Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 6:16 - 6:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_6:16. Γάρ ] establishes the ἐπεὶ κατʼ οὐδενὸς κ . τ . λ . ὤμοσεν καθʼ ἑαυτοῦ , Heb_6:13. Not, however, Heb_6:16 merely (against Hofmann), but the whole paragraph, Heb_6:16-18, is to be looked upon as an establishing of these words. For Heb_6:16 is only a lemma, only a preparation for Heb_6:17 f.; and, indeed, Heb_6:16 states the practice valid among men with regard to the taking of the oath, while Heb_6:17 f. there is shown in connection with this the object contemplated by God in His declaration upon oath.
κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ] by the Higher One. μείζονος is not neuter (M‘Caul: “to a thing that is greater, e.g. the temple, the altar;” Hofmann), but masculine, and thereby God is intended.
With καί the second half of the sentence, Heb_6:16, is closely attached to the first: “and so,” “and consequently.” To the habitual practice of men just mentioned, the legal relation therefrom arising is joined on.
πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος ] the oath is to them an end to every kind of (every conceivable) contradiction, unto establishment. Comp. Philo, de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p. 146 (with Mangey, I. p. 181): Τοῦ τε μὴν πιστευθῆναι χάριν ἀπιστούμενοι καταφεύγουσιν ἐφʼ ὄρκον ἄνθρωποι · ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ λέγων πιστός ἐστιν · ὥστε καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ βεβαιότητος ἕνεκα μηδὶν ὅρκων διαφέρειν .… Οὐ γὰρ διʼ ὅρκον πιστὸς ὁ θεός , ἀλλὰ διʼ αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ ὅρκος βέβαιος .
For ἀντιλογία as “contradiction” (Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner), comp. Heb_7:7, also Heb_12:3; Jud_1:11. The signification “dispute,” “litigation,” assumed by Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, Cameron, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stengel, and the majority, is certainly perfectly warranted by the usage alike of the classical writers (Xen. Hellen. 6:3. 9) as of the LXX. (Exo_18:6, Heb. ãÌÈáÈø ; Deu_19:7, äÈøÄéá ; Pro_18:18, îÄãÀéÈðÄéí , al.). But here this meaning is remote from the connection, since Heb_6:16 serves for the explanation of the trustworthiness of a divine declaration, but not the explanation of a contention between God and men (Bleek). The meaning “dubitatio,” “doubt,” assigned to the word by Grotius and Cramer, it never has.
εἰς βεβαίωσιν ] unto ratification, or the creation of an indefeasible claim. Wrongly do Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Paulus, and others take eh εἰς βεβαίωσιν —which belongs to the whole second clause, not merely to πέρας (Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford)—along with ὁ ὅρκος : “the oath given in confirmation,” which must have been expressed by ὁ εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὅρκος .
It results as a necessary inference from Heb_6:16, that the author did not regard the taking of the oath on the part of men as anything forbidden. Comp. Calvin: Praeterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse ligitimum.… Nam apostolus certe hic de ratione jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat.