frequent occurrence elsewhere; cf. Mat_28:4; Luk_19:3; Luk_24:41; Joh_21:6; Act_12:14; Act_20:9; Act_22:11; Kühner, Gramm. II. p. 270. Christ, however, was heard in His prayer, inasmuch as He was raised out of death, exalted to the right hand of God, and made partaker of the divine glory. To be rejected is the explanation of the word preferred by Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Scaliger, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Hammond, Limborch, “Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Whitby, Carpzov, Abresch, Böhme, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Stuart, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 665), Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 69, 2 Aufl.), and many others, according to which a pregnancy of meaning is assumed for the same, and εὐλάβεια is interpreted in the sense of “metus:” “heard (and delivered) from the fear.” There is then found expressed in it either the thought (and this is the common acceptation) that Christ was delivered from His agony of soul by the strengthening on the part of the angel, Luk_22:43, or εὐλάβεια is understood by metonymy of the object of the fear, i.e. death, from which Christ was delivered by the resurrection. So, among others, Calvin: “exauditum fuisse Christum ex eo, quod timebat, ne scilicet malis obrutus succumberet, vel morte absorberetur;” and Schlichting: “a metu i. e. ab eo, quod metuebat, nimirum morte.” But against the first modification of this view pleads the fact that the being heard must refer to the same thing as that for which Christ had prayed, but from that which precedes it is evident that Christ had besought God not for deliverance from the agony of soul, but for deliverance from death. Against both modifications pleads the fact that the strong signification of fear is never expressed by εὐλάβεια . Only the mild signification of timidity or awe (whether reverential awe of the Godhead, i.e. piety, or shyness of earthly things), as well as the notion arising from that of timidity, namely heedfulness, discretion, circumspectness in arranging that which is adapted to the bringing about of a definite result, lies in the word; as accordingly also the Greeks themselves, particularly the Stoics, expressly distinguished from each other φόβος and ΕὐΛΆΒΕΙΑ , and pronounced ΦΌΒΟς to be worthy of reprobation; ΕὐΛΆΒΕΙΑ , on the other hand, to be a duty. See the instances in Bleek. Nor. do the passages anew adduced by Grimm, l.c., Wis_17:8, 2Ma_8:16, Sir_41:3, in which the word is supposed to be used in the sense of fear, and the demonstrative force of which is acknowledged by Delitzsch (p. 190, and Observer and Correctt.), Riehm (l.c.), and Moll, prove what they are thought to prove. For in the first-mentioned passage we have to understand by κατεγέλαστος εὐλάβεια the perverted, idolatrous, and therefore ridiculous religious awe of the Egyptian magicians; the second passage is only a dissuasive against standing in any awe of the outward superiority in force of the hostile army; and the third, finally, against feeling any awe of death, since this is the common lot of all men. The notion of mere awe, however, is, on account of the preceding strong expressions, ΜΕΤᾺ ΚΡΑΥΓῆς ἸΣΧΥΡᾶς ΚΑῚ ΔΑΚΡΎΩΝ , unsuited to our passage.[73] In addition to this, the assumed constructio praegnans in connection with a verb like εἰσακουσθῆναι is, in any case, open to doubt, and is not yet at all justified by the alleged parallels which have been adduced, namely Psa_22:22 [21] ( åÌîÄ÷ÌÇøÀðÅé øÅîÄéí òÂðÄéúÈðÄé , which, however, the LXX. did not understand, and reproduced without pregnancy); LXX. Job_35:12 ( ἐκεῖ κεκράξονται καὶ οὐ μὴ εὐσακούσῃ [ καὶ ] ἀπὸ ὕβρεως πονηρῶν , where, however, ἀπὸ κ . τ . λ ., as in the Hebrew, refers back to the first verb); Psa_118:5 ( καὶ ἐπήκουσέ μου εἰς πλατυσμὸν κύριος ); Heb_10:22 ( ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς ).
The addition καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας contains, for the rest, logically regarded, merely a parenthetic remark, called forth only by the contents of the foregoing participial clause.
[72] In this explanation Linden on Heb_5:7-9 (Stud. u. Krit. 1860, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) likewise, concurs, only he would have ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας separated by a comma from that which precedes, and taken in conjunction with that which follows. This construction, however, is not natural, inasmuch as ἔμαθεν already has a nearer definition before and after it, and the linguistic symmetry with the foregoing participial clause is destroyed by the εἰσακουσθείς standing alone.
[73] According to Tholuck, the author has before his mind the first petition of the Redeemer in prayer at Gethsemane, the petition with εἰ δυνατόν , in which is expressed a condition of “lingering hesitancy,” of “detrectatio” (!), which also according to him εὐλάβεια exactly indicates. From this hesitancy, which with the Redeemer continued just so long as He was absorbed in an abstract manner in the greatness of the impending suffering, He was delivered. Thus, it is true, the first prayer uttered in this condition remained unfulfilled, but it was certainly annulled in the second, wherein His own will had become perfectly harmonized with the divine will. So Tholuck. But neither does εὐλάβεια ever signify “lingering hesitancy” (not even in Plutarch, Fab. Max. c. 1, where it denotes nothing more than caution or wariness).