성경 주석서

CHAPTER 4

Hebrews 4:2. Better attested, it is true, than the nominative singular συγκεκραμένος (συγκεκραμμένος), which the Recepta presents, is the accusative plural of this participle, inasmuch as A B C D* M, 23, al., Theodor. Mops, read συγκεκερασμένους (συνκεκερασμένους), and D*** E K L, 4, 6, 10, al. plur., Cyr. Alex. (semel) Macar. Chrys. Theodoret, Phot. al., συγκεκραμένους (συγκεκραμμένους), and also the majority of translations (Syr. poster. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. al.) render in the accusative. Griesbach therefore commended the accusative to notice. συγκεκραμ(μ)ένους is adopted into the text by the edd. Complut. Antw. Plantin. Genev., by Matthaei and others; συγκεκερασμένους, by Lachm. Tisch. 1, and Alford. The accusative is, notwithstanding, to be rejected, as opposed to the context and unmeaning. This reading being accepted, we have as exposition either: “but the word listened to did not profit them, since they were not mixed in faith or joined together in one with Joshua and Caleb, who heard, i.e. were obedient to the word listened to” (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Hammond, Cramer, Matthaei, al.). But this interpretation is in conflict with Hebrews 3:15 ff., according to which the whole people of Israel brought out of Egypt by Moses is described as rebellious and unbelieving; between two classes thereof, on the other hand, a class of believers and another of unbelievers, no distinction whatever is made. Moreover, in connection with this interpretation, τοῖς ἀκούσασιν suffers transmutation into a notion which it cannot have, regarded in itself only, much less here, seeing its evident correspondence with the preceding ἀκοῆς. (Not less untenable is the modification of this construction with Alford, who, rejecting all reference to Joshua and Caleb, will have τοῖς ἀκούσασιν taken, not at all in the historic sense, but, like John 5:25, as an indication of the category: “ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς having been mentioned in the general sense of the word heard, οἱ ἀκούσαντες is also in the general sense of its hearers, and the assumption is made that the word heard has naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is faith. And so these men received no benefit from the word of hearing, because they were not one in faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with faithful hearers, whom it does profit;” as, accordingly, Alford himself frankly confesses that he does not feel satisfied with this explanation, and is only driven to adopt it on the ground of critical and grammatical difficulties,—difficulties of the latter kind, nevertheless, do not exist, and those urged by Alford are easily solved. Or else a passive notion is substituted for the active τοῖς ἀκούσασιν. So already Theodore of Mopsuestia, who thinks τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν[62] must be read (in Nov. Test. Commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt Coll. O. Fr. Fritzsche, Turici 1847, p. 166: μηδὲ γάρ τις οἰέσθω ἀρκεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τῶν μελλόντων, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις· οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν τίστιν τοῖς ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι· ὅθεν οὕτως ἀναγνωστέον· μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν, ἵνα εἴπῃ ταῖς πρὸς αὐτοὺς γεγενημέναις ἐπαγγελίαις τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ Μωσέως); further, as it appears, Theodoret, since—although in our editions ΤΟῖς ἈΚΟΎΣΑΣΙΝ precedes—he makes use of the words: ΤΊ ΓᾺΡ ὬΝΗΣΕΝ Ἡ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑ ΤΟῪς ΤΑΎΤΗΝ ΔΕΞΑΜΈΝΟΥς, ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤῶς ΔΕΞΑΜΈΝΟΥς ΚΑῚ Τῇ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΙ ΤΕΘΑῤῬΗΚΌΤΑς ΚΑῚ ΟἿΟΝ ΤΟῖς ΘΕΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΙς ἈΝΑΚΡΑΘΈΝΤΑς; and recently Bleek, who, led thereto by Noesselt’s remark on Theodoret’s exposition of Hebrews 4:2 (Theod. Opp. t. iii., Hal. 1771, p. 566, note 1), conjectures τοῖς ἀκούσμασιν. For such alteration of the text, however, there exists not the slightest diplomatic justification. We must therefore regard the accusative plural as having arisen from a transcriber’s error, to which the preceding ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥς gave occasion, and look upon the nominative singular of the Recepta συγκεκραμένος, which yields an excellent sense (see the exposition), as that which was originally written by the author. Rightly, therefore, is the Recepta defended by Mill, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche (p. 24 sqq.), and others, and also received again into the text by Tisch. 2 (συγκεκραμένος-g0-), 7 (ΣΥΝΚΕΚΡΑΜΈΝΟς-G0-), and 8 (ΣΥΝΚΕΚΕΡΑΣΜΈΝΟς-G0-). Nor is it by any means so badly attested that one could assert, with Bleek, that it could “claim not much more authority than as being a not improbable conjecture.” For it is supported by the testimony of the Peshito, which in antiquity surpasses any of our MSS., as well as by the Codex Sinaiticus, which has ΜῊ ΣΥΝΚΕΚΕΡΑΣΜΈΝΟς. It is found, besides, in the Vulg. It. Erp., as well as with Cyr. Alex, (sem.) [Theodoret (Hervet.)] Lucif. and in five cursives (17, 31, 37, 41, 114).

Hebrews 4:3. ΕἸΣΕΡΧΌΜΕΘΑ ΓΆΡ] A C: ΕἸΣΕΡΧΏΜΕΘΑ ΟὖΝ. But with an exhortation, the following ΟἹ ΤΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΕς is irreconcilable, instead of which ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς or ΔΙᾺ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς must be placed.

Hebrews 4:7. Elz. Wetstein, Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf.: ΕἼΡΗΤΑΙ. But in favour of ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΤΑΙ, which is indirectly supported also by ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΕΝ in B, 73, 80, the preponderating authority of A C D* E* א, 17, 23, 31, al., Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Al. Chrys. Theodoret. Lucif. Bed. is decisive. Commended already by Grotius, Bengel, Griesbach. Rightly adopted into the text by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Reiche.

Hebrews 4:10. ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ] D* E, Syr. poster. Cyr. Chrys. ms.: ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. Expansion from Hebrews 4:4.

Hebrews 4:12. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: ψυχῆς τε καὶ πνεύματος. But τε is wanting in A B C H L א (in which last originally only μερισμοῦ καὶ πνεύματος was written, which, however, was already supplemented, as it would appear by the first hand, by a ψυχῆς inserted before καί), 3, 73, al., with Origen (three times), Athan. Euseb. Chrys. Theodoret, Cyril Al. (eleven times), John Damasc. Theoph. and many others. Condemned already by Bengel and Griesbach. [Doubted by Owen.] Rightly rejected by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Addition for the sake of uniformity with the following clause: ἉΡΜῶΝ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΜΥΕΛῶΝ, in which ΤΕ is wanting with no witnesses.

Hebrews 4:15. Instead of the ΠΕΠΕΙΡΑΜΈΝΟΝ, commended by Griesbach and adopted by Matthaei, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Bloomfield, as earlier by Mill and Bengel (also preferred by Reiche), the ΠΕΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΈΜΟΝ of the Recepta, supported by A B D E א, Origen (four times), Chrys., al., is to be retained, with Wetstein, Scholz, Lachm. Alford, and Tisch. 8. For the context demands the notion of having been tempted, for which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. Hebrews 2:18, Hebrews 11:17; Hebrews 11:37), only the verb πειράζεσθαι is used, while πεπειραμένον would yield the totally unsuitable sense: who had made attempts.

Hebrews 4:16. Elz.: ἜΛΕΟΝ. The form of the word, preferred by Tisch. Bloomf. and Alford, ἜΛΕΟς, is, however, required by A B C* D* K א, 17, 71, al. pl., Antioch.

[62] Also in one cursive ms. (Cod. 71) is found τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν.

Hebrews 4:1. Exhortation to the readers, deduced from the historic fact, Hebrews 3:15-19, and softened by the form of community with the readers adopted by the author, which, however, is involuntarily abandoned again at the close of the verse.

Φοβηθῶμεν οὖν] Let us therefore be apprehensive.

Indication not of the mere being afraid, but of the earnest endeavour, based upon the fear of coming short of the proposed goal. Calvin: Hic nobis commendatur timor, non qui fidei certitudinem excutiat, sed tantam incutiat sollicitudinem, ne securi torpeamus. Metuendum ergo, non quia trepidare aut diffidere nos oporteat quasi incertos de exitu, sed ne Dei gratiae desimus.

καταλειπομένης … αὐτοῦ] is made by Cramer and Ernesti dependent on ὑστερηκέναι, against which, however, the anarthrous participle in itself suffices to decide. It is parenthetical, and καταλειπομένης with emphasis preposed: while there yet remains promise of entering into His rest. But a promise remains so long as it has not yet received its fulfilment. For with its fulfilment it ceases to be a promise, loses its existence—inasmuch as the character of the future essential to it has then become present. Erroneously do Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Strigel, Hyperius, Estius, Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Limborch, Braun, Semler, Carpzov, al., explain: “by neglect or non-observance of the promise.” For, although καταλείπειν can signify that (comp. Acts 6:2; Bar 4:1), yet in that case the article τῆς could not have been wanting before ἐπαγγελίας and certainly also an active (καταλείψας τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν) would have been chosen in place of the passive participle. Finally, against the latter explanation, and in favour of that above given, pleads the ἀπολείπεται, Hebrews 4:6; Hebrews 4:9.

αὐτοῦ] not of Christ (Rambach, Chr. F. Schmid), but of God. This is required by the connection, alike with that which precedes (Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 3:18) as with that which follows (Hebrews 4:3-5; Hebrews 4:10).

ἡ κατάπανσις] the repose and blessedness which belong to God Himself, and which shall become the portion of believing Christians in the epoch of consummation beginning with the coming again of Christ.

δοκῇ ὑστερηκέναι] should appear [be seen] to have come short, i.e. to have failed of attaining to the κατάπαυσις. The infinitive perfect characterizes that which, with the dawn of the Parousia, has become an historically completed, definite fact. δοκῇ ὑστερηκέναι, however, does not stand pleonastically in place of the bare ὑστερῇ or ὑστερήσῃ (Michaelis, Carpzov, Abresch, al.), nor is it placed “because, in connection with the question whether and where the ὑστερηκέναι, exists as a concluded, and therefore irreparable, fact, the human perception does not extend beyond a mere videtur” (Kurtz); for it is not here a case of a question to be decided by men still living upon earth. It serves rather, as the videatur often added in Latin, to give a more refined and delicate expression to the discourse. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:16. Erroneously, however, Delitzsch, that in δοκῇ there is contained not only a softening, but, at the same time, also an accentuation of the expression; the sense being: “they are to take earnest heed, lest haply it should even seem that this or the other has fallen short.” For the augmenting “even” is only arbitrarily imported.

Grotius explains δοκῇ by: “ne cui vestrum libeat,” for which, however, the construction with the dative (δοκῶ μοι) would have been required, and to which, moreover, the infinitive perfect does not lend itself. Schöttgen finally, Baumgarten, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel, Ebrard, and Hofmann take δοκῇ in the sense of opinetur. The author is thus supposed to be warning the readers against the delusion that they were too late, i.e. that they lived at a time when all the promises had long been fulfilled, and no further means of salvation was to be expected. But the linguistic expression in itself is decisive against this interpretation. The author could not then have put φοβηθώμεν οὖν, μήποτε, but must have written μὴ οὖν φοβηθῶμεν ὑστερηκέναι, or something similar. Moreover, the whole historic situation of the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews is out of keeping with this view. It was not therein a question of consoling and calming those who still despaired of being able at all to attain to salvation, but of the warning correction of those who were wanting in the assurance of conviction that faith in Christ is the sufficient and only way to salvation. Only a warning to the readers, not by their own behaviour, like the fathers, to incur the loss of salvation, can therefore be contained in Hebrews 4:1.

Hebrews 4:1-13. Thus, then, the promise of entering into God’s rest is still unfulfilled. The promise yet avails for the Christians. Let, therefore, the readers be careful, lest they, too, by disobedience and unbelief forfeit the proffered salvation.

Hebrews 4:2 corroborates in its first half the καταλειπομένης, Hebrews 4:1, while the second half shows the danger of the ὑστερηκέναι in the example of others. The emphasis in the first half lies upon ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελισμένοι. The sense is not: for we, too, like them, have promise (to express this the addition of ἡμεῖς after καὶ γάρ would have been called for), but: for promise (sc. of entering into the κατάπαυσις, cf. Hebrews 4:1; Hebrews 4:3) have we indeed, even as they (the fathers), sc. had it.

Most arbitrarily is the meaning of this and the following verse apprehended by Ebrard. According to Ebrard, Hebrews 4:2 ff. proclaims as the reason why the Jews did not attain the promised κατάπαυσις, not their “subjective unbelief,” but “the objective imperfection of the Old Testament revelation.” With the second half of Hebrews 4:2, namely, a gradation (!) is supposed to begin, and the progress of thought to be as follows: “The word which we have received is even infinitely better than the word which the Israelites received through Moses. For, first, the word spoken by Moses was unable to bring the people to faith—it remained external to them; it set forth a promise, it is true, and also attached a condition, but it communicated no strength to fulfil this condition (Hebrews 4:2-5, comp. Hebrews 4:12-13); but, secondly, the promise there given was not even in its purport the true one; there, earthly rest was promised; here, spiritual and everlasting rest (Hebrews 4:6-10).” That the context affords no warrant for the bringing out of such a meaning is self-evident. For neither does the author here distinguish such twofold word of promise, nor a twofold κατάπαυσις, nor can λόγος … μὴ συγκεκραμένος signify a word which “could not prove binding.”

Erroneous, too, is the view of the connection on the part of Delitzsch, to whom Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 798 ff.) accedes in all essential particulars. According to Riehm, the (as yet unproved) presupposition is first provisionally expressed in the parenthesis, Hebrews 4:1, in a simply assertory manner, viz. that there is still in existence a promise of entering into the rest of God, a promise of which the fulfilment is yet outstanding, and this presupposition is then repeated, Hebrews 4:2, in other expressions of a more general bearing, no doubt, but essentially in the same way of simple assertion. Upon this, however, the author now wishes to furnish proof that such presupposition is fully warranted. Accordingly, Hebrews 4:3, he formulates that presupposition in the most definite manner, inasmuch as in the opening words of Hebrews 4:3, εἰσερχόμεθα … πιστεύσαντες, he lays down the theme which is to be proved in the sequel. This proof is afforded in the following way: the rest of God has existed long; nevertheless, in the oath of God, mentioned in the words of the psalm, a rest of God is spoken of as yet future, and of a truth it is one and the same rest of God which, according to Genesis 2:2—in so far as God enjoys it alone—has existed from the beginning of the world, and, according to the word of the psalm,—in so far as the people of God are to participate therein,—is one yet approaching. Although thus the long present rest of God was the aim and end of the creative activity of God, yet it is not the final aim which God has proposed to Himself. On the contrary, it is clearly apparent, from a comparison of the word of God pronounced upon the Israelites in the time of Moses, a word confirmed by an oath, with the account of the rest of God on the seventh day, that, according to the gracious designs of God, the rest, which He has enjoyed alone from the foundation of the world, should eventually become a rest of God which He enjoys in communion with His people. It is therefore indubitably certain, that even after the completion of the work of creation and the ensuing of the rest of God, there is still something outstanding [unfulfilled], an ἀπολειπόμενον, and this consists in the fact that some, received by God into communion with Himself, are made partakers of that repose of God. This view is a mistaken one, because—(1) As regards the assumed proof, the assertion that in the oath of God, spoken of in the words of the psalm, mention is made of a yet future rest of God, is entirely untrue. Not of a particular form of the rest of God, which is still future, is the discourse, but only the fact is represented as future that it is shared on the part of men who enter into it. For a rest of God which has already existed long is not opposed to a rest of God which is still future, nor is the rest of God, mentioned. Genesis 2., distinguished as of another kind than that mentioned in the psalm. On the contrary, the rest of God, or—what is identical therewith—the Sabbath-rest of God, has existed in fact and without change from the time of the completion of the works of creation, and this same rest of God it is, the participation in which was once promised to the Israelites on the condition of faith, and now upon the same condition is promised to the Christians; it is a question therefore only of the Christians taking warning from the example of the fathers, and not, like them, losing the promised blessing through unbelief. (2) That the author was desirous of still proving the καταλείπεσθαι ἐπαγγελίαν, cannot at all be supposed. For this was a fact which, as self-evident from that which precedes, stood in no need of a demonstration; it is therefore expressed not only Hebrews 4:1, but also Hebrews 4:6, in a mere subsidiary clause, consequently in the form of logical subordination; and even Hebrews 4:9, in which it is introduced in an apparently independent form, decides nothing against our explanation, because Hebrews 4:9, while forming a certain conclusion to that which precedes, yet contains only the logical substructure for the exhortation attaching itself afresh at Hebrews 4:11. That at which the author alone aimed, in connection with Hebrews 4:2 ff., was therefore the impressive confirmation of the paraenesis, Hebrews 4:1; and just this paraenetic main tendency of our section likewise fails of attaining due recognition in connection with the explanation of Delitzsch and Riehm. But when Delitzsch thinks he can support his view, that the καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας, Hebrews 4:1, is first proved in the sequel, by declaring the otherwise to be accepted “thought that the promise of entering into God’s rest has remained without its fulfilment in the generation of the wilderness, and thus is still valid,” to be “entirely false,” and exclaims: “What logic that would be! The generation of the wilderness perished indeed, but the younger generation entered into Canaan, came to Shiloh (the place in the heart of the land, which has its name from the rest, Joshua 18:1), and had now its own fixed land of habitation, whither Jehovah had brought and planted it, and where He fenced it in (2 Samuel 7:10);” such conclusion would be justified only if the author had not understood the promise given to the fathers in the time of Moses, of entering into God’s κατάπαυσις, at the same time in a higher sense, but had regarded it as fulfilled by the occupation of Canaan under Joshua; such, however, according to the distinct statement of Hebrews 4:8, is not the case.

καί] after καθάπερ, the ordinary καί after particles of comparison. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 409.

ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς] Periphrasis of the notion ἐπαγγελία, Hebrews 4:1 : the word of that which is heard (ἀκοή in the passive sense, as Romans 10:16; Galatians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; John 12:38), i.e. the word of promise which was heard by them, or proclaimed to them. This periphrasis is chosen in order already at this stage to point out that it was by the fault of the fathers themselves that the word of promise became for them an unprofitable word, one which did not receive its fulfilment. It remained for them a word heard only externally, whereas, if it was to profit them, they must manifest receptiveness for the same, must believingly and confidingly appropriate the same. This culpability on the part of the fathers themselves is brought into direct relief by the participial clause μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, containing the indication of cause to οὐκ ὠφέλησεν, wherein τῇ πίστει forms an emphatic opposition to the preceding τῆς ἀκοῆς. The sense is: because it was not for the hearers mingled with faith; the dative τοῖς ἀκούσασιν denoting the subject, in relation to which the μὴ συγκ. τῇ πίστει took place. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 206. Thus interpret Erasmus, translation, Calvin, Castellio, Gerhard, Owen, Calov, Limborch, Bengel, Kypke, Storr, Stuart, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 30; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 696, note; Maier, and others.[63] But that the fault of this not being mingled was not in the word but in the men, was naturally understood from the connection. συγκεκραμένος is not to be connected with τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, so that τῇ πίστει would have to be taken as the dativus instrumentalis: “because it did not, by means of faith, mingle with them that heard it, become fully incorporated with them” (Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Dorscheus, S. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Michaelis, Carpzov, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Klee, Paulus, Stein, Delitzsch, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, Woerner). For manifestly the centres of thought for the adversative clause lie in τῆς ἀκοῆς and τῇ πίστει, while τοῖς ἀκούσασιν only takes up again the indication of the persons, already known to us from the ἐκείνους, although now as characterizing these persons in attaching itself to τῆς ἀκοῆς.

τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, however, not the mere demonstrative pronoun, is put by the author in order thus once more to place hearing and believing in suggestive contrast. Further, the author did not write μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τῶν ἀκουσάντων, because he would thereby have conveyed the impression that the Israelites in the wilderness possessed indeed πίστις, but the word of promise which was heard did not blend into a unity with the same; whereas by means of μὴ συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν he denies altogether the presence of πίστις in them.

[63] Heinsius, Semler, Kuinoel, al., take τοῖς ἀκούσασιν as equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων, which is open to no grammatical objection (cf. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 206), and makes no alteration in the sense.

Hebrews 4:3. Confirmation, not of καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας κ.τ.λ., Hebrews 4:1 (Bengel), nor of καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι, Hebrews 4:2 (de Wette, Bloomfield, Bisping), and just as little of the two clauses of Hebrews 4:2 taken together (Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerb. p. 799; Moll), but of τῇ πίστει, Hebrews 4:2. So also Bleek, Alford, and Kurtz. What Riehm (p. 800, note) alleges against this interpretation—viz. that the author has already, in Hebrews 3:15 ff. (specially Hebrews 3:19), shown clearly enough that the Israelites in the wilderness could not enter into the promised rest on account of their unbelief, that it was therefore impossible that a special proof for this fact should once more be required—does not apply; because this very πιστεύσειν was the main question, about the quite special accentuation of which he is seen from the context to be concerned. For surely the whole disquisition, Hebrews 3:7 to Hebrews 4:13, has its all-combining centre precisely in the endeavour to animate to πίστις the readers, who were in danger of sinking, like the fathers, into ἀπιστία. The emphasis rests, therefore, upon οἱ πιστεύσαντες, and the sense is: for into rest enter just those of us who have manifested faith. For οἱ πιστεύσαντες cannot signify: if we have displayed faith (Böhme, de Wette, Bisping); this must have been expressed by the anarthrous πιστεύσαντες. On the contrary, οἱ πιστεύσαντες adds a special characterization of the subject of εἰσερχόμεθα, and has the aim of limiting the quite generally expressed “we” to a definite class of us. The present εἰσερχόμεθα is employed with reference to the certainty of that to be looked for in the future, and οἱ πιστεύσαντες, not οἱ πιστεύοντες is placed, because the πιστεύειν must have already preceded as an historic fact, before the εἰσέρχεσθαι can be accomplished.

καθὼς εἴρηκεν κ.τ.λ.] Scripture proof for the first half of Hebrews 4:3, from the already cited words of Psalm 95:11. Wrongly is καθὼς εἴρηκεν connected by Piscator with Hebrews 4:1, by Brochmann and Bleek II. with Hebrews 4:2. For to suppose parentheses before it is unwarranted. In quite a contorted manner Hofmann (p. 187): with καθὼς εἴρηκεν begins a protasis, which finds its apodosis in πάλιν τινὰ ὁρίζει ἡμέραν, Hebrews 4:7; and even the fact that the latter is apodosis to ἐπεὶ ἀπολείπεται does not, according to him, preclude the possibility of this construction, because this second protasis is connected by οὖν with the first, as a deduction from the same!

εἴρηκεν] sc. ὁ θεός.

ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου] sc. at their unbelief and obstinate perverseness, which naturally suggested itself to the readers from the passage of the psalm more copiously adduced in the third chapter, and the reasoning of the author there attached to it.

καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων] although the works were completed from the creation of the world; and accordingly the κατάπαυσις of God was something long present and lying in readiness, in which the Israelites, if they had been believing, might well have obtained part. The words, therefore, serve to point out the deep significance of the divine oath.[64] Wrongly are they taken ordinarily as epexegesis to τὴν κατάπαυσίς μου, in supplying ΚΑΤΆΠΑΥΣΙΝ afresh after ΚΑΊΤΟΙ. Then either ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. is made dependent on the ΚΑΤΆΠΑΥΣΙΝ supplied, in that ΚΑΊΤΟΙ is taken, contrary to linguistic usage, in the sense of “et quidem:” “into the rest, namely, from the works which had been completed from the creation of the world” (so Schlichting, S. Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov, Kypke, Baumgarten, Stuart, Heinrichs, Klee, Bloomfield), to which construction, moreover, the repetition of the article ΤῶΝ after ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ would have been in any case necessary; or else ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ … ΓΕΝΗΘΈΝΤΩΝ is regarded as a genitive absolute: “namely (or even, although), into a rest, which ensued upon the works of creation being completed” (so Vatablus, Calvin, Beza, Limborch, Cramer, Böhme, Bisping), which however, in like manner, must grammatically have been otherwise expressed. But, in general, the author cannot here have been at all occupied with the subjoining of a definition with regard to the kind of rest which was meant, since he does not anywhere distinguish several kinds of rest, but without further remark presupposes that the κατάπαυσις which ensued for God after the completion of the works of creation is identical with that once promised to the Israelites and now promised to the Christians.

ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ] sc. τοῦ θεοῦ. The necessity for thus supplementing is apparent from Hebrews 4:4; comp. also Hebrews 4:10. Very arbitrarily, and forcing in a thought entirely foreign to the context, Ebrard understands ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ of the works of men, supposing that with καθὼς εἴρηκεν “the author proceeds to show to what extent even the O. T. itself points out the insufficiency of the law and its ἜΡΓΑ” (!), regards ΤῶΝ ἜΡΓΩΝ as antithesis to the preceding ΟἹ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΕς (!), and finds the thought, “that all that which can be called ἜΡΓΑ has been wrought from the time of the creation of the world, but has not sufficed to bring mankind to the ΚΑΤΆΠΑΥΣΙς, to a condition of satisfied repose,” whence follows “that an entirely new way of salvation—not that of human doing and human exertion, but that of faith in God’s saving deed—is necessary in order to attain to the ΚΑΤΆΠΑΥΣΙς” (!).

ἈΠῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ] from the foundation of the world, i.e. since the world began. Comp. Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8.

[64] The aim in καίτοι τῶν ἔργων κ.τ.λ. is not, as Bleek thinks, to prove: “that men had not perchance even then, after the creation of the world, entered with Him [sc. by the institution of the Sabbath] into the rest here intended by God;” for this was a truth which hardly stood in need of any proof.

Hebrews 4:4. Scripture proof for the thought implicitly contained in καίτοι κ.τ.λ., Hebrews 4:3, viz. that the actual existence of the divine κατάπαυσις, from which the Israelites were to be excluded, has not been wanting.

The citation is from Genesis 2:2, according to the LXX., with some non-essential variations.

Το εἴρηκεν we have to supply as subject, not ἡ γραγή] (Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Bisping, al.), but ὁ θεός. For although, in the citation, God is spoken of in the third person, yet in εἴρηκεν, Hebrews 4:4, the subject must be the same as in καὶ ἐν τούτῳ πάλιν, sc. εἴρηκεν, Hebrews 4:5; in this latter passage, however, the subject can only be ὁ θεός, as is proved by the following μου.

που] see on Hebrews 2:6.

περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης] with regard to the seventh day. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 549; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 71.

Hebrews 4:5. Renewed contrastful presentation of the relations of the Jewish forefathers to this existing rest of God: “And yet He says again in this place (namely, the passage already cited Hebrews 4:3): they shall not enter into my rest.”

ἐν τούτῳ] stands substantively, without requiring a supplementing of τόπῳ (Kuinoel), or χρόνῳ (Abresch), or ψαλμῷ (Carpzov). Comp. ἐν ἑτέρῳ, Hebrews 5:6.

Hebrews 4:6-7. The author, founding his reasoning, on the one hand, on the truthfulness of God, and on the other, on the actual state of matters declared from ἀλλά, Hebrews 4:2, to κατάπαυσίν μου, Hebrews 4:5, now returns to the statements: καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας, Hebrews 4:1, and καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι, Hebrews 4:2, in order, by means of the opening words of the psalm cited, to render clear the truth contained in these statements concerning the non-fulfilment of the promise as yet, and also the necessity for not closing the heart against the same.[65]

The sense is: since then it still remains, i.e. is to be expected with certainty, that some enter therein (inasmuch, namely, as God carries also into effect that which He promises), and the earlier recipients of the promise did not enter in because of their unbelief, He marks out anew a definite day, etc. From this relation of the first half of the protasis to the second, as that of a general postulate to a special historic fact, is explained also the indefinite τινάς in the first clause. Wrongly Delitzsch, according to whom ΤΙΝΆς signifies: “others than those.” Some, again, find in ἘΠΕῚ ΟὖΝ ἈΠΟΛΕΊΠΕΤΑΙ ΤΙΝᾺς ΕἸΣΕΛΘΕῖΝ the meaning: since then the promise, of entering into His rest, is still left, i.e. awaits its fulfilment. So substantially Bleek: “since it now remains, that the divine rest has not yet been already closed by the complete(?) fulfilment of the prophecy relating thereto, in such wise that no more entrance exists for them.” Against this, however, pleads the fact that the author would then have illogically co-ordinated, the one with the other, the two protases Hebrews 4:6, since the first would surely contain the result of the second. For the sequence of thought would then be: the former recipients of the promise came short of attaining salvation, and the consequence thereof is that the κατάπαυσις stands open for others. It must thus have been written: ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀπολείπεται τινὰς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν, τῶν πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντων οὐκ εἰσελθόντων διʼ ἀπείθειαν.

οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντες] sc. the Israelites in the wilderness.

[65] Ebrard has here, too, entirely misapprehended the connection. He says: “Vv. 6–8, the author passes to a new thought, to a new point of comparison between the work of Christ and the work of Moses. The opposition between the work of the one and that of the other is twofold.… The first imperfection in the work of Moses consisted (Hebrews 4:2-5) in the fact that his work conferred no power for fulfilment,—did not combine by faith with the hearers,—and on that account did not avail to lead into rest; the second consists in the fact that the rest itself, into which the Israelites might have been led by Moses, and then by Joshua were led in, was only an earthly typical rest, whereas Christ leads into an actual rest, which intrinsically corresponds to the Sabbath-rest of God.”

Hebrews 4:7. The apodosis. We have not to construe in such wise that the first σήμερον shall be taken as apposition to ἡμέραν: “He marks out, therefore, again a definite day (fixes anew a term), namely, ‘a to-day,’ in that—as was before observed

He says in David, so long time after, ‘To-day, etc.’ ” (Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Jac. Cappellus, Carpzov, Schulz, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, M‘Caul, Moll). Nor yet so that the first σήμερον is connected with λέγων: “He fixes, therefore, again a day, in that, after so long a time, He says in David ‘to-day;’ even as it says: ‘To-day, if ye, etc’ ” (Zeger, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Stengel). On the contrary, the first σήμερον already begins the citation; is then, however,—on account of the words parenthetically introduced by the author: ἐν Δαυῒδ … προείρηται,—resumed in the second σήμερον.

ἐν Δαυΐδ] not: apud Davidem, i.e. in the Book of Psalms (Dindorf, Schulz, Böhme, Bleek, Ebrard, Alford, Woerner, al.; with comparison of Romans 11:2; Romans 9:25), but: in the person of David, as the instrument of which God made use for speaking. The ninety-fifth psalm, although not Davidic, was ascribed to David in the superscription of the LXX., whom our author follows.

μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον] from the time of Joshua (Hebrews 4:8).

καθὼς προείρηται] Reference to Hebrews 3:7 f., 15.