Hebrews 5

CHAPTER 5

Hebrews 5:1. Instead of the Recepta δῶράτεκαὶθυσίας, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read merely δῶρακαὶθυσίας. But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the condemnation of the particle, τε is protected by A C D*** (D*: τεδῶρα) E K L à, of, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:9.

Hebrews 5:3. Elz.: διὰταύτην. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, al.: διʼ ταὐτήν. To be preferred on account of the better attestation by A B C* D* à, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret (alic.).

Instead of the Recepta ἑαυτοῦ, there is placed in the text by Lachm., after B D*, αὐτοῦ; by Tisch. 1, αὑτοῦ.

But ἑαυτοῦ is found in A C D*** E K L à, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others.

The preference over the Recepta ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν (supported by C*** D*** E K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al.; defended by Bleek, and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading περὶἁμαρτιῶν, already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* à, 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because περί might easily, on account of the περί placed twice before, be altered into ὑπέρ, in conformity with ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, Hebrews 5:1.

Hebrews 5:4. ἀλλὰκαλούμενος] So rightly already the Editt. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the preponderating authority of A B C* D E K à, 23, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. Damasc. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: ἀλλὰὁκαλούμενος, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophylact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic τις is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to the significant οὐχἐαυτῷ.

Instead of the Recepta καθάπερ (C** D*** E K L à*** Theodoret), approved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: καθώς; Tisch., with Alford, after A B D* à* Damasc.: καθώσπερ. The last, in favour of which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious combinations.

The article ὁ before Ἀαρών in the Recepta was already with justice deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty authority of A B C D E K L à, many min. and Fathers.

Hebrews 5:9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: τοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷπᾶσιν! But preponderating witnesses (A B C D E à, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: πᾶσιντοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ. Already recommended by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring out the more noticeably the paronomasia of τοῖςὑπακούουσιν with the foregoing τὴνὑπακοήν.

Hebrews 5:12. καὶοὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς] So Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, al.; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, à* Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only οὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς. But καί is protected by A B* D E K L à*** the majority of the min., many versions, and several Fathers.

Hebrews 5:1-10

Hebrews 5:1-10. Emphasizing of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ likewise is not wanting.

Hebrews 5:3

Hebrews 5:3. Logical consequence from the second half of Heb 5:2 The words form a merely incidental observation. They would be on that account better regarded as an independent statement than, with de Wette, Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew, II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 397), and Woerner, thought of as still dependent on ἐπεί, Hebrews 5:2.

διʼ αὐτήν] sc. ἀσθένειαν. Quite untrue is the assertion that the feminine is used Hebraistically instead of the neuter, which even Bengel and others, with a mistaken appeal to Matthew 21:42 (see Meyer ad loc.), still hold to be possible.

ὀφείλει] Reference not, as is supposed by Böhme and Hofmann, l.c., to the precept in the law of Moses (Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 9:7; Leviticus 16:6, al.), but, as Hebrews 2:17, to the inner necessity arising from the nature of the case. Non-natural the view of Delitzsch and Moll, that both alike are intended.

προσφέρειν] stands, as Luke 5:14, Numbers 7:18, absolutely. With Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), to look upon περὶἁμαρτιῶν as definition of object to προσφέρειν is inadmissible, inasmuch as only the singular form περὶἁμαρτίας is employed to indicate the notion of “sin-offering” with the LXX., as also in our epistle. Comp. Reiche, Commentarius Criticus ad loc. p. 35.

Hebrews 5:4

Hebrews 5:4. The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same.

καί] Progress, not from Hebrews 5:3, nor yet from Hebrews 5:1, in such wise that λαμβάνει, Hebrews 5:4, should form a paronomasia with λαμβανόμενος, Hebrews 5:1 (Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, Maier), but from Hebrews 5:1-3.

And not to himself does any one take the honour (here under consideration), i.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority. Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb. p. 187: νομίζωνοὐκεἰληφέναιτὴνἀρχήν, ἀλλὰδεδόσθαιαὐτῷ

ἀλλὰκαλούμενοςὑπὸτοῦθεοῦ] sc. λαμβάνειαὐτήν, he receives it. The λαμβάνει here to be supplied has consequently—what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hofmann, and Woerner—another notion than the λαμβάνει before placed. This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in German, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself.

καθώσπερκαὶἈαρών] sc. κληθεὶςὑπὸτοῦθεοῦαὐτὴνεἴληφεν. These words still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis.

Aaron and his descendants were, according to Exodus 28:1; Exodus 29:4 ff., Leviticus 8:1 ff., Numbers 3:10; Numbers 3:16-18, called by God Himself to the high-priesthood. Comp. Bammidbar rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234. 4 (in Schöttgen and Wetstein): Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicumque igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra ipsum Deum surgit. Not until the time of Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron. Comp.

Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10. 5; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. That, however, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others conjecture, the author intended by the words of Heb 5:4 at the same time to indicate that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto.

Hebrews 5:5-10

Hebrews 5:5-10. Demonstration of the presence of the qualification, mentioned Hebrews 5:4, in the case of Christ also.

Hebrews 5:6

Hebrews 5:6 now introduces the proof from Scripture that Christ, the Son of God, has also been appointed High Priest.

καθὼςκαὶἐνἑτέρῳλέγει] as He (sc. God) accordingly speaks in another place of Scripture (namely Psalms 110:4; comp. Hebrews 1:13).

καί] belongs not to ἐνἐτέρῳ, so that we should have to assume that the author has already found in the citation, Hebrews 5:5, a Scripture proof for the high-priesthood of Christ, and now in Hebrews 5:6 is adding thereto a second Scripture proof for the same thing (Schlichting, Ebrard, and others), but it belongs to the whole relative clause καθὼςλέγει, and is just the ordinary καί after a particle of comparison; comp. Hebrews 5:4. By means of this correct apprehension of the force of καί the objection is further set aside, that Hebrews 5:6, if a Scripture proof was first to be given in this place, must have been joined on to that which precedes simply with λέγων, as Hebrews 2:6, Hebrews 4:7, or with μαρτυρεῖγάρ, as Hebrews 7:17 (Abresch), or with λέγειγάρ, or at least with καθώς without καί (Ebrard).

ἐνἑτέρῳ] See on ἐντούτῳ, Hebrews 4:5.

ἱερεύς] for the author equivalent to ἀρχιερεύς; comp. Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 6:20. This equalization is likewise warranted. For Melchisedec (Genesis 14:18 ff.), with whom the person addressed is compared, was at the same time king and priest; but with the attributes of a king the attributes of an ordinary priest are irreconcilable; the character sustained by a superior or high priest alone comports therewith.

κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ] not: in the time of succession (Schulz), but: after the order or manner (עַל־דִּבְרָתִי) of Melchisedec, in such wise that thou obtainest the same position, the same character, as he possessed. Comp. Hebrews 7:15: κατὰτὴνὁμοιότηταΜελχισεδέκ.

εἰςτὸναἰῶνα] the author combines (contrary to the sense of the original) with ἱερεύς into a single idea, comp. Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 7:8.

Hebrews 5:7-10

Hebrews 5:7-10. Further proof—accessory to the Scripture testimony, Hebrews 5:6—that Christ did not on His own authority usurp to Himself the high-priesthood, but was invested with the same by God. Far removed from all self-exaltation, He displayed in His earthly life the most perfect obedience towards God. In consequence thereof He became, after His consummation and glorification, the Procurer (Vermittler) of everlasting blessedness for all believers, and was appointed by God High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec.

We have to reject the explanation—mainly called forth by the expression προσενέγκας (compared with Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 5:3)—of Schlichting, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Limborch, Akersloot, Cramer, Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Böhme, Klee, Bloomfield, and others, according to which the design in Hebrews 5:7-10 is to show that Christ already discharged the functions of the high-priestly office during His earthly life, in that He offered prayers as sacrifices to God. For evidently the main gist of Heb 5:7-10 lies in the words of Heb 5:8: ἔμαθενἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεντὴνὑπακοήν, to which the statements Hebrews 5:9-10 attach themselves only for the completion of the figure traced out Hebrews 5:7-8, and for leading back to Hebrews 5:6. But by the fact that Christ manifested obedience, it cannot by any means be shown that He was already executing the office of High Priest.

Quite mistaken also is the opinion of Kurtz, that, Hebrews 5:7-10, a “third requirement of the Levitical high-priesthood, namely, obedience to the will of Him that founded it” (?), is shown to be satisfied in Christ. For neither does the form of the grammatical annexing of Heb 5:7 to that which precedes point in any way to the conclusion that the author designed to string on to the two necessary qualifications of the earthly high priest yet a third one of equal value; nor, as regards the import, is anything else to be found in Hebrews 5:7-8 than a wider unfolding of the foregoing statement, οὐχἑαυτὸνἀδοξάσενγενηθῆναιἀρχιερέα, Hebrews 5:5.

Hebrews 5:8

Hebrews 5:8. Καίπερὢνυἱός] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others, to construe καίπερ with ἔμαθεν, and in this way to enclose Hebrews 5:8 within a parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since καίπερ is never combined with a tempus finitum. καίπερὢνυἱός, however, is to be connected neither, by virtue of an hyperbaton, with δεήσεις … προσενέγκας, which Photius (in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already shown to be impossible by means of the addition καὶεἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας, nor yet with καὶεἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας itself (Chrysostom, Theophylact). For against the latter καίπερ is decisive, according to which the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however, strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard by the Father on account of his sonship. καίπερὢνυἱός belongs, therefore, to ἔμαθενἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεντὴνὑπακοήν, and serves to bring the same into relief by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resignation to the will of the Father. Comp. Philippians 2:6-8.

The article before ὑπακοήν marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72, 2 Aufl.), the obedience “already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.” For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann brings out as the import of Heb 5:8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead of recognising, to wit, in Hebrews 5:7-8 the sharply and clearly defined leading statement: ὃςἐνταῖςὃμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ … ἔμαθεν … τὴνὑπακοήν in itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to οὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασεν, Hebrews 5:5, Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note ἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεν, and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words: καίπερὢνυἱός, fall upon that same ἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεν! In this way the thought expressed in Hebrews 5:8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (!) for the averting of which He had made entreaty.

The special point is not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (?!). He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now (!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised, where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions—that we have ἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεν written, and not even ἐνοἷςἔπαθεν, which at least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that?

ἔμαθεν] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested in action. And this continued development of the disposition of obedience into the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of the virtue of obedience.

ἀπό with μανθάνειν, as Matthew 24:32; Matthew 11:29, denoting the starting-point.

ἀφʼ ὧνἔπαθεν] well-known attraction in place of ἀπʼ ἐκείνωνἅἔπαθεν.

The combination ἔμαθεν … ἔπαθεν is also of frequent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo. Comp. Herod. i. 207: τὰδέμοιπαθήματα, ἐόνταἀχάριστα, μαθήματαγέγονεν; Soph. Trach. 142 f.: ὡςδʼ ἐγὼθυμοφθαρῶ, μήτʼ ἐκμάθοιςπαθοῦσα; Xenoph. Cyrop. iii. 1. 17: πάθημαἄρατῆςψνχῆςσὺλέγειςεἶναιτὴνσωφροσύνην, ὥσπερλύπην, οὐμάθημα; Philo, de speciall. legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ἵνʼ ἐκτοῦπαθεῖνμάθῃ. Many other instances in Wetstein.

Hebrews 5:9

Hebrews 5:9. Καὶτελειωθείς] and being brought to consummation, i.e. being crowned with glory by His exaltation to heaven (comp. Hebrews 2:9-10), sc. in consequence of the obedience to God proved by His sufferings and death.

ἐγένετο] He became. Author and Mediator of everlasting blessedness for His believers, Christ certainly was even during His earthly life. But in an eminent manner, because formally and manifestly accredited by God as such, He became so first by His resurrection and exaltation.

πᾶσιν] perhaps added in order to indicate the equal claim of the believing Gentiles also, to the salvation in Christ.

τοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ] The expression attaches itself in point of form to τὴνὑπακοήν, Hebrews 5:8, with which it forms a paronomasia; in point of subject-matter it is not different from τοῖςπιστεύουσιν (Hebrews 4:3). Comp. Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, al.

The mode of expression: αἴτιόντινιεἶναισωτηρίας (comp. τὸνἀρχηγὸντῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶν, Hebrews 2:10), is also often met with in Philo, Josephus, and the classical writers. Instances in Wetstein, Kypke, and Bleek.

The adjective αἰώνιος with σωτηρία in the N. T. only here. Comp., however, LXX. Isaiah 45:17.

Hebrews 5:10

Hebrews 5:10 is not to be separated from Hebrews 5:9 by a colon, and to be referred back to all that precedes, from Hebrews 5:7 onwards (Böhme). On the contrary, the statement connects itself closely with Hebrews 5:9, in that it contains an elucidation of the αἴτιοςσωτηρίαςαἰωνίου there found. Christ became for all believers author of everlasting blessedness, in that He was saluted (or named) of God as High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec. That is to say: In order to become the mediate cause of salvation for others, Christ must be the possessor of high-priestly dignity; but this was ascribed to Him on the part of God in the utterance from the psalm, already cited in Hebrews 5:6. Bengel: προσηγορία, appellatio sacerdotis, non solum secuta est consummationem Jesu, sed antecessit etiam passionem, tempore Psalms 110:4.

To appoint or constitute (Casaubon: constitutus; Schulz: proclaimed, publicly declared or appointed; Stengel: declared, appointed; Bloomfield: being proclaimed and constituted) προσαγορεύειν, a ἅπαξλεγόμενον in the N. T., never means; but only to address, salute, name.

Hebrews 5:11

Hebrews 5:11. Περὶοὗ] sc. ΧριστοῦἀρχιερέωςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ. To this total-conception, as is also recognised by Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 780), is περὶοὗ to be referred back. We have to supplement not merely Χριστοῦ (Oecumenius, Primasius, Justinian), because that would be a far too general defining of the object, inasmuch as confessedly the discourse is not first about Christ in the sequel, but everywhere throughout the epistle. But neither is Μελχισεδέκ to be supplied to οὗ (Peshito, Calvin [Piscator hesitates between this and the following application], Owen, Schöttgen, Peirce, Semler, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Alford, Maier, al.).

For even though—a fact to which Bleek appeals—the author, after having concluded the digression (Hebrews 7:1 f.), begins by characterizing this same Melchisedec, yet this description is subordinated to a higher aim, that of setting forth the high-priestly dignity of Christ; as surely also the reference of Heb 7:1 ff. to the close of the digression (Hebrews 6:20) clearly shows, since the former is represented by γάρ as only the development now begun of the main consideration: ἸησοῦςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδὲκἀρχιερεὺςγενόμενοςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα, taken up anew, Hebrews 6:20. To take οὗ as a neuter, with Grotius, Cramer, Storr, Abresch, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Stein, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Kurtz, and others, and to refer it to the high-priesthood of Christ after Melchisedec’s manner,—according to which οὗ would thus have to be resolved into περὶτοῦπροσαγορευθῆναιαὐτὸνὑπὸτοῦθεοῦἀρχιερέακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ,—is possible indeed, but not so natural as when it is taken as a masculine, since the discourse in that which precedes was about the definite person of Christ.

πολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγος] sc. ἐστίν. Wrongly, because otherwise ἂμεἴη must have been added, and because a detailed development of the subject really follows afterwards; Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, and others: concerning which we should have much to speak.

καί] and indeed.

λέγειν] belongs to δυσερμήνευτος. Heinrichs erroneously joins it with ἡμῖνὁλόγος.

Even on account of the connectedness of the λέγειν with δυσερμήνευτος, but also on account of the preceding ἡμῖν, followed by no ὑμῖν, it is inadmissible, with Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and others, to suppose the difficulty of the exposition or rendering intelligible of the λόγος to exist on the part of the readers, and thus to interpret δυσερμήνευτος in the sense of δυσνόητος 2 Peter 3:16. On the contrary, as the author has abundant material for discoursing on the subject announced, so is it also difficult for the author to render himself intelligible thereon to the readers. The ground of this difficulty which obtains for him is introduced by the clause with ἐπεί, which on that account is to be referred only to δυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν, not at the same time (Hofmann) to πολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγος.

For the rest, Storr and Bleek have already rightly remarked, that in the connecting of λόγος with the two predicates πολύς and δυσερμήνευτος a sort of zeugma is contained, inasmuch as λόγος is to be taken in relation to the first predicate actively,[74] in relation to the second passively. On the high-priesthood of Christ after the manner of Melchisedec, the author has much to speak; and truly it is difficult for him to make plain to his readers the contents or subject of his discourse.

γεγόνατε] characterizes the spiritual sluggishness or dulness of the readers not as something which was originally inherent in them, but only as something which afterwards manifested itself in connection with them. Chrysostom: τὸγὰρεἰπεῖνἐπεὶνωθροὶγεγόνατεταῖςἀκοαῖςδηλοῦντοςἦν, ὅτιπάλαιὑγίαινονκαὶἦσανἰσχυροί, τῇπροθυμίᾳζέοντες, καὶὕστεροναὐτοὺςτοῦτοπαθεῖνμαρτυρεῖ.

νωθρός] in the N. T. only here and Hebrews 6:12.

ταῖςἀκοαῖς] with regard to the hearing, i.e. the spiritual faculty of comprehension. Comp. Philo, Quis rer. divin. haeres. p. 483 (with Mangey, I. p. 474): ἐνἀψύχοιςἀνδριάσιν, οἷςὦταμένἐστιν, ἀκοαὶδὲοἰκἔνεισιν. The plural is used, inasmuch as the discourse is of a multitude of persons. On the dative, instead of which the accusative might have been placed, comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 202.

[74] This is erroneously denied by Delitzsch and Alford. Even the two instances from Dionys. Halicarn., on which Delitzsch relies, plead against him.

Hebrews 5:12

Hebrews 5:12. Justification of the reproach: νωθροὶγεγόνατεταῖςἀκοαῖς, Hebrews 5:11.

καὶγὰρὀφείλοντεςεἶναιδιδάσκαλοι] for when ye ought to have been teachers. καί gives intensity to the ὀφείλοντεςεἶναιδιδάσκαλοι. Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:10, al. Arbitrarily Bloomfield (ed. 8), according to whom an intermediate link is to be supplied in connection with καὶγάρ: “[And such ye are,] for though ye ought, according to the time, to be teachers,” etc.

διὰτὸνχρόνον] by reason of the space of time, i.e. because already so considerable a space of time has passed since ye became Christians. In like manner is διὰτὸνχρόνον often employed by classical writers. Comp. e.g. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 37: οἱπάνυπαρʼ αὐτοῖςγεγηρακότες … πίνουσικώνειον, ὅτανἑαυτοῖςσυνειδῶσιν, ὅτιπρὸςτὰἔργατὰτῇπατρίδιλυσιτελοῦνταἄχρηστοίεἰσιν, ὑποληρούσηςἤδητιαὐτοῖςκαὶτῆςγνώμηςδιὰτὸνχρόνον.

As regards that which follows, there is a controversy as to whether we have to accentuate τίνα or τινά. The word is taken as an interrogative particle by the Peshito and Vulgate, Augustine, Tract. 98 in Joh.; Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Abresch, Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, de Wette, Tischendorf, Stengel, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 780; Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, and the majority. As an indefinite pronoun, on the other hand, it is taken by Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, Peirce, Cramer, Heinrichs, Böhme, Lachmann, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Bisping, Alford, Woerner, and others. The latter alone grammatically possible. For in the opposite case, since the subject is a varying one in the tempus finitum (χρείανἔχετε) and the infinitive (διδάσκειν), either the infinitive passive must be written, τοῦδιδάσκεσθαιὑμᾶς, or to the infinitive active a special accusative of the subject (perhaps ἐμέ) must be further added. Nor Isaiah 1 Thessalonians 4:9 decisive in opposition hereto, since there the reading of Lachmann: οὐχρείανἔχομενγράφεινὑμῖν, is the only correct one.

See, besides, the remarks in my Commentary on the Thessalonians, ad loc. [E. T. p. 118 f.]. As, moreover, in a grammatical respect, so also in a logical respect is the accentuation τίνα to be rejected. For upon the adopting thereof the thought would arise, that the readers anew required instruction upon the question: which articles are to be reckoned among the στοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωντοῦθεοῦ, or else: of what nature these are. But manifestly the author is only complaining—as is plain also from the explicative clause: καὶγεγόνατεκ.τ.λ.—of the fact that the readers, who ought long ago to have been qualified for instructing others, themselves still needed to be instructed in the στοιχεῖα. While, for the rest, de Wette and Riehm erroneously find in the indefinite τινά “too strong a signification,” Delitzsch is equally mistaken in characterizing it as “unmeaning” and “flat.” With justice does Alford remark, in opposition to the last-named: “So far from τινά, some one, being, as Delitzsch most absurdly says, ‘matt und nichtssagend,’ it carries with it the fine keen edge of reproach; q. d. to teach you what all know, and any can teach.”

ὑμᾶς] preposed to the τινά, in order to bring into the more marked relief the antithesis to εἶναιδιδάσκαλοι.

The notion of rudimenta already existing in τὰστοιχεῖα is made yet more definitely prominent by the genitive τῆςἀρχῆς (Calvin: “quo plus incutiat pudoris”). Thus: the very first primary grounds or elements. Analogous is the use of the Latin prima rudimenta, Justin. vii.5; Liv. Hebrews 1:3; prima elementa, Horace, Serm. i. 1. 26; Quintil. i. 1. 23, 35; Ovid, Fast. iii. 179.

τῶνλογίωντοῦθεοῦ] of the utterances of God. Comp. Acts 7:38; 1 Peter 4:11; Romans 3:2. What is intended is the saving revelations of Christianity, which God has caused to be proclaimed as His word. To think of the Old Testament prophecies, and their interpretation and reference to the Christian relations (Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Schulz, Stengel, and others; comp. also Hofmann and Woerner ad loc.), is inadmissible; since the expression τὰλόγιατοῦθεοῦ, in consideration of its generality, always acquires its nearer defining of meaning only from the context, while here, that which was, Hebrews 5:12, mentioned as τὰστοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωντοῦθεοῦ, is immediately after (Hebrews 6:1) designated ὁτῆςἀρχῆςτοῦΧριστοῦλόγος.

γεγόνατε] reminds anew, even as the preceding πάλιν, of the earlier more gladdening spiritual condition of the readers.

γάλακτοςκαὶοὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς] On the figure, comp. 1 Corinthians 3:2: γάλαὑμᾶςἐπότισα, οὐβρῶμα. Philo, de Agricult. p. 188 (with Mangey, I. p. 301): Ἐπεὶδὲνηπίοιςμένἐστιγάλατροφή, τελείοιςδὲτὰἐκπυρῶνπέμματα, καὶψυχῆςγαλακτώδειςμὲνἂνεἶεντροφαὶκατὰτὴνπαιδικὴνἡλικίαν, τὰτῆςἐγκυκλίουμουσικῆςπροπαιδεύματατέλειαιδὲκαὶἀνδράσινεὐπρεπεῖςαἱδιὰφρονήσεωςκαὶσωφροσύνηςκαὶἁπάσηςἀρετῆςὑφηγήσεις. Quod omnis probus liber, p. 889 A (II. p. 470), al.

By the milk, the author understands the elementary instruction in Christianity; by the solid food, the more profound disclosures with regard to the essence of Christianity, for the understanding of which a Christian insight already more matured is called for, In connection with the former, he thinks of the doctrinal topics enumerated Hebrews 6:1-2 (not, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, and others suppose, of the doctrine of the humanity of Christ in contradistinction from that of His Godhead, which is foreign to the context); in connection with the latter, mainly of the subject, just the treatment of which will pre-eminently occupy him in the sequel,—the high-priesthood of Christ after the manner of Melchisedec.

The statement of Heb 5:12 has been urged by Mynster (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, H. 2, p. 338), Ebrard, and others, in proof that the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot have been addressed to the Palestinean congregations, particularly not to the congregation at Jerusalem. The tenor of the verse might, it is true, appear strange, considering that the congregation at Jerusalem was the parent congregation of all the others, and out of its midst had proceeded the most distinguished teachers of Christianity. Nevertheless this last fact is not at all called in question by the statement of the verse. For the author has present to his mind the condition of the congregation as it was in his own time; he is addressing—in favour of which also διὰτὸνχρόνον pronounces—a second generation of Palestinean Christianity.

The narrow-minded tendency, however, which this second generation had assumed, instead of advancing in its growth to the recognition of the freedom and universality of Christianity as the most perfect religion, might well justify with regard to it the utterance of a reproach such as we here meet with. Only thus much follows from the words,—what is also confirmed by Hebrews 13:7,—that when the author wrote, James the Lord’s brother had already been torn from the congregation at Jerusalem by death, since he would otherwise certainly have written in another tone.

Hebrews 5:13-14

Hebrews 5:13-14. Establishing of the γεγόνατεχρείανἔχοντεςγάλακτοςκαὶοὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς, Hebrews 5:12. Sense: for it is universally characteristic of him who (in a spiritual respect) has need of milk, that he is, because not of ripe age, still inexperienced in the λόγοςδικαιοσύνης; and this is just your case. Solid food, on the other hand, is proper only for the τέλειοι; τέλειοι, however, ye are not yet. In connection with this acceptation of the words, there is no occasion for finding anything out of place in the γάρ in relation to that which precedes, and either, with Storr, making it co-ordinate with the γάρ, Hebrews 5:12, and referring it back like this to Hebrews 5:11,—which on account of the figure Hebrews 5:13-14, retained from Hebrews 5:12, is already seen to be inadmissible,—or for saying, with Bleek and Bisping, that the progress of thought would come out more naturally if the author had written: πᾶςγὰρὁἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνηςμετέχειγάλακτοςνήπιοςγάρἐστιν.

ὁμετέχωνγάλακτος] he who (in a spiritual respect) partakes of milk, i.e. only in this possesses his nourishment, is not in a position to take in solid food. Bengel: Lacte etiam robusti vescuntur, sed non lacte praecipue, nedum lacte solo. Itaque notantur hoc loco ii, qui nil denique nisi lac aut capiunt aut petunt.

ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης] sc. ἐστίν, he is still inexperienced in the word of righteousness. Expositors have almost without exception been guided by the presupposition (as also Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Kurtz still are) that λόγοςδικαιοσύνης is only a varying form of expression for the same idea as is expressed, Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 5:14, by στερεὰτροφή, or, Hebrews 6:1, by τελειότης. λόγοςδικαιοσύνης has then either been taken as equivalent to λόγοςδίκαιος or τέλειος, and the higher, more perfect type of doctrine found indicated in the expression. So Schlichting (“sermo justitiae videtur positus pro sermone justo, h. e. perfecto ac solido”), Grotius (“Hic δικαιοσύνης dixit pro τελειότητος … et genitivus est pro adjective”), Abresch (“doctrina vel institutio justa, h. e. perfecta, plena, omnia complectens, quae ad perspicuam distinctamque pertineant doctrinae Christianae intelligentiam”), Schulz (“that true [rightly so called] higher doctrine”), Kuinoel, Bisping, Kurtz, and many others. Or δικαιοσύνης has been more correctly regarded as genitive of the object. In the latter case δικαιοσύνη is taken either, as Michaelis, ad Peirc., with an appeal to the Hebrew צְדָקָה, in the sense of ἀλήθεια,[75] as the doctrine of the essence of the matter itself, in opposition to the typical figures thereof; or λόγοςδικαιοσύνης is understood specially, as by Oecumenius, of the λόγοςπερὶτῆςθεότητοςτοῦκυρίου, or, as by Carpzov, of the: “doctrina de sacerdotio Jesu Christi Melchisedeciano, quae dicitur ὁλόγοςδικαιοσύνης propterea, quia Melchisedecus, vi nominis, βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης vertitur, Hebrews 7:2, eaque appellatio ad Christum sacerdotem applicatur, cujus πρέπον fuit πληρῶσαιπᾶσανδικαιοσύνην, Matthew 3:15;” or the words are made to refer, as by Primasius, Zeger, Bengel, de Wette, and others, to intellectual and moral perfection in general, as also already Chrysostom, who explains the expression by ἩἌΝΩΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΊΑ (and after him Theophylact), leaves us the choice of understanding the ΒΊΟςἌΚΡΟςΚΑῚἨΚΡΙΒΩΜΈΝΟς (according to Matthew 5:20), or ΤῸΝΧΡΙΣΤῸΝΚΑῚΤῸΝὙΨΗΛῸΝΠΕΡῚΑὐΤΟῦΛΌΓΟΝ. But the fundamental presupposition, out of which all these interpretations have sprung, is an erroneous one.

For the emphasis falls not upon ΛΌΓΟςΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς, but upon the ἌΠΕΙΡΟς, on that account preposed. Not for a non-possession of the ΛΌΓΟςΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς, but only for a want of experience in the same, only for an insufficient, schoolboy’s knowledge of it, does the author blame the readers. The ΛΌΓΟςΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς in itself, therefore, stands as indifferently related to the notion of the ΣΤΕΡΕᾺΤΡΟΦΉ or ΤΕΛΕΙΌΤΗς as to the notion of the ΣΤΟΙΧΕῖΑ, to which Ebrard reckons it. Only by the more or less exhaustive imparting of its subject-matter does it become the one or the other. For the word of righteousness is nothing more than a periphrasis of Christianity or the gospel, inasmuch as just the righteousness availing with God[76] is the central-point of its contents. Quite analogous to this mode of designation is the Pauline characterization of the gospel office of teaching by ἠδιακονίατῆςδικαιοσύνης, 2 Corinthians 3:9, and of the teachers of Christianity by διάκονοιδικαιοσύνης, 2 Corinthians 11:15; on which account also it is unnecessary, for the justification of the expression chosen, with Bleek, Bisping, and Maier, to assume an allusion to the exposition of the name Melchisedec, βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης, given Hebrews 7:2.

νήπιοςγάρἐστιν] for he is still a babe, a novice in Christianity. Setting forth of the naturalness of the ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης.

[75] Delitzsch, too, with an allusion to the use of צֶדֶק, ישֶׁר, מֵישָׁרִים, takes δικαιοσύνη as a synonym of ἀλήθεια; but will then have the genitive δικαιοσύνης looked upon not as expressing the contents, but as a defining of the quality of λόγος, and will interpret λόγος of the faculty of speech. Thus, then, λόγοςδικαιοσύνης is taken to mean: “the faculty of speaking in accordance with righteousness,” i.e. the “discourse on spiritual things which is guided in strict accord with the norm of the true, and harmoniously combines all the factors of the case, proportionately regarded, without leaving one of them out of sight;” and in ver. 13 is supposed to be contained the following “most rigid connection of ideas:” “he who must still receive milk is still ignorant of rightly-constituted, i.e. right-teaching or orthodox, discourse; for he is a child only beginning to lisp, and not yet capable of speech.” This strange view, based upon the incomprehensible grounds, that “since νήπιος (from νη and ἔπος) denotes one incapable of speech, an infant, there is a presumption in favour of λόγος in ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης having the signification of faculty of speech,—and this signification is here the more probable in regard to the αἰσθησήρια occurring in the antithetic parallel clause, inasmuch as ὁλόγος, in the sense of language, is met with countless times in Philo along with the αἴσθησις or the πέντεαἰσθήσεις, of which the organs are known as αἰσθητήρια,”—bears its refutation upon the face of it. It is not at all suitable to the connection, as Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 734) and Alford have already observed; since according to this there is no question as to the faculty for speaking on spiritual subjects, but only as to the faculty for understanding the same.—As “discourse” will Hofmann also have λόγος interpreted, in that he fully subtilizes the notion lying in δικαιοσύνη, and finds indicated by the total expression λόγοςδικαιοσύνης only “correct discourse.” For, according to him, the words ver. 13 are used in their most literal sense, and allude to the fact that he who is still fed with milk at the maternal breast is as yet no judge of correct discourse!

[76] Of the righteousness availing with God (comp. also Hebrews 11:7), have Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Storr, Klee, Tholuck, Bleek, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, and others already rightly interpreted δικαιοσύνη.—In the above exposition, Alford, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 733), and Woerner have concurred; save that, according to Riehm, by virtue of an over-refined distinction, the gospel is not called the word of righteousness “because the righteousness availing with God is the central-point of its contents,” but “because it leads to righteousness; because, by its proclamation to man, the possibility is created and the opportunity is afforded of entering into a condition of the rightness of his relation to God, inasmuch, namely, as he assumes a believing attitude towards the word proclaimed.” But why should the author, familiar as he was with Paul’s manner of teaching, and attaching his own doctrinal presentation thereto,—albeit with independence of character,—have shrunk from recognising, as the central theme of the gospel, “the righteousness which avails with God,” since even this was only a general notion, which did not exclude a peculiar conception and treatment, where it was a question of the development of details, and insistance thereon?

Hebrews 5:14

Hebrews 5:14. The opposition: for perfect or more matured Christians, on the other hand (and only for them), is the solid food.

τελείων is with emphasis preposed.

τῶνδιὰτὴνἕξινκ.τ.λ.] more precise characterizing of the τέλειοι: for those who, etc.

ἕξις] like the following αἰσθητήριον, in the N. T. a ἅπαξλεγόμενον. It corresponds to the Latin habitus, and is used in particular of the condition produced by use and wont. Here it denotes the capacity or dexterity acquired by practice. Comp. Quintil. Hebrews 10:1. 1 : firma quaedam facilitas, quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur.

τὰαἰσθητήρια] the organs of the senses; transferred to that which is spiritual: the power of apprehension. Comp. LXX. Jeremiah 4:19: τὰαἰσθητήριατῆςψυχῆςμου.

γεγυμνασμένα] Predicate; literally: as exercised. On the whole turn of discourse, comp. Galen, De dignot. puls. 3 (in Wetstein): ὅςμὲνγὰρ … τὸαἰσθητήριονἔχειγεγυμνασμένονἱκανῶς … οὗτοςἄριστοςἄνεἴνγυώμων.

πρὸςδιάκρισινκ.τ.λ.] for the distinguishing of good and bad. The words may be taken with γεγυμνασμένα, or they may be taken with the whole expression γεγυμνασμέναἐχόντων. The καλόντεκαὶκακόν, however, is to be understood of the right and the wrong, or of the wholesome and the pernicious, not, with Stein, of that which is morally good or evil. Chrysostom: νῦνοὐπερὶβίουαὐτῷὁλόγος, ὅτανλέγῃπρὸςδιάκρισινκαλοῦκαὶκακοῦ (τοῦτογὰρπαντὶἀνθρώπῳδυνατὸνεἰδέναικαὶεὔκολον) ἀλλὰπερὶδογμάτωνὑγιῶνκαὶὑψηλῶν, διεφθαρμένωντεκαὶταπεινῶν.