Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 8:1 - 8:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_8:1-2. Κεφάλαιον δέ ] Now a main point is. Κεφάλαιον is not accusative absolute (Bengel), nor yet the ordinary accusative with a λέγω τοῦτο to be supplemented (Ebrard), but nominative, and apposition to the whole ensuing proposition: τοιοῦτον … ἄνθρωπος , Heb_8:2. Comp. Rom_8:3. Just as κεφάλαιον δέ are also the kindred formulas: τὸ δὲ μέγιστον , τὸ δὲ δεινότατον , τὸ ἔσχατον , τὸ τελευταῖον , etc., very frequently prefixed to a whole clause by way of apposition. See Kühner, II. p. 146, Obs. 2. The expression κεφάλαιον itself is here understood by many expositors in the sense of “sum;” according to which the author would express the intention of immediately comprehending or recapitulating the substance of all his previous disquisition in a single statement. So Laurentius Valla (“in summam autem”), Erasmus, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, H. Stephanus, Grotius (“post tot dicta haec esto summa”), Carpzov (“ut rem summatim et uno verbo complectar”), Stengel, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405), Conybeare, M‘Caul, etc. This signification, however, although linguistically justified, is here inadmissible, since the author is passing over to something essentially new; a recapitulation of the previous argument accordingly does not take place at all. But neither is the anarthrous κεφάλαιον —although in itself this is not inadmissible—to be taken as equivalent to τὸ κεφάλαιον , as is done by Theophylact ( ἵνα εἴπω τὸ μέγιστον καὶ συνεκτικώτερον ), Bleek (“the essential thing, to which all else is subordinated”), Ebrard (“the keystone”), Bisping (“the core of all”), Stuart, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. pp. 464, 481; Alford, Maier, Ewald, and others. For, besides the further main point in the superiority of the N. T. High Priest over the Levitical high priests, here to be mentioned (namely, His ministering in a better sanctuary), the author has yet before his mind the elucidation of a third leading distinction (that of the better sacrifice presented by Christ). Comp. Heb_9:9 ff.
ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ] cannot be referred back specially, as is assumed by Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammond, Carpzov, Schulz, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Ewald, and many others, to that which has already been said. For therewith the participle present λεγομένοις does not agree; εἰρημένοις must have been put instead of it. Nor, accordingly, can the sense be: “in addition to that already treated of” (Calov, Wolf, Rambach, Peirce, Storr, Ebrard, al.). On the contrary, ἐπί must be taken in the signification: “upon the supposition of,” “in the case of,” as Heb_9:17 and frequently, and ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις has essentially the same meaning as the genitive τῶν λεγομένων . Thus: now a main point in the case of those things we are speaking of (or: in our argument) is the following.
With the utmost violence does Hofmann tear the words asunder (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 406, and so still in his commentary, p. 302 f.), in that he will have κεφάλαιον δέ separated from ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις , and to the latter would supplement ἀρχιερεῦσιν , and renders: “besides those who are called high priests, we have a High Priest who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” That, moreover, the thought thus resulting would be a senseless one,—inasmuch as it would then follow that Christians have several sorts of high priests,—has already been pointed out by Nickel (in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 110). For how arbitrary it is when Hofmann seeks further to twist the statement, gained with so much toil, in the sense: “that the Christians possess a High Priest, compared with whom those who are so called have for them no significance,” hardly needs to be observed.
τοιοῦτον ] is a preparation for the following ὃς ἐκάθισεν κ . τ . λ . Wrongly does Böhme refer it back to τοιοῦτος , Heb_7:26, and Carpzov to ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρνῶν γενόμενος in the same verse. The latter, moreover, with an erroneous accentuation of the ἔχομεν : “habemus omnino talem pontificem sc. ὑψηλότερον τῶν οὐρανῶν , quippe qui adeo consedit ad dextram Dei ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ,” in connection with which the progress of the discourse is lost sight of, and the fact remains unnoticed that the centre of gravity in the statement, Heb_8:1-2, is contained only in Heb_8:2.
ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ] who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Psalms 110.). Comp. Heb_1:3 : ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς .
The opinion of Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Klee, Bleek, and Alford, that the author designed by ἐκάθισεν , too, to indicate a point of superiority in Christ over the Levitical high priests,—inasmuch as the latter, when they entered the Most Holy Place, instead of sitting down were required to stand,—is far-fetched. There is nothing in the context to lead to such supposition. It is otherwise (on account of the express opposition there met with ἕστηκεν … ἐκάθισεν ) chap. Heb_10:11-12.
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ] belongs to ἐκάθισεν , not to τῆς μεγαλωσύνης (Böhme), since otherwise the article would have been repeated; still less to the opening words of Heb_8:2 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 405 f.), since in that case τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς λειτουργός would have been the only natural expression, the rhythmical proportion of Heb_8:1-2 would have been destroyed, and the ἐν ὑψηλοῖς , Heb_1:3, parallel to the ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς in our passage, would have remained unnoticed as regards its coherence with that which precedes.