Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 6:1 - 6:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_6:1-3. It is disputed whether in these verses the author carries out his purpose of advancing, with the pretermission of the Christian elementary instruction, to objects of deeper Christian knowledge; or whether there is contained in the same a summons to the readers, no longer to cling to the doctrines of the first principles of Christianity, but to strive to reach beyond them and attain to Christian maturity and perfection.[77] The former supposition is favoured by Primasius, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, Michaelis, Morus, Storr, Abresch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Reiche (Comment. Crit. p. 36 sqq.), Conybeare, Reuss, M‘Caul, Hofmann (Komm. p. 231), and many others; the latter, on the other hand, by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, Gennadius (in Oecumenius), Theophylact, Faber Stapulensis, Calvin, Clarius, Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Böhme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 636, 2 Aufl.), Moll, and others. The connection with the preceding and following context decides against the first acceptation and in favour of the second. The author has just now charged the readers with dulness, and complained that they are still children in Christian understanding. It is not possible, therefore, that he should now continue in the strain: “on that account he purposes, passing over the doctrines of the initial stage, to treat in his address of objects of higher, profounder Christian knowledge;” whereas, on the other hand, the exhortation to ascend to a higher stage fittingly links itself to the complaint of the lower standpoint of the readers, which still continues unchanged notwithstanding all legitimate expectation to the contrary. No wonder, then, that expositors have been forced, in connection with the first-named explanation, to have recourse to arbitrary interpretations of the διό , Heb_6:1; either in completing the idea, as Grotius, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, and others, by: “therefore, because surely no one of you wishes to remain a ΝΉΠΙΟς ,”—which, however, as the middle term, must have been expressly added, since no reader could divine this from that which precedes,—or in referring it, as Schlichting and Reuss, to the first words of Heb_6:11 : ΠΕΡῚ ΟὟ ΠΟΛῪς ἩΜῖΝ Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς ΚΑῚ ΔΥΣΕΡΜΉΝΕΥΤΟς ΛΈΓΕΙΝ , and regarding all that intervenes in the light of remarks appended by way of parenthesis,—which, nevertheless, is to be rejected, even on account of the intimate connection of ΔΥΣΕΡΝΉΝΕΥΤΟς ΛΈΓΕΙΝ , v. 11, with the following ἘΠΕῚ Κ . Τ . Λ .,—or finally, what is lexically impossible, denying to it a causal signification, and then translating it either, as Morus, by “yet” (doch), or, as Zachariae, by “nevertheless” (indessen), or as Abresch, by vero, enimvero.
But no less does the coherence with that which follows decide against the first interpretation and in favour of the second. For it is quite comprehensible how the reason given, Heb_6:4 ff., should be able to lend emphasis to a preceding exhortation, but not how the declaration of the author, that he now intended to pass over to more difficult, more profound themes for instruction, should be explained thereby. (See on Heb_6:4-6.) In ἀφέντες there lies no decisive ground in favour of either the one or the other view (against de Wette, Bisping, and others), and ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗΤΑ , as also ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΒΑΛΛΌΜΕΝΟΙ , is more relevant to the case of the readers than to that of the author (vide infra).
Διό ] therefore, i.e. since the solid food is suited only to τέλειοι , ye, however, do not yet belong to the number of the ΤΈΛΕΙΟΙ .
ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ ] is not only employed by orators and historians to indicate that they intend to pass over some subject or leave it unmentioned (comp. e.g. Demosth. de Falsa Legat. p. 433, 28: πάντα τὰ ἄλλα ἀφείς , ἃ πάντες ὙΜΕῖς ἼΣΤΕ ἘΡῶ ), but serves with equal frequency to denote the leaving unnoticed or leaving aside of an object in actual conduct. Comp. e.g. Mar_7:8 : ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ; Luk_5:11 : ἈΓΈΝΤΕς ΠΆΝΤΑ ἨΚΟΛΟΎΘΗΣΑΝ ΑὐΤῷ ; Eurip. Androm. 393: ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγχὴν ἀφεὶς πρὸς τὴν τελευτήν , ὑστέραν οὖσαν , φέρῃ ; In our passage it is the leaving aside of the lesser, in order to reach beyond it and attain to the higher. Entirely akin to the ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ ΤῸΝ Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ is that which Paul, Php_3:14, denotes as ἘΠΙΛΑΝΘΆΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΤᾺ ὈΠΊΣΩ . As in the passage named Paul speaks of a forgetting of that already attained upon the path of Christian perfection, only with a glance at the goal as yet unattained, and not in an absolute sense,—as though he would in reality deny all actual significance to that which was already attained,—quite so does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews stir up the readers to an ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ ΤῸΥ Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΝ , only inasmuch as they are called to rise, beyond that which forms a mere preliminary stage, to something higher, without in any way implying thereby that the Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟς , which certainly, as a base presupposed as already present, remains necessary for all subsequent building, should at all cease to be their possession. The objection, that ἈΦΈΝΤΕς cannot be referred to the readers, because instead of a leaving aside (letting go) a holding fast or renewing of the Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟς must rather be demanded as a means for attaining to the ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς , has therefore no force. Comp. Calvin: Jubet autem omitti ejusmodi rudimenta, non quod eorum oblivisci unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis minime est haerendum. Quod melius patet ex fundamenti similitudine, quae mox sequitur. Nam in exstruenda domo nunquam a fundamento discedere oportet; in eo tamen jaciendo semper laborare ridiculum.
ΤῸΝ Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΝ ] the word of the beginning concerning Christ, i.e. the Christian doctrine in its first rudiments or elements. τῆς ἀρχῆς locks together with ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ into a single notion, and upon this total-notion ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ depends. The whole expression, however, amounts to the same thing as was before (v. 12) denoted by ΤᾺ ΣΤΟΙΧΕῖΑ Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤῶΝ ΛΟΡΊΩΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ .
Ἡ ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς ] in connection with our apprehension of Heb_6:1-3, determines itself naturally as perfection, i.e. manhood and maturity in Christianity, and that in an intellectual respect, not in an ethical or practical one, in which latter sense the expression has been accepted—arbitrarily, because opposed to the connection with v. 11–14—by Chrysostom ( βίος ἄριστος ), Gennadius ( ΧΡΗΣΤῊ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΊΑ ΚΑῚ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς ἈΞΊΑ ), Photius ( Ἡ ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ἈΡΕΤΑῖς ΠΡΟΚΟΠΉ , Ἡ ΤῶΝ ΘΛΊΨΕΩΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΙΩΓΜῶΝ ΚΑῚ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜῶΝ ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ ), Oecumenius ( Ἡ ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΊΑ ), Clarius (non solum superioris illius de Christo theologiae comprehensio, quantum homini fas est, verum etiam profectus in virtutes et afflictionum persecutionumque tolerantia), and others. Those who find in Heb_6:1-3 a statement of the author concerning his intention, must naturally understand ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς of the perfection of doctrine, i.e. of the deeper disclosures with regard to Christianity. But this is, at all events, a forced interpretation of the simple notion of the word, such as neither corresponds to the usage in other cases (comp. Col_3:14), for in our passage appears in keeping with the context. For, since immediately before the discourse was of τέλειοι in opposition to ΝΉΠΙΟΙ , so here only the condition of the ΤΈΛΕΙΟΙ can consistently with nature be the meaning of the ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς . Had the author intended the perfection of doctrine, he must at least have written ἘΠῚ ΤᾺ ΤῶΝ ΤΕΛΕΊΩΝ instead of ἘΠῚ ΤῊΝ ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗΤΑ ; for only in this way would he have acquired a notion corresponding to the preceding Ἡ ΣΤΕΡΕᾺ ΤΡΟΦΉ , v. 14.
ΦΕΡΏΜΕΘΑ ] The author includes himself in the exhortation (cf. Heb_6:14, al.), and thereby tempers the same. φέρεσθαι ἐπί τι , to be carried away to something, to strive with zeal after something.
θεμέλιον καταβάλλεσθαι ] a formula fully current in later Greek style (Dionys. Halicarn. 3:69; Josephus, Antiq. xi. 4. 4, al. [whereas Paul and Luke employ τιθέναι , 1Co_3:10; Luk_6:48; Luk_14:29]), to denote the laying of the foundation. Even on account of the usualness of this mode of speech, it is quite a misapprehension of the meaning when Ebrard would here vindicate for ΚΑΤΑΒΆΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ the signification: “demolish.” But also the position of the word decides against this, since ΚΑΤΑΒΑΛΛΌΜΕΝΟΙ , must have its place before ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟΝ , whereas the placing of it after shows that the emphasis must fall upon θεμέλιον , not upon the verb; ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟΝ thus stands in antithesis to the following ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗΤΑ . The participial clause: ΜῊ ΠΆΛΙΝ ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΒ . Κ . Τ . Λ ., accordingly forms an elucidation to ἈΦΈΝΤΕς ΤῸΝ Τῆς ἈΡΧῆς ΤΟῦ ΧΡΟΣΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΝ .
The genitive ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς , etc., indicates the material with which the foundation is laid, and, indeed, each two of the instances named belong together, so that three pairs of the first principles of Christianity are enumerated. The article before the single substantives is omitted throughout; not, as Böhme and Bleek suppose, out of a consideration for the rhythm, lest otherwise the articles should too greatly accumulate, but because the sense is: with things such as μετάνοια , etc.
Further, as subject in ΚΑΤΑΒΑΛΛΌΜΕΝΟΙ we have to regard the readers of the epistle (not the author), because the same subject is presupposed for the μετάΝΟΙΑ and the ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΒΆΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ ; but the ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ , which cannot denote the doctrine of the change of mind,—since otherwise, as with the words in Heb_6:2, the addition of διδαχή could not have been wanting,—but expresses the act of the change of mind itself, beyond doubt relates to the readers of the letter, not to the author.
Not anew are the readers to lay the foundation by μετάνοια ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων and ΠΊΣΤΙς ἘΠῚ ΘΕΌΝ ; since this foundation has with them already been laid, it is now thus only a question of continuing to build upon the foundation laid. Not in such wise are they accordingly to behave, that the primary requirement of turning from the ἜΡΓΑ ΝΕΚΡΆ and having ΠΊΣΤΙς towards God, must ever afresh be made with regard to them.
The construction ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ ἈΠΌ , as with ΜΕΤΑΝΟΕῖΝ , Act_8:22; LXX. Jer_8:6.
ἈΠῸ ΝΕΚΡῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ ] By ΝΕΚΡΆ the works are not characterized as sinful, and by sin occasioning death (Piscator, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Peirce, Abresch, Bisping, Stuart, and others), nor as defiling, as according to the law of Moses contact with a dead body defiled (Michaelis, al.), but as in themselves vain and fruitless [see on Heb_9:14]. Perhaps the author has—what is on no sufficient grounds contested by R. Köstlin (Theol. Jahrbb. von Baur und Zeller, 1854, H. 4, p. 469 ff., Remark), Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 568), and Kurtz—before his mind the service of works under the Mosaic law, from which the readers had not yet been able to free themselves. A contradiction, as Riehm supposes (l.c. p. 835 f.), of the fact recognised, p. 16, that πίστις with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not, as with Paul, involve an opposition to the ΝΌΜΟς and the ἜΡΓΑ ΝΌΜΟΥ , lies not in this expression. For neither in our passage is mention made of ΝΕΚΡᾺ ἜΡΓΑ in relation to ΠΊΣΤΙς , but only in relation to the factor of the ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ which precedes the ΠΊΣΤΙς .
ΚΑῚ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς ἘΠῚ ΘΕΌΝ ] The positive reverse side to the negative ΜΕΤΑΝΟἼΑς ἈΠῸ ΝΕΚΡῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ . The ideas conveyed by the ΜΕΤΑΝΟΕῖΝ and ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ , the ΜΕΤΆΝΟΙΑ and the ΠΊΣΤΙς , likewise associated with each other, Mar_1:15; Act_20:21. These words, however, are to be understood, as Abresch, Bleek, and others rightly insist, in accordance with the signification, which the author is otherwise wont to attach to ΠΊΣΤΙς , of the believing confidence in God, as the one who in part has already fulfilled the promises of salvation given in the person of Jesus Christ, in part will yet completely fulfil them.
[77] Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 781 f.), to whom Maier, Kluge, Kurtz, and Woerner have given in their adhesion, have thought to be able to escape the stringency of the above either … or … They will have us recognise the one to the non-exclusion of the other, in that they find expressed at the same time the exhortation to the readers to strive after the τελειότης , and the design of the writer to lead forward the readers to the τελειότης . But this (comp. also Reiche, Comment. Crit. p. 37, note 2) is an unnatural, absolutely impossible assumption. The announcement of the author’s design to advance to a more difficult section of his disquisition, and the exhortation to the endeavour after Christian maturity addressed to others, are two so mutually irreconcilable declarations, as not possibly to admit of being compressed at the same time into the φέρεσθαι ἐπί , ver. 1, and τοῦτο ποιεῖν , ver. 3. Just as little can at the same time be indicated by τελειότης , ver. 1, the condition of ripe age in Christianity, and the Christian teaching activity of another in reference to higher things. If, therefore, the author had designed to express both together,—alike an incitement of the readers, as also the carrying out of his own intention,—he must necessarily have brought under review each one separately, i.e. first the one and then the other. In addition to this, there is the further consideration that the view of Delitzsch and Riehm bears the character of half measures. For they do not even venture to push it to a consistent conclusion, in that surely the same two-sidedness of reference which attaches to the principal verb φερώμεθα (and to the τοῦτο ποιήσωμεν which resumes the thought of the same), must also attach to the participles ἀφέντες and καταβαλλόμενοι ; but as it is, the participles are supposed to have grammatically, it is true, the same two-sided subject as the principal verbs; logically, on the other hand, to refer preponderantly (i.e. according to the preceding remark in Delitzsch, p. 209, init.: exclusively) to the author!