Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 12

Hebrews 12:2. κεκάθικεν] Elz.: ἐκάθισεν. But the perfect, adopted into the Editt. Complut. Genev. Plant., as also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others, has the preponderant attestation of all the uncials, most cursives, and many Fathers in its favour; and is likewise preferable on internal grounds, since it represents the having sat down as a result extending into the present time.

Hebrews 12:3. In place of the Recepta εἰς αὑτόν or εἰς αὐτόν, which has the support of D*** K L, almost all the cursives and many Fathers, there is found εἰς αὐτούς in א***, with Theodoret (τὸ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἑαυτούς), and in Cod. 17; εἰς ἑαυτούς, however, in א*, in the Peshito (quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adversarii sibi ipsis), in D* E*, together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a peccatoribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahidic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette write εἰς ἑαυτόν. The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate (in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading; the plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense.

ἀντικατέστητε] In place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L* 46, al., Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. ms.: ἀντεκατέστητε. This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 69 f.) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta ἀντικατέστητς, where ἀντεκ. has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L** א, etc. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. restored ἀντικ. in the editt. vii. and viii.

Hebrews 12:5. Elz.: Υἱέ μου. D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D E, have only Υἱέ. Bleek has on that account suspected μου, and enclosed it within brackets. External authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting.

Hebrews 12:7. εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 758), and Alford read εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, and Griesbach has placed εἰς upon the inner margin. In favour of εἰς pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D E (?) K L א, of more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damasc. Procop., while εἰ is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slav. (?), and, as it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless εἰς is inadmissible. For, whether εἰς παιδείαν is taken still with παραδέχεται, or, as Hofmann will have it, with μαστιγοῖ,—whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,—or it be combined with ὑπομένετε, in any case παιδεία must be understood in the sense of “education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that which follows, the signification “chastisement” becomes a necessity. Consequently the Recepta εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε is to be looked upon as that written by the author. The originality and correctness of this reading (defended also by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its recognition Hebrews 12:7-8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and antitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis.

In place of the Recepta τίς γάρ ἐστιν, we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, א* Vulg. Sahid. Orig., to write merely: τίς γάρ.

Hebrews 12:8. Elz.: νόθοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχ υἱοί. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to transpose into: νόθοι καὶ οὐς υἱοί ἐστε, after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the rest is wanting from πάντες, Hebrews 12:8, to the close of the Epistle] א, 17, 37, 80, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers.

Hebrews 12:9. Elz.: οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον. But A D* א (D* א*** with the addition of δέ) have οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον. Rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.

Hebrews 12:15. In place of the received διὰ ταύτης, we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt, etc., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): διʼ αὐτῆς; and in place of the Recepta πολλοί, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A א, 47, Clem. Theodoret: οἱ πολλοί. The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton πολλοί.

Hebrews 12:16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have followed him therein!) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word ἀπέδετο; but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebr. p. 40 f.), is manifestly corruption of the Recepta ἀπέδοτο, which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait.

On the other hand, the reading ἑαυτοῦ, given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits, on account of its more decided attestation by A C D** and D*** א*, the preference over the Recepta αὑτοῦ or αὐτοῦ.

Hebrews 12:18. Elz.: ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει. ὄρει, furnished by D K L, in like manner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. Polygl. Slav. Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C א, 17, 47, in many mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, however, indispensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει, Hebrews 12:22 (comp. also τοῦ ὄρους, Hebrews 12:20), as well as the confusion of idea in a πῦρ ψηλαφώμενον. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed ὄρει again in the text.

καὶ ζόφῳ] Elz.: καὶ σκότῳ. Against A C D* א* 17, 31, 39. al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. σκότῳ was introduced from the LXX. Deuteronomy 4:11; Deuteronomy 5:22.

Hebrews 12:19. In place of the Recepta προστεθῆναι, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had adopted προσθεῖναι, after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the Recepta in the larger edition. This reading is borne out by C D K L א, by, as it seems, all the cursives and many Fathers.

Hebrews 12:20. After λιθοβοληθήσεται, Elz. adds further: ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται. Against all uncials (A C D K L M א), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Exodus 19:13.

Hebrews 12:23. Elz.: ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένων. But the decisive testimony of A C D L M א, 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the transposition adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς.

Hebrews 12:24. κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι] Elz.: κρείττονα λαλοῦντι. Against A C D K L M א, most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. al., and many Fathers.

Hebrews 12:25. Elz.: ἔφογον τὸν ἐπί τῆς γῆς παραιτησάμενοι χρηματίζοντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Instead of this, however, we have to read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has given the preference to the verbum simplex ἔφυγον, over the verbum compositum ἐξέφυγον) Alford: ἐξέφυγον ἐπὶ γῆς παραιδησάμενοι τὸν χρηματίζοντα, πολὺ μᾶλλον, in that ἐξέφυγον (already approved by Grotius) is demanded by A C א* 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the article τῆς before γῆς (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., afterwards also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all the uncial mss. (including א), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article τόν only after παραιτησάμενοι is required by A C D M א* Cyril. Damasc.; finally, πολύ is required by A C D* א, Sahid.

Hebrews 12:26. Elz.: σείω. But A C M א, 6, 47, al., Syr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have σείσω. Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche.

Hebrews 12:27. Recepta: τῶν σαλευομένων τὴν μετάθεσιν. Better accredited, however (by A C א*), is Lachmann’s order of the words: τὴν τῶν σαλευομένων μετάθεσιν, which on that account is to be preferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article τήν. It is wanting, however, only in D* and M.

Hebrews 12:28. The reading ἔχομεν, which Calvin, Mill (Prolegg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by K א, more than twenty min., most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch., while the reading ἔχωμεν rests upon the testimony of A C D L M, etc., Copt. Syr. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., as also a ms. of the Vulg.

In that likewise which follows, the indicative λατρεύομεν, which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external attestation below the Recepta λατρεύωμεν. The former is found in K M א, about fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophyl. On the other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have λατρεύωμεν.

At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας, instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους, after A C D* א* 17, 71, 73, 80, 137, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: μετὰ δέους καὶ εὐλαβείας. Vulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia).

Hebrews 12:1. Conclusion from the total contents of chap. 11.

In the animating summons expressed Hebrews 12:1-2, the addition διʼ ὑπομονῆς, appended to the main verb τρέχωμεν, has the principal stress; comp. Hebrews 10:36, Hebrews 11:1. Of the participial clauses, however, the first and third are of the same kind, and are distinguished in equal degree from the second; as accordingly the former are introduced by participles of the present, the latter by a participle of the aorist. The first and third contain a ground of animation to the διʼ ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν; by the second, on the other hand, the historic preliminary condition to the διʼ ὑπομονῆς τρέχειν is stated. The euphonious τοιγαροῦν elsewhere in the N. T. only 1 Thessalonians 4:8.

καὶ ἡμεῖς] we also, namely, like the saints of the Old Covenant described chap. 11.

τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων] since we have so great a cloud of witnesses around us, or: since so great a cloud of witnesses surrounds us. ἔχοντες περικείμενον is intimately connected together, and is a periphrasis of the mere verbal notion, inasmuch as a genitive absolute: τοσούτου περικειμένου ἡμῖν κ.τ.λ., might have been employed instead. νέφος is a figurative designation (also of frequent occurrence with classical writers) of a densely compact crowd. Theodoret: πλῆθος τοσοῦτον, νέφος μιμούμενον τῇ πυκνότητι. Comp. Hom. Il. 4:274: ἅμα δὲ νέφος εἵπετο πεζῶν, al. Eurip. Hec. 901 f.: τοῖον Ἐλλάνων νέφος ἀμφί σε κρύπτει. Phoeniss. 1328 ff.: πότερʼ ἐμαυτὸν ἢ πόλιν στένω δακρύσας, ἣν πέριξ ἔχει νέφος τοσοῦτον, ὥστε διʼ Ἀχέροντος ἰέναι; Herod, viii. 109: νέφος τοσοῦτον ἀνθρώπων. Similarly also is the Latin nubes employed. Comp. e.g. Li v. 35. 49: rex contra peditum equitumque nubes jactat.

Those meant by the τοσοῦτον νέφος μαρτύρων are the persons mentioned chap. 11. When, however, these are characterized as a cloud of witnesses, the author does not intend to imply that these witnesses are present as spectators at the contest to be maintained by the readers (Hammond, Calmet, Böhme, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Hofmann), but represents them thereby as persons who have borne testimony for the πίστις which he demands of his readers,[113] and who consequently have become models for imitation to the readers as regards this virtue.

[113] The supposition of Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 757), Alford, Maier, and Moll, that in μαρτύρων, ver. 1, the idea of “spectators” blends with that of “witnesses to the faith,” bears its refutation upon the face of it. For the combining of that which is logically irreconcilable is not exegesis.

To this signification of μαρτύρων points with necessity the whole reasoning immediately foregoing. For as διʼ ὑπομονῆς, Hebrews 12:1, attaches again the discourse to ὑπομονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε χρείαν κ.τ.λ., Hebrews 10:36, so also the contents of chap. 11, which stand in close connection with the latter, are recapitulated by the words: τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων. On account, however, of this close connection of the first participial clause, Hebrews 12:1, with chap. 11., μαρτύρων cannot be otherwise interpreted than after the analogy of the characterization there made: μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Hebrews 11:39; ἐν ταύτῃ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, Hebrews 11:2; διʼ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήθη, Hebrews 11:4; and μεμαρτύρηται, Hebrews 11:5, in that only the slight distinction is made, justified in a natural manner by the varying form of designation, that while the persons named were before represented as those to whom a laudatory testimony was given in scripture on account of the πίστις manifested by them, they now appear as those who, by their conduct, have delivered a testimony in favour of their virtue of πίστις, and consequently have become patterns of the same for others. On account of this intimate coherence of the first participial clause, Hebrews 12:1, with chap. 11, a more nearly-defining addition, τῆς πίστεως to μαρτύρων, was, moreover, superfluous. That, however, μαρτύρων is in reality employed with reference to the πίστις which the author demands of his readers, is further shown by τῆς πίστεως, Hebrews 12:2, from which it is clearly apparent that the notion πίστις is still before the mind of the writer at Hebrews 12:2. It is therefore to be supposed that the discourse turns round to the figure of the race—to which, indeed, περικείμενον would already be appropriate, but to which this participle is not at all of necessity to be referred—only with ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι κ.τ.λ.

ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα] having put off every hindrance (opposed to the context, Bengel and others: every kind of pride or arrogance; Hofmann: all earthly care and sorrow). The man contending in the race avoided, in order to keep his body light, oppressive clothing and the like. In the application, the clinging of the readers to external Judaism is certainly, in particular, thought of as the hindrance. Yet the expression is quite general, and sin in the strict sense of the term, which is immediately after quite specially emphasized, is likewise included thereunder. For καί is not, with Grotius and others, to be taken explicatively, but further brings into relief, in the form of a parallel classification, a definite species, taken, on account of its special importance, out of the before-named genus.

Sin is termed εὐπερίστατος. This adjective exists only here in the whole range of Greek literature. It is most naturally derived from the middle voice: περιΐστασθαι, to place oneself round, or encompass. The sense is therefore: sin, which easily surrounds us and takes us captive. So the majority. Others derive εὐπερίστατος from the active περιΐστημι, then taking the word either in a passive or active sense. The explanation of Ernesti (ad Hesych. gloss. sacr. p. 140 sq.), that “as περίστατον denotes that which is thronged about by people who come to admire it, and ἀπερίστατος is said of a man about whom others do not stand, thus, who is destitute of friends; so εὐπερίστατος characterizes sin as rich in friends and patrons, as generally esteemed and liked,” has against it the consideration that from εὐπερίστατος, in this acceptation, the idea of that which is public and manifest is inseparable; but this idea is out of keeping with the notion of sin, which is just as often perpetrated in secret as in public. The interpretation: sin, which is easily to be gone round, encircled, or avoided (Chrysostom: ἢ τὴν εὐκόλως περίστασιν δυναμένην παθεῖν λέγει· μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο· ῥᾴδιον γάρ, ἐὰν θέλωμεν, περιγενέσθαι [get the better of] τῆς ἁμαρτίας; Pseudo-Athanasius, de parabol. Script. quaest. 133: εὐπερίστατον εἶπε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐπειδὰν μόνιμον στάσιν οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ ταχέως τρέπεται καὶ καταλύεται; Clericus, Morus, Ewald p. 172), would yield an unsuitable thought, since it could not possibly be the design of the author to represent the power of sin as small. The active explanation: seductive or enticing (Carpzov, Schulz, Stein), has against it the fact that all the other derivatives from ἵστημι, such as στατός, ἄστατος, etc., have an intransitive or passive signification. Others, again, in their explanations of εὐπερίστατος, follow the significations of the substantive περίστασις: sin, which easily plunges us into danger (Er. Schmid, Raphel, Bengel, Storr; comp. already Theophylact: ἢ διʼ ἣν εὐκόλως τις εἰς περιστάσεις ἐμπίπτει· οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω κινδυνῶδες ὡς ἁμαρτία); which brings with it many hindrances (Kypke, Michaelis, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bloomfield); which has circumstantias (surroundings), whereby it commends itself and seduces us (Hammond); quae bonis utitur rebus circumstantibus, i.e. quae habet suisque affert bonam fortunam atque voluptates (Böhme).

The ἁμαρτία is sin in general; not specially: the sin of apostasy from Christianity. On account of ἀποθέμενοι, the ἁμαρτία is thought of as a burden which we bear within us as a propensity, or about us as an encumbering garment.

τρέχειν ἀγῶνα] to run a race. Comp. Herod. viii. 102; Dion. Hal. vii. 48; Eurip. Orest. 875.

διʼ ὑπομονῆς] Romans 8:25.

Hebrews 12:1-13. In possession of such a multitude of examples, and with the eye uplifted to Jesus Himself, are the readers with stedfastness to maintain the conflict which lies before them, and to regard their sufferings as a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of fatherly love towards them.

Hebrews 12:2. Second factor in the encouragement. Not only the example of the O. T. witnesses for the faith, but also the example of the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Christ Himself, must animate us to a persevering τρέχειν.

ἀφορῶντες] in that we look forth (for our encouragement and for our ardent imitation). ἀφορᾶν (as, immediately after, τελειωτής) only here in the N. T.

εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελειωτὴν Ἰησοῦν] to the Beginner and Perfecter of the faith, Jesus, i.e. to Jesus, who has begun or awakened in us the Christian faith, and carries it on in us to perfection, or to the close (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and the majority), which last particular then naturally includes the attaining of salvation. But it is going too far when one finds—as Grotius, Bloomfield, and many others—in τελειωτής the figure of the βραβευτής, the judge or umpire of the games, who, on the completion of the contest, awards the prize of victory; for the expression itself does not warrant this special application. According to Bengel, Baumgarten, Schulz, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. z. Darmst. Ally. Kirch.-Zeit. 1857, No. 29, p. 667), Nickel (Reuter’s Repertor. March 1858, p. 208 f.), Riehm (Lehrbeyr. des Hebräerbr. p. 326), Maier, Moll, Kurtz,—comp. also Theodoret: Κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀμφότερα τέθεικεν,

ὁ τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸς καὶ τελειωτὴς Ἰησοῦς has the sense: Jesus, who in manifestation of the faith has preceded us by His example, and in the manifestation of this faith has carried on the work unto perfection.[114] But the virtue of faith the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not possibly predicate of Christ in like manner as he does of the Christians. From the lofty conception he had of the person of the Redeemer, he must, like the Apostle Paul, regard Him by whom the divine decrees of salvation were to be realized, as object of the πίστις. More than this, ΤΕΛΕΙΩΤΉς can be used only transitively, not also intransitively. ἀρχηγὸς τῆς πίστεως stands, therefore, in a sense quite analogous to that of the ἈΡΧΗΓῸς Τῆς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑς, Hebrews 2:10; and the exemplary characteristic in Jesus, to which the author directs his readers, is not already expressed by His being designated as ἈΡΧΗΓῸς ΚΑῚ ΤΕΛΕΙΩΤῊς Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς,—which, on the contrary, is only designed to make us aware of the assistance which Christ affords the Christians in the ΤΡΈΧΕΙΝ,—but first is expressed by means of the following relative clause.

ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς] who for the (heavenly) joy lying ready for Him, the obtaining of which should be the reward of His sufferings. So Primasius, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Bengel, Whitby, Schulz, Böhme, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 357), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. ἀντί, as Hebrews 12:16. For ΧΑΡΆ, however, comp. Matthew 25:21. Comprehended under the ΠΡΟΚΕΙΜΈΝΗ ΑὐΤῷ ΧΑΡΆ is also the joy over the completed work of redemption, with its blessings for mankind; yet it is erroneous, with Theodoret (ΧΑΡᾺ ΔῈ ΤΟῦ ΣΩΤῆΡΟς ΤῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ Ἡ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ), to limit it thereto. The sense is not: instead of the heavenly glory which He already had as the premundane Logos, and which He might have retained, but which He gave up by His incarnation (Peshito, Gregory Nazianz. in Oecum.: ᾧ ἐξὸν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰδίας δόξης τε καὶ θεότητος, οὐ μόνον ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν ἄχρι τῆς δούλου μορφῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ σταυρὸν ὑπέμεινεν κ.τ.λ.; Beza, Nemethus, Heinrichs, Ewald). Nor is it: instead of the earthly freedom from suffering, which, as the sinless One, He could have procured for Himself (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Calov, al.); or: instead of the joys of the world, which Jesus, had He willed it, could have partaken of (Calvin, Wolf, Carpzov, Stein, Bisping, al.). For the immediate concern of the author must evidently be to point to the prize which Christ was to receive in return for His sufferings, in order thereupon further to indicate that to the readers likewise, upon their persevering in the conflict, the palm of victory will not be wanting. A further consideration is, that also the closing member of the verse, which is closely attached by means of τέ to that which precedes, has for its subject-matter still the thought of the reward conferred upon Christ.

ὙΠΈΜΕΙΝΕΝ ΣΤΑΥΡΌΝ, ΑἸΣΧΎΝΗς ΚΑΤΑΦΡΟΝΉΣΑς] endured the cross, in that He contemned the infamy. For the death of the cross was crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium (Cic. Verr. 5. 64).

ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν] and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Comp. Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 8:1, Hebrews 10:12.

[114] Inconsistently does Delitzsch adhere to this explanation (and similarly Alford and Kluge),—in reference, indeed, to the notion ὁ τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγός,—but rejects it in reference to the notion, necessarily combining in homogeneity therewith, ὁ τῆς πίστεως τελειωτής. The sense is supposed to be: “Jesus is the Prince of faith: for upon the path on which faith has to run, He has gone first to open the way; He is faith’s Completer: for upon this path He leads us to the goal.” That Jesus Himself reached the goal upon this path, is then supposed to be an unuttered intermediate thought (!).

Hebrews 12:3. Γάρ] is here, on account of the imperative, the corroborative: Yea! (comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 415 f.); and ἀναλογίζεσθαι, in the N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, denotes the comparing or reflecting contemplation. Bengel: Comparatione instituta cogitate: Dominus tanta tulit; quanto magis servi ferant aliquid?

ἀντιλογία, however, denotes nothing else than contradiction; and what is meant is, the contending against Christ’s divine Sonship and Messianic dignity. The notion of opposition and ill-usage in act, which is ordinarily assigned to it (still also by Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and Maier) along with that of contradiction, this word never has. Even ἀντιλέγειν, to which appeal is made, has nowhere the sense of a hostile resistance manifesting itself in outward actions. See Meyer on Luke 2:34; John 19:12; Romans 10:21.

τοιαύτην] such, i.e. one so great, sc. that He was compelled to undergo the ignominious death of the cross (Hebrews 12:2), in comparison with which your sufferings are something insignificant.

ἵνα μὴ κάμητε κ.τ.λ.] that ye may not grow weary, desponding in your souls. ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν is to be conjoined with ἐκλυόμενοι (Beza, Er. Schmid, Hammond, Kuinoel, Bleek, de Wette, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, al.), not with κάμητε (Luther, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Schulz, Böhme, and others), since otherwise something of a dragging character would be imparted to the participle.

Hebrews 12:4 ff. The sufferings which have come upon the readers are only small, and a salutary chastisement at the hand of God.

Οὔπω μέχρις αἵματος κ.τ.λ.] Not yet unto blood, i.e. to such extent that bloodshed should result, that a martyr’s death[115] among you should be a necessity (as such death had but just now been mentioned of the O. T. saints, chap. 11, and of Christ Himself, Hebrews 12:2), have ye offered resistance in your contest against sin. The author has, as Hebrews 10:32 ff., only the present generation of Palestinian Christians, to whom he is speaking, before his eyes. It is otherwise at Hebrews 13:7.

πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν] belongs to ἈΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΖΌΜΕΝΟΙ (against Bengel, who conjoins it with ἈΝΤΙΚΑΤΈΣΤΗΤΕ), and Ἡ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ stands not in the sense of ΟἹ ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛΟΊ, Hebrews 12:3 (Carpzov, Heinrichs, Stuart, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Maier, Kluge, Grimm in the Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 43, al.),—for there would exist no reason for the avoiding of this concrete expression,[116]—but is the inner sin, conceived of as a hostile power or person, which entices the man (visited with sufferings and persecutions) to an apostasy from Christianity. Comp. ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 3:13.

In ἀντικατέστητε ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι—both verbs in the N. T. only here—the author has, what is wrongly denied by de Wette and Maier (in like manner as Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:26), passed over from the figure of the race to the kindred one of the combat with the fists.

[115] Wrongly is it supposed by Holtzmann (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, H. 2, p. 301; Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 4) that a reminder of a martyrdom not yet endured is remote from the connection. The discourse is said to be of a resistance πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. Sin, in this conflict with the flesh, would not allow it to be continued unto blood. For this very reason it is necessary to resist sin μέχρις αἵματας, ever anew to reanimate the weary limbs for the continuance of the conflict (Hebrews 12:12). In the same manner, too, does Kurtz find only a proverbial figurative expression for an earnest, decided, and unsparing resistance to the sinful desire in μέχρις αἵματας. But though in German “bis auf’s Blut” (even to blood) has proverbial figurative acceptance in the sense of “to the very uttermost,” yet assuredly neither αἷμα nor yet sanguis is anywhere else employed in this proverbial sense.

[116] At least no one will recognise as apposite that which Ebrard adduces as such,—to wit, that in ver. 3 “the whole (!) of mankind as the sinners (the class of sinners) might be opposed to Christ; whereas to the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who were themselves ἁμαρτωλοί, the enemies of Christianity could not be opposed as the sinners.

Hebrews 12:5-6. Καὶ ἐκλέλησθε κ.τ.λ.] And have ye forgotten, etc.? The words are most naturally to be taken, with Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Braun, Jos. Hallet, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stuart, Lachmann, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Ewald, as a question. If we would, as is usually done, take them as an assertory statement (“and ye have forgotten”), the reproach contained in the same would come out more strongly than is consonant with the mild character of the discourse in this section. The verb ἐκλανθάνεσθαι, as presently after ὀλιγωρεῖν, in the N. T. only here.

τῆς παρακλήσεως] the consolation (or else: the animating address).

ἥτις ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς διαλέγεται] which, of a truth, speaks to you as to sons. By virtue of ἥτις (in place of which there is no sufficient ground for writing, with Hofmann, ᾗ τις) the following consolatory utterance (Υἱέ … παραδέχεται), adduced from Proverbs 3:11-12,—from which also Philo, de congressu quaer. erudit. gr. p. 449 D (with Mangey, I. p. 544 f.), reasons in a similar manner,—is pre-supposed as one sufficiently familiar to the readers. By διαλέγεται, however, the same is personified; since διαλέγεσθαί τινι denotes conversing with any one (here, as it were, the answering in reply to the complaint breathed forth by the readers).

Υἱέ μου] With the LXX. only: Υἱέ.

μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου] despise not chastening from the Lord, i.e. be thankful for it, when the Lord chastens thee.

μηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος] nor despond when thou art corrected of Him (by means of sufferings which He imposes upon thee).

Hebrews 12:6. Παιδεύει] him He chasteneth. So in the LXX. Cod. A, and fifteen other MSS. The remaining manuscripts of the LXX. have, what is probably the original reading: ἐλέγχει.

μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται] and scourges every son whom He receives (adopts as His). According to present punctuation, the words in Hebrew read: וּכְאָב אֶת־בֵּן יִרְצֶה, and (He chastens) as a father the son in whom he delights. Instead of כְּאָב, the LXX., however, read כָאֵב (to cause pain).

Hebrews 12:7-8. Application of the word of scripture to the readers.

Εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε] If ye endure chastening. The opposite of this is formed by the εἰ δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, Hebrews 12:8. The emphasis falls, therefore, upon παιδείαν; and to explain ὑπομένειν as a “stedfast” or “persevering” enduring (Theodoret, Erasm. Paraphr., Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, al.) is inadmissible.

ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός] God deals with you as with sons, treats you as sons. By as harsh a construction as possible (comp. ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς, Hebrews 12:5), Ebrard will have ὡς taken as a conjunction, and translates,—espousing the incorrect reading (see the critical obs.) εἰς παιδείαν,—“for your instruction endure manfully, even as (or when, so long as) God offers Himself to you as to sons!”

For the genuine Greek formula προσφέρεσθαί τινι, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., see examples in Wetstein.

τίς γὰρ υἱὸς κ.τ.λ.] sc. ἐστίν: for what son is there, i.e. where is there a son, whom the father chastens not? This comprehending together of τίς υἱός (Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, Ewald) is more natural than that one should regard τίς alone as the subject: who is indeed a son, whom, etc. (Delitzsch, Moll, and others); or, with Böhme, as the predicate: of what kind is a son, whom, etc.