Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 6:2 - 6:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_6:2. Βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς ] We have not to divide by a comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs, Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise that βαπτισμοί and διδαχή are each separately enumerated as a particular subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. Διδαχή must in this case mean the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close of the verse, the ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν and the κρίμα αἰώνιον are mentioned, while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in addition to that διδαχή , these two points, presupposed in the same, should be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the consideration that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as constituent parts of the θεμέλιον , are designated by a double expression. Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς as a corresponding double expression. But even as thus apprehended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question, namely, is whether the author is speaking of βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς or of a βαπτισμῶν διδαχή . In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms. In the first acceptation the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 181 (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that the addition διδαχῆς would be something too little characteristic, almost unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, of followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In connection with this the plural βαπτισμῶν still presents some difficulty. Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M‘Lean Stuart, and others arbitrarily set aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for the singular But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many βαπτισμοί in Judaism (Oeoumenius, Theophylact), or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism (Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; Reuss: la différence du baptême d’eau et du baptême d’esprit). Just as little by the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candidates or baptismal acts (Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, Owen, Heinrichs, al.), or to a repeated immersing of the candidate. Most in its favour has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schöttgen, Wolf, and others, in which more recently also Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 724), Alford, and Moll have concurred; namely, that the author is thinking not so much of Christian baptism a itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a point of support from Heb_9:10, according to which the readers still continued to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek, and others, to urge in favour of this acceptation the distinction that in the N. T. only βάπτισμα is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of the term, βαπτισμός , on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider signification (Heb_9:10; Mar_7:4); precarious, because the expression βάπτισμα not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews [as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by βαπτισμός , the action by βάπτισις , Antiq. xviii. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus nothing can be determined.
In close inner connection with the βαπτισμοί stands the ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν . As therefore the readers ought no longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former (and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism), so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a necessity for being instructed concerning the nature of the latter (and concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Act_8:17 ff; Act_19:6. From this close inner connectedness of the ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν with the βαπτισμοί results that, also as regards the external arrangement of words, the genitive ἐπιθέσεως does not depend immediately upon θεμέλιον , but like βαπτισμῶν upon διδαχῆς . But, moreover, even the following genitives, ἀναστάσεως and κρίματος , are, as rightly apprehended by Storr, Böhme, Ebrard, Bisping,[78] Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner, governed by διδαχῆς . For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς and ΚΡΊΜΑ in themselves signification which they can only have in combination with the foregoing ΔΙΔΑΧῆς . A grammatical harshness (de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the close connection of the last clauses by means of ΤΕ and ΤΕ … ΚΑΊ ; any more than de Wette is right in regarding ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜῶΝ ΔΙΔΑΧῆς , in the mode of interpretation above followed, as an unnatural trajection without an example the writings of our author; for ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜῶΝ is preposed because the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already afforded by the ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ ΜΕΡΙΣΜΟῖς , Heb_2:4.
ἈΝΑΣΤΆΣΕΏς ΤΕ ΝΕΚΡῶΝ ΚΑῚ ΚΡΊΜΑΤΟς ΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ ] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jews theology, which obtained by means of Christianity only their more definite, concrete signification. The expression in both these clauses is used quite generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius, Schlichting, Schöttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς to the godly, the ΚΡΊΜΑ to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in common.
[78] Wrongly, however, is it supposed by Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in Oecumenius, and Klee) that μετανοίας and πίστεως , ver. 1, already dependent upon διδαχῆς .—Just as wrongly would Calvin, who is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς , ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν within a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio … hoc sensu. Non jacientes rursun fundamentum poenitentiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrectionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impositionis manuum … Nisi enim appositive legas, hoc erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet. Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de poenitentia et de judici similibus?”—Both views are deprived of their support by the reflection that μετάνοια and πίστις , ver. 1, denote not a doctrine, but an act [against Stuart].