Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 7:18 - 7:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_7:18-19. Elucidation of that which is signified by this proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after the manner of Melchisedec (Heb_7:17). By virtue of that proclamation of God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in general, is declared—and that with good reason—to be devoid of force; and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in. Theodoret: Παύεται , φησίν , ὁ νόμος , ἐπεισάγεται δὲ ἡ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐλπίς .
Heb_7:18-19 contain a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of μὲν … δέ , for which γίνεται forms the common verb, and in which οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος constitutes a parenthesis. So, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Peirce, Bengel, M‘Lean, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 592), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. Others construe differently, in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself. They then vary as regards the interpretation of ἐπεισαγωγή , Heb_7:19, as this is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus (Version), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac. Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying ἐστίν or ἦν , and regarding as subject thereto ὁ νόμος . According to this, the sense would be: for nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning consists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this argues the fact that, if ἐπεισαγωγὴ δέ was intended to form the opposition to the first half of Heb_7:19, the author could not possibly—after having placed a verb ( ἐτελείωσεν ) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a few words—have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb; he must have written ἐπεισάγει δὲ κρείττονα ἐλπίδα instead of ἐπεισαγωγὴ δὲ κ . τ . λ . Moreover, ἑπί in ἑπεισαγωγή would have remained without any reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject ἐπεισαγωγή is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be: the law indeed brought nothing to perfection; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead to perfection. Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive, that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding νόμος has the article, ἐπεισαγωγή also must have obtained the article.
The statement of Heb_7:18 is to be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal import). The article before προαγούσης ἐντολῆς is wanting, because the design was to express the ἐντολή regarding the Levitical priesthood as one which had only the character of an ἐντολὴ προάγουσα .
ἀθέτησις ] a declaring void of force, abrogation. Comp. ἀθετεῖν , Gal_3:15. The substantive only here and Heb_9:26.
γίνεται ] results, namely, in the declaration of God, Psa_110:4.
The ἐντολή , the command, denotes not the whole Mosaic law (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, M‘Lean, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield), but the ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only with Heb_7:19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here states concerning a part.
The ἐντολή , however, is termed προάγονσα (comp. 1Ti_1:18; 1Ti_5:24), because, as a constituent part of the O. T., it preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on account of its reciprocal relation to ἐπεισαγωγή , Heb_7:19, at least the additional indication delicately conveyed, that this ἐντολή , since just as a mere precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the character of the merely temporary and consequently unsatisfactory.
διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές ] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness. The ἐντολή was weak, since it did not possess the strength to attain its object, namely, the reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such manner it did not fulfil the end of its existence, it became for that very reason something unprofitable and unserviceable. On ἀσθενές , comp. Rom_8:3; Gal_4:9.
οὐδέν ] is not to be limited by means of οὐδένα (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bisping), but, on the contrary, is to be left in the full universality of the neuter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a position to bring about.
ἐπεισαγωγή ] a doubly composite term. Literally: introduction upon or in addition to, i.e. the bringing in of something new in addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addition to the προάγουσα ἐντολή , Heb_7:18). ἐπί in ἐπεισαγωγή corresponds therefore to the πρό in προαγούσης .
κρείττονος ἐλπίδος ] of a better hope, sc. than the προάγουσα ἐντολή was in a position to afford.[83] Better, more excellent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired goal.
δι ̓ ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ θεῷ ] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (Jam_4:8). Comp. Heb_6:19 : εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος , and Heb_10:19 ff. In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah was. Cf. Heb_9:6 ff.
[83] We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So is then … something better introduced, the hope, by virtue of which,” etc. To the same result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come, when he observes: “It is not meant that the law also afforded a hope, and that the one introduced by the word of the psalm is only by comparison better; but the κρείττων ἐλπίς , which possesses that which is truly perfected in the future, in the world beyond the grave, into which its anchor has been sunk (Heb_6:19), stands opposed to the ἐντολή in the present state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is between the προάγουσα ἐντολή , weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the ἐλπίς , which brings us near to God. This κρείττονός τινος , τουτέστιν ἐλπίδος κ . τ . λ ., is expressed by κρείττονος ἐλπίδος .”