Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

CHAPTER 3

Hebrews 3:1. Ἰησοῦν] Recepta: Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Rightly rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. For against it stands the preponderating authority of A B C* D* M א, 17, 34, al., many VSS. and Greek as well as Latin Fathers, and not less the usus loquendi of the epistle, since Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς is found nowhere else therein, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός only [Hebrews 6:20, with D* E* It.] Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 13:8 [20, with D* 17, al.], 21; quite commonly, on the other hand, the simple Ἰησοῦς (Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 4:14, Hebrews 6:20, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 12:2; Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:12; Hebrews 13:20) or the simple Χριστός (Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 5:5, Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 11:26).

Hebrews 3:2. ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ] Instead thereof, Tisch. 1 and 2 reads merely ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. But for the deletion of ὅλῳ the authority of B, Sahid. Erp. Ambr. does not suffice. ὅλῳ is defended not only by A C D E K L M א, Vulg. al., but also by the consideration that it forms a constituent part of the passage Numbers 12:7, to which the writer has respect, and the complete formula ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ is, on account of its repetition in Hebrews 3:5, already presupposed for Hebrews 3:2.

Hebrews 3:3. οὗτος δόξης] Elz. Matthaei, Bloomfield: δόξης οὗτος. Against A B C D E א, 37, 47, al., It. Chrys. Transposition for bringing into marked relief the opposition οὗτος παρὰ Μωϋσῆν.

Hebrews 3:4. In place of the Recepta τὰ πάντα, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. read only πάντα. To be preferred, not merely on account of the strong attestation by A B C* D* E* K M א, al. mult., Chrys. ms., but also because the notion of the universe, which τὰ πάντα would contain, does not suit the connection.

Hebrews 3:6. In place of ἐάνπερ, Lachm. (this editor, however, only in the edit. stereot.; in the larger edition he adds περ in brackets) and Tisch. have adopted, after B D* E* M א* 17, the mere ἐάν. The author, however, is fond of the fuller ἐάνπερ (comp. Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 6:3), and here it has preponderating testimonies (A C D*** E** K L א*** Lucif. Cal.) in its favour.

μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν] Instead of this, Tisch. 2 and 7 reads merely κατάσχωμεν. But, for the omission of the words μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν (already condemned by Mill, Prolegg. 1208, and more recently by Delitzsch and Alford), the authority of B, Aeth. Lucif. Ambr. does not suffice; and as a gloss from Hebrews 3:14 they can hardly be regarded, inasmuch as, with regard to the object the author has in view, they are just as little without significance here as there. See, moreover, the observations of Reiche, p. 19 sq.

Hebrews 3:9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. have ἐπείρασάν με οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν, ἐδοκίμασάν με. Defended also by Reiche. But the only accredited reading is ἐπείρασαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ. Already preferred by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, al. ἐπείρασαν, in place of ἐπείρασάν με, is demanded by A B C D* E* א* 17, It. Copt. Lucif.; ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ in place of ἐδοκίμασάν με, by A B C D* E M א* 73, 137, It. Copt. Lucif. Clem. Al. protrept. c. 9, § 84, Didym.

Hebrews 3:10. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf. Reiche: τῇ γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ. More correctly, after A B D* M א, 6, 17, al., Vulg. Clem. Did. Bengel, Böhme, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford (recommended also by Griesb.): τῇ γενεᾷ ταὑτῃ. Deviating from the LXX., the author chose ταύτῃ, in order to make the bearing of the passage upon the readers the more palpable.

Hebrews 3:13. The Recepta τὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν (adopted by Tisch. 8) is, with Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford, al., to be transposed into ἐξ ὑμῶν τις, in accordance with B D E K L, 46, 48, Theodoret, Damasc. al. By means of the transposition, the person of the readers, in opposition to the fathers in the wilderness, comes out more emphatically, and more in accordance with the context.

Hebrews 3:14. Elz. Matthaei, Bloomf.: γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ] But the important attestation by A B C D E H M 37, א, al., Vulg. Clar. Germ. Cyr. Damasc. Lucif. Hilar. Hier. Ambr. Vigil. Taps. decides in favour of the order of the words τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν; accepted by Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Alford, al.

Hebrews 3:1. Ὅθεν] refers back to the total characterization of Christ given in chaps. Hebrews 1:2. Wherefore, i.e. seeing that it stands in such wise with Christ, His nature and disposition. As regards its contents, ὅθεν is unfolded by the τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν immediately following, inasmuch as by these designations the preceding total-characterization of Christ is recapitulated in its two main features (vid. infra). For if the author says: “Therefore regard well Jesus, the ἀπόστολος καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν!” that is only a Greek form of expression for the thought: “Therefore, because Jesus is the ἀπόστολος καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, regard Him well!”

ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι] belongs together. With Michaelis, to separate the two words from each other by a comma, would be permissible only if by the isolation thereof a gradation were obtained. But this is not the case; since then only two relations parallel to each other, namely, on the one side the relation of the readers to the author (ἀδελφοί), and on the other side their relation to the non-Christian world (ἅγιοι), would be rendered separately prominent.

ἀδελφοί] designates the readers not as brethren of Christ (so with an unwarranted appeal to Hebrews 2:11-12; Hebrews 2:17, Peirce, Michaelis, Carpzov, Pyle; comp. also Delitzsch, according to whom this is at least also to be thought of), nor does it express the brotherly relation in the national sense, i.e. the descent from the Jewish people common to the author and readers (Chr. Fr. Schmid), but has reference to the spiritual, ideal brotherly relationship, into which author and recipients of the letter have been brought towards each other by the common bond of Christianity.

κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι] ye who are partakers of a heavenly calling. This second direct address—to which Grotius needlessly supplies “nobiscum”—strengthens the former, and the two forms of address explain the ground of the obligation to the κατανοεῖν, by pointing to the reader’s state of grace. κλῆσις stands actively. It denotes the call or invitation, which God[54] has by Christ given to the readers, to participation in the Messianic kingdom. This calling, however, is termed ἐπουράνιος, either because the blessings, the possession of which it promises, are existent in heaven and of heavenly nature (Grotius, al.), or, what is more probable, because they have come to men from heaven [so Owen], where God their supreme author has His throne, and whence Christ their proclaimer and procurer (Vermittler) was sent forth. It is possible, however, that both references are to be combined: “a calling which proceeds from heaven and leads to heaven.” So Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 693; Alford, Maier, Kurtz, and others.

κατανοήσατε] direct your view to Jesus, sc. in order to cleave firmly to Him; regard well what He is and what you have in Him!

τὸν ἀπόστολου καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν] the Envoy and High Priest of our confession, is comprehended into a unity of idea by the article τὸν only once placed (“Him who is ἀπόστολος and ἀρχιερεύς in one person”), in connection with which τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν is then also most naturally referred in equal degree to both substantives. τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, however, is not to be resolved into δν ὁμολογοῦμεν (Luther, Cameron, Calov. Wolf, de Wette, Maier, and others; similarly Delitzsch: “who is the subject-matter of our confession;” and Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 427 f.: “who appertains to our confession”), but stands, like πίστις, Galatians 1:23, and ἐλπίς, Colossians 1:5, objectively: of our Christian confession (of our evangelical faith). Comp. Hebrews 4:14, Hebrews 10:23; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 6:12-13. [So Calvin, Piscator, Owen (with hesitation), Stuart.] The opposition is to the pre-Christian or Mosaic confession, without, however, the emphasis, as Kurtz supposes, falling upon ἡμῶν, which is forbidden by the position of the words: The deputed One (sc. of God) for our confession, i.e. sent by God (comp. Galatians 4:4; Matthew 10:40, al.) in order to bring about our confession or Christian faith. The signification “mediator,” which Tholuck attaches to the word ἀπόστολος, after the example of Braun and others, appealing in favour thereof to the authority of Rabbinico-talmudic usage, the latter never has. The notion of mediator follows, alike for ἀπόστολον as also for ἀρχιερέα, only from the context. By ἀπόστολον, namely, is referred back to the main thought of the last and highest divine revelation (the λαλεῖν), contained in Christ, of which the writer has treated Hebrews 1:1 to Hebrews 2:4; by ἀρχιερέα, to the main thought of the reconciliation of sinful humanity to God by Christ, then further treated in the second chapter. Aptly, therefore, does Bengel distinguish ἀπόστολου and ἀρχιερέα as “eum, qui Dei causam apud nos agit” and “qui nostram causam apud Deum agit.”

[54] For God, as everywhere with Paul also, not Christ, as Delitzsch supposes, is thought of as the καλῶν.

Hebrews 3:1-6. Even above Moses is Christ exalted. By so much higher than Moses does He stand, as the son exercising authority over his own house has precedence over the servant of the house. This new dogmatic consideration, to which the discourse now advances, was indeed already contained implicite as the minus, in the preceding argument as the majus; it must, however, still be separately insisted on, inasmuch as, in addition to the angels as the suprahuman agents (Vermittler) in connection with the founding of the Old Covenant, Moses, as the human agent (Vermittler) in the founding of the same, could not remain unmentioned. Appropriately to the subject, however, the author treats of this new point of comparison only with brevity, blending the same with the exhortation, derived from that which precedes, to cleave firmly unto the end to Christ and the Christian hope; and then, from Hebrews 3:7 forward, further developing this exhortation in detail,—in the form of a parallel instituted between the people of God of the present time, i.e. the Christians, and the people of God of Moses’ time,—in their interest, with even a warning impressiveness.

On Hebrews 3:1-6, comp. Carl Wilh. Otto, der Apostel und Hohepriester unsres Bekenntnisses. An Exegetical Study on Hebrews 3:1-6, Leipz. 1861, 8vo.[53]

[53] This writer finds (comp. p. 96), by dint of a long extended chain of arbitrary assertions and erroneous presuppositions, the absolutely impossible sense in the words: “(Ver. 1) From this (Hebrews 2:10-18), beloved brethren, who, delivered from death, are presented a sacrifice to God, and have your right of citizenship in heaven, perceive that the Ambassador and High Priest, who in His own person has borne our confession to the heavenly goal, and as mediator continually introduces into heaven, namely Jesus (ver. 2), is one entrusted (an organ of confidence) of Him who made Him (such), i.e. (comp. p. 65) called Him into existence as Jesus, as was also Moses in the house of God, i.e. in the limitation and subordination, as this was presupposed by his position in the house of God. (Ver. 3) For (comp. p. 87) greater glory (i.e. higher position of power) has been vouchsafed to this man than to Moses, in which measure, as the house (sc. of God), so has He who has fitted it up, greater honour (sic!). (Ver. 4) For every house is fitted up by some one (but to correspond to all its requirements, no one is able); He, however, who has fitted it up with all things (sc. as Jesus the house of God, for time and eternity) is omnipotent, is of divine nature. (Ver. 5) And Moses, indeed, was trustworthy in all his house, as a servant, to testify what was to be revealed (ver. 6); Jesus, however, as the Christ (comp. p. 90), trustworthy as Son (sc. of God) over His (sc. God’s) house. Whose (sc. God’s) house we are and remain, if at any rate we retain the joyfulness and boasting of hope to the end.”

Hebrews 3:2. The discourse takes a turn, by virtue of a further alleging of reasons for the κατανοήσατε, to the comparison of Jesus with Moses, in that first of all the relation of parity between the two is brought prominently forward. The O. T. passage which the author here has under consideration is Numbers 12:7, where Moses is designated by God as faithful in all His house.

ὄντα] characterizes the being faithful as an inherent property; the sense of a strict present is not to be asserted for the participle (with Seb. Schmidt and Bleek), according to which we should have to think only of an exalted Christ; rather does πιστὸν ὄντα attach itself as well to the notion Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀπόστολον τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν as to the notion Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν; ὄντα embraces, therefore, equally the time from which Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, had appeared upon earth, and the time from which He, invested with the high-priestly dignity, has returned to the Father, and now continues to fulfil in heaven His high-priestly office.

τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν] Periphrasis of God: Him who created Him. Only this sense of the calling forth into existence can the word ποιεῖν have when placed absolutely; comp. LXX. Isaiah 17:7; Isaiah 43:1; Isaiah 51:13; Hosea 8:14; Job 35:10; Psalm 95:6; Psalm 149:2; Sir 7:30, al. Rightly is this accepted by the early Latin translation of the codd. D E (fidelem esse creatori suo), Ambrose (de fide, 3. 11), Vigilius Tapsensis (contra Varimadum, p. 729), Primasius, Schulz, Bleek, Alford, Kurtz, and Hofmann. Contrary to linguistic usage—for an appeal cannot be made to 1 Samuel 12:6 (where ποιεῖν (עָשָׂה) has its ordinary signification), and still less to Mark 3:14 (where a nearer defining is given to the verb by means of ἵνα κ.τ.λ.), or to Acts 2:36 (where a double accusative is found)—do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Vatablus, Clarius [Calvin], Cameron, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Böhme, Kuinoel, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 286 f.), Reuss, Maier, Kluge, Moll, M‘Caul, Woerner, and the majority, interpret τῷ ποιήσαντι either by: who appointed Him thereto (sc. Apostle and High Priest), or ordained Him thereto; or—what amounts to the same thing—explaining the supplementing of a second accusative to ποιήσαντι as unnecessary, by: who set Him forth upon the stage of history. Whether, for the rest, the author referred the notion of having created to the incarnation of Christ, as the above-mentioned early ecclesiastical writers suppose, or to His premundane generation as the First-born (cf. Hebrews 1:5-6), which Bleek rightly regards as at least possible, cannot be determined.[55]

Ὡς ΚΑῚ ΜΩΫΣῆς] sc. πιστὸς ἦν τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν.

ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ] does not belong to ΠΙΣΤῸΝ ὌΝΤΑ Τῷ ΠΟΙΉΣΑΝΤΙ ΑὐΤΌΝ, in such wise that we have, with Calvin, Paulus, Bleek, Ebrard, and Hofmann, to enclose Ὡς ΚΑῚ ΜΩΫΣῆς within commas, but is to be comprehended with Ὡς ΚΑῚ ΜΩΫΣῆς (de Wette, Kurtz, and the majority). For not only, Numbers 12:7, do the words appended: ἘΝ ὍΛῼ Τῷ ΟἼΚῼ ΑὐΤΟῦ, stand in special relation to Moses,—so that the author might very well derive from that place the same addition with the same special reference to Moses,—but also the equal reference of ἘΝ ὍΛῼ Τῷ ΟἼΚῼ ΑὐΤΟῦ to Christ, as to Moses, would be unsuitable to the connection with that which follows, since the author, Hebrews 3:5 and Hebrews 3:6, definitely distinguishes the place occupied by Moses, as the position of a servant ἘΝ ὍΛῼ Τῷ ΟἼΚῼ, from the place occupied by Christ, as a position of ruler ἘΠῚ ΤῸΝ ΟἾΚΟΝ; and in harmony with this distinction, already Hebrews 3:3 characterizes Moses as merely a member of the ΟἾΚΟς itself; Christ, on the other hand, as the founder of the ΟἾΚΟς.

ΑὐΤΟῦ] refers neither to Christ (Bleek) nor to Moses (Oecumenius and others), but, as is also determined by the form of the expression with the LXX. (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου), to God.

But the house of God is the people of God, or the kingdom of God; and ἐν denotes the province, in the administration of which the πιστὸν εἶναι was made manifest.

[55] That which Delitzsch urges against either possibility, namely, that “although the man Jesus as such, so far as that which is essential in the notion of creation is the state of beginning in time, must be regarded as a creature, there could be no more unsuitable expression—because one almost unmeaningly colourless, or even indecorous—for the matchless and unique act of the formation of the humanity of the Son in the womb of Mary, than the term ποιεῖν, for the use of which, in this sense, no instances can on that very account be adduced;” and that “after the author has, Hebrews 1:2, employed ποιεῖν as expression of the pure idea of creation, he could surely not now have employed it of the sublimer genesis of the Mediator of the world’s creation,” falls to pieces, because it rests upon mere subjectivity. For it is nothing more than a pronouncing upon the mind of the writer from the standpoint of the critic’s own ready-formed dogmatics.

Hebrews 3:3.[56] Continued alleging of reasons for the καταΝΟΉΣΑΤΕ, Hebrews 3:1, in bringing into more distinct relief the exaltedness of Christ above Moses. Hebrews 3:3 is not, as de Wette supposes, explication or analysis of Hebrews 3:2. For a placing upon a parallel cannot be explained or analysed by a placing superior.

ΑὟΤΟς] sc. Ἰησοῦς.

On ΠΑΡΆ after a comparative, see at Hebrews 1:4.

ἨΞΊΩΤΑΙ] has been counted worthy, sc. by God. The verb stands, as ordinarily (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 10:29), in the real sense, so that it includes the notion of the possession obtained.

The figure in the proposition of comparison, καθʼ ὅσον πλείονα τιμὴν ἔχει τοῦ οἴκου κ.τ.λ., is occasioned by the preceding ἘΝ ὍΛῼ Τῷ ΟἼΚῼ ΑὐΤΟῦ added in Hebrews 3:2. The words contain a truth of universal validity, the application of which, for the rest, to Christ and Moses, follows of itself. Greater honour than the house (in the wider sense [of household], the family and servants included therein) has he who has prepared it. Thus, also, Christ stands higher in honour and glory than Moses. For founder and establisher of the house of God, or the divine kingdom,—which in its first formations reaches back to the time of the Old Covenant, but by the New Covenant comes to full realization,—is Christ; while Moses is only a part of the οἶκος itself, only a (ministering, cf. Hebrews 3:5) member of this house, or an ΟἸΚΈΤΗς in the same. Confusing and full of caprice is the indication of the connection of thought of Hebrews 3:3-6 as given by Delitzsch. See, in opposition to him, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 309.

τοῦ οἴκου] is governed by the comparative ΠΛΕΊΟΝΑ: more (greater) honour than the house. Mistakenly do Homberg, Wolf, Peirce, Michaelis, Heumann, Semler, Morus, Ernesti, Heinrichs, Paulus, Stengel, and others make it depend upon τιμήν: greater honour of the house, or in the house.

κατασκευάζειν] implies more than ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖΝ. Not only the erection of the house, but also the arrangement thereof, the providing of it with the necessary furniture and servants, is thereby expressed.

[56] Comp. Gabler, Dissert. exeg. in illustrem locum Hebrews 3:3-6, Jena 1778. (Reprinted in the Opuscc. acad. vol. II. Ulm 1831, 8.)

Hebrews 3:4. The author has spoken, Hebrews 3:2, of the house of God, and yet, Hebrews 3:3, has ascribed the founding and preparing of the same to Christ. For the justification of this apparent contradiction does the remark, Hebrews 3:4, serve. Although every house has its special preparer, yet this notwithstanding, it is God who has prepared all things. That special foundership of Christ does not exclude the universal higher foundership of God. The proposition Hebrews 3:4 is incidental to the main argument. It is not, however, to be enclosed in a parenthesis, because αὐτοῦ, Hebrews 3:5, refers back to θεός, Hebrews 3:4.

In the second clause, θεός is subject, and ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας predicate. Wrongly has θεός been ordinarily taken by others as predicate, and as subject either ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας or merely ὁ δέ, since πάντα κατασκευάσας was taken as a defining adjunct. The second member of the proposition was then referred to Christ, and the statement found therein that Christ is God. So Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Beza, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron, Piscator, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Braun, Akersloot, Calmet, Bengel, Cramer, Whitby, Stuart, Baumgarten, and many others; also still Woerner. But with this thought the sequel is not in keeping. For not of Christ’s being God, but of His exalted relation to the house of God as the υἱός, while Moses was only a θεράπων, does the author speak, Hebrews 3:5-6.

πάντα] denotes not the universality of all created things, thought of as a unity, but in general: each and all, that exists.

Hebrews 3:5 as far as αὐτοῦ, Hebrews 3:6. Return to the point of comparison between Christ and Moses, Hebrews 3:2 (πιστός), and the exaltedness of the former above the latter, Hebrews 3:3 (υἱός, ἐπί … θεράπων, ἐν).

καί] is the more sharply-defining “and indeed;” whereas μέν serves to bring into relief the personal name Μωϋσῆς, and finds in Χριστὸς δέ, Hebrews 3:6, its emphatic opposition. Hebrews 3:5-6 init. does not, accordingly, contain a second proof for the superiority of Christ to Moses (Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Woerner), but is only a more detailed unfolding of the thoughts, Hebrews 3:2 and Hebrews 3:3.

πιστός] sc. ἦν, or else ἐστίν, in connection with which latter mode of supplementing, the thought would be less of the historic fact as such, than of the fact as it still continues present in the O. T. narrative.

αὐτοῦ] refers not to Μωϋσῆς (as Ebrard assumes, since he starts with the erroneous presupposition that the author speaks of a twofold οἶκος, and that the design of Hebrews 3:5-6 was just that of rendering clearly apparent the difference of the house entrusted to Moses on the one hand, and that entrusted to Christ on the other), but to θεός, Hebrews 3:4.

ὡς θεράπων] in his capacity as servant, comp. Numbers 12:7. Upon this, as upon the preceding ἐν, rests the emphasis of Hebrews 3:5.

εἰς μαρτύριον] belongs to θεράπων. It is unnaturally referred back by Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Stengel, and others to πιστός

εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων] to give testimony to that which should be spoken, or proclaimed to the people. Τὰ λαληθησόμενα are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ (Erasmus, Calvin, Cameron, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Wetstein, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Ewald, M‘Caul, Woerner, and others), which must have been more precisely specified; and still less does the expression indicate: “dicenda a nobis in hac epistola de cerimoniis earumque significatione et usu” (Pareus), but the law to be proclaimed by Moses, at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended.

Hebrews 3:6. Χριστὸς δέ ὡς υἱός] Christ, on the other hand, in His capacity as Son, sc. πιστός ἐστιν. Upon this supplement depends ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ (comp. Matthew 25:21; Matthew 25:23); and as υἱός forms an ascent from the preceding θεράπων, so does ἐπί form an ascent from the preceding ἐν. Erasmus, Paraphr.; Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Delitzsch, Moll, and others supply to Χριστὸς δὲ … αὐτοῦ simply ἐστίν, whereby, however, the relation of just proportion between Hebrews 3:5 and Hebrews 3:6 is destroyed. The opening words of Hebrews 3:5, moreover,—inasmuch as they attach themselves not only to Hebrews 3:3, but also again to Hebrews 3:2,—manifestly point to the fact that the author will indicate not the mere difference between Christ and Moses, but their difference within the quality common to both. Yet others, as Bleek, de Wette, and Bisping, supply a double πιστός ἐστιν, the first after Χριστὸς δέ, the second after αὐτοῦ; since, as the Vulgate, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Owen, Er. Schmid, Calov, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Baumgarten, Gabler, Valckenaer, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Tholuck, and others, they refer αὐτοῦ back to υἱός: Christ, however, is faithful, as a son is faithful over his house. But a satisfactory ground for taking οἶκος αὐτοῦ, Hebrews 3:6, otherwise than the same expression Hebrews 3:5, is not to be found. The house of God, or the divine kingdom, is for Moses and Christ the common sphere of operation; only by the position which the two occupy towards this house, are they distinguished the one from the other.

As αὐτοῦ, Hebrews 3:6, so is the relative οὗ, with which the author prepares the way for a transition to the paraenesis, not to be referred to Christ (Oecumenius, Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Whitby, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Woerner, al.), but to God (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Stengel, Stuart, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others); although as regards the matter itself even the former reference would not be incorrect, since the house of God, Hebrews 3:2, is likewise characterized as the house of Christ, Hebrews 3:3.

The article before οἶκος was not imperatively required, although the whole Christian community forms a single indivisible house of God, since the notion of the word was one sufficiently well known, and, moreover, adequately defined by that which precedes.

The absolute declaration: οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, on the import of which 1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:20 ff., 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 4:17, is to be compared,[57] and which is taken in a strangely perverted way by Ebrard (p. 137) and Delitzsch as the logical antithesis to ΕἸς ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ ΤῶΝ ΛΑΛΗΘΗΣΟΜΈΝΩΝ, Hebrews 3:5, the author limits by a condition.

The fuller ἘΆΝΠΕΡ is foreign to the epistles of Paul.

ΤῊΝ ΠΑῤῬΗΣΊΑΝ] not the bold confession (Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Heinrichs, and others), to which βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν would not be fitting, but cheerful confidence as a disposition. Comp. Hebrews 4:16, Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 10:35. τὴν παῤῥησίαν, to which Τῆς ἘΛΠΊΔΟς[58] belongs in like manner as to τὸ καύχημα (against Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 739), is the main idea, whereas καὶ τὸ καύχημα adds only an explicative subsidiary factor. That is manifest from the feminine βεβαίαν (which Stengel wonderfully refers back, in a constructio ad sensum, to ἐλπίδος). Instances of the agreement of the adjective in point of gender with the remoter substantive, in cases where this forms the principal idea, occur also with the classics. Comp. Hom. Il. xv. 344: τάφρῳ καὶ σκολόπεσσιν ἐνιπλήξαντες ὀρυκτῇ; Hesiod. Theogon. 972 f.: ὃς εἶσʼ ἐπὶ γῆν τε, καὶ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης, πᾶσαν; Xenophon, Anab. 1:5, 6 : ὁ δὲ σύγλος δύναται ἑπτὰ ὀβολοὺς καὶ ἡμιοβόλιον Ἀττικούς; Thucydides, 8:63: πυθόμενος τὰ περὶ τὴν ναυμαχίαν καὶ τὸν Στρομβιχίδην καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀπεληλυθότα. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 431.

The ἐλπίς is the Christians’ hope of the consummation of the kingdom of God, and the glorification of the Christians bound up therewith. Comp. Romans 5:2, also Hebrews 6:11; Hebrews 6:18; Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 10:23.

καύχημα, however, is not here either equivalent to καύχησις (Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Stengel, Bisping, Maier, and others), any more than 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 9:3, which have been unwarrantably appealed to (see Meyer ad loc.), but denotes the subject of the boasting. Sense: provided we shall have maintained the Christians’ hope as a cheerful confidence and subject of boasting firm unto the end.

μέχρι τέλους] not: until the death of each individual (Schlichting, Grotius, Kuinoel); not: “until the final decision of the readers in favour of going over to Christianity” (!Ebrard), but as Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 6:11, 1 Corinthians 1:8, al., unto the end of the present order of the world, intervening with the coming again of Christ, and thought of as in the near future (comp. Hebrews 10:25; Hebrews 10:37), at which time faith shall pass over into sight, hope into possession.

[57] Philo, too, often employs the same figure, applying it to the human soul. Comp. de Somn. p. 587 E (ed. Mangey, I. p. 643): σπούδασον οὖν, ὦ ψυχή, θεοῦ οἶκος γενέσθαι, ἱερὸν ἅγιον κ.τ.λ.—De resip. Noë, p. 282 E (ed. Mangey, I. p. 402): τίς γὰρ οἶκος παρὰ γενέσει δύναιτʼ ἂν ἀξιοπρεπέστερος εὑρεθῆναι θεῷ πλὴν ψυχῆς τελείως κεκαθαρμένης καὶ μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἡγουμένης ἀγαθόν; … κατοικεῖν δὲ λέγεται ἐν οἴκῳ ὁ θεὸς οὐχ ὡς ἐν τόπῳ (περιέχει γὰρ τὰ πάντα πρὸς μηδενὸς περιεχόμενος), ἀλλʼ ὡς πρόνοιαν καὶ ἐπιμέλειαν ἐκείνου τοῦ χωρίου διαφερόντως ποιούμενος· παντὶ γὰρ τῷ δεσπόζοντι οἰκίας ἡ ταύτης κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἀνῆπται φροντίς.

[58] Both words are found combined in Josephus likewise, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3 : καὶ δεινὸς ὢν τὸν τρόπον Ἀντίπατρος, ἐπειδὴ παῤῥησίας τινὸς τῆς οὐ πρότερον οὔσης ἐλπίδος ἀντεποιήσατο, μίαν ἔσχεν ὑπόθεσιν κακοῦν τοὺς ἀδελφούς, κ.τ.λ.

to Hebrews 4:13Hebrews 3:7 to Hebrews 4:13. The author, in detailed development of the paraenesis already contained in Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 3:6, warns against unbelief and apostasy, making the basis of this warning the admonitory utterance of Scripture in Psalm 95:7-11; and by means of a parallelizing of the people of God of the present time, i.e. the Christians, with the people of God of Moses’ day, i.e. the Israelite fathers in the wilderness,—a parallelizing equally suggested by this passage of Scripture as by the preceding comparison of Christ with Moses,—he sets forth before the eyes of his readers the fate of the ancient people of God, who because of their unbelief were consigned to destruction, that the readers may earnestly ponder thereon.

Hebrews 3:7. Διό] Wherefore, i.e. either: because Christ stands higher than Moses (so Carpzov, Zachariae, Böhme, Stuart, Kurtz, and Woerner; comp. already Schlichting), or, which is better: because we are the οἶκος of God, only in the case that we hold fast the παῤῥησία and the καύχημα of the Christian hope unto the end (Hebrews 3:6). The tempus finitum belonging to Διό is βλέπετε, Hebrews 3:12 (Erasmus, Annott.; Calvin, Estius, Piscator, Pareus, Grotius, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Bengel, Peirce, Carpzov, Wetstein, Abresch, Zachariae, Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, Kurtz, Woerner, al.), in such wise that καθὼς … κατάπαυσίν μου forms an intervening clause. The length of the intervening clause, at which de Wette takes umbrage, decides nothing against the supposition of such construction, which at all events possesses the advantage of greater regularity and naturalness, since the author, owing to the care which he everywhere bestows upon his diction, in other cases, too, accurately fits in his discourse again to the opening words of the proposition, notwithstanding the occurrence of lengthy intervening clauses. Comp. Hebrews 7:20-22, Hebrews 12:18-24. That, moreover, which de Wette further objects, that in the intervening clause the discourse takes a new departure with διό, Hebrews 3:10, forms no valid counter-argument, since the connectedness of the preceding and following words as part of a Biblical citation follows naturally. In any case, Hebrews 3:10 connects itself with that which precedes, without a new beginning, in a simply relative fashion, if—as we are perfectly justified in doing—we write διʼ ὅ instead of διό. When de Wette, finally, discovers a difficulty in the fact that the warning, Hebrews 3:12-13, does not appear in the form of a simple application of the passage of Scripture, but, on the contrary, begins with an analysis of the same, this also is without weight, inasmuch as the correctness of this assumed fact must itself be contested. In addition to this, if the author had conceived of the structure otherwise than has been indicated, he would assuredly have placed βλέπετε οὖν, Hebrews 3:12, instead of the disconnected βλέπετε. For neither is it permissible to appeal (with Tholuck) to the disconnected βλέπετε, Hebrews 12:25, in proof of the opposite, since this passage, on account of the rhetorical character of the description which there immediately precedes, is totally different from ours. Others, as Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Wittich, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reuss, and Hofmann, connect διό immediately with μὴ σκληρύνητε, in connection with which, however, the direct address of God, coming in Hebrews 3:9 ff., occasions a great harshness; or else, as Tholuck, de Wette, and Maier, who appeal to Romans 15:3; Romans 15:21, 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 2:9, leave the application μὴ σκληρύνετε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν to be supplied in thought from these words; or, finally, supplement διό in a somewhat free manner: therefore conduct yourselves in accordance with that which the Holy Ghost speaks.

τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον] the Spirit of God in prophecy; comp. Hebrews 9:8, Hebrews 10:15.

σήμερον ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε] is in the Hebrew (הַיּו̇ם אִם־בְּקֹלֹו תִשְׁמָעוּ) an independent clause, and the expression of a wish: “would that you would only to-day listen to His (God’s) voice!” It is possible that the LXX. also understood the words as a wish, since elsewhere, too (e.g. Psalm 139:19), they render the particle of wishing, אִם, by ἐάν. Differently, however, does the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews take the words (against Hofmann). He regards ἐάν as the protasis, and μὴ σκληρύνητε as the apodosis; comp. Hebrews 3:15; Hebrews 4:7.

In the application σήμερον denotes the time of salvation which has come in with the appearing of Christ upon earth, and ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ the voice of God which through Christ sounds forth to the readers by means of the gracious message of the gospel.