Hebrews 12
LenskiCHAPTER XII
The Author and Completer of the Faith, v. 1–3
Hebrews 12:1
1 While τοιγαροῦν builds on chapter 11, it is an admonition that is built on the host of examples. We should note that Jesus is not added as another, say the supreme example, but as something that is far greater. Τοι affirms, γάρ establishes, οὖν deduces: ja denn doch in German. So, then, we, too, on our part, having so great a cloud of witnesses all about us, by having put away every weight and the easily hampering sin, let us by means of perseverance go on running the contest lying before us, looking away to the author and completer of the faith, who for the joy lying before him perseveringly endured (the) cross, despising (the) shame, and has sat down at the right (hand) of the throne of God.
Καὶἡμεῖς is emphatic: “we, too, on our part,” and intends to range us alongside of all the glorious believers mentioned in chapter 11, our faith, our strength, our conflict, our crown being the same as theirs. We should not get the impression from the A. V. that the Old Testament believers were also surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. The first participle advances a motive: “having so great a cloud of witnesses all about us,” namely all the believers mentioned in chapter 11. The figure of a cloud is not unusual to designate a great multitude, but νέφος is a mass of cloud that covers the heavens and differs from νεφέλη, a detached, single cloud. The figure is the grander because the former word is used.
God’s believers here on earth are but a “little flock,” but the believers of past ages are a great host indeed. Their number has greatly increased since this epistle was written.
It is very dramatic to make these μάρτυρες spectators who are lining the ramparts of heaven, leaning over to watch us in the running of the race like the crowds in a great stadium who are watching the athletic events. The unsatisfactory feature about this idea is its spiritualistic touch: the spirits of the dead are still hovering over and around us. The souls of the saints are at rest, they are no longer concerned about the trials that occur on earth. The Scriptures teach that they behold the heavenly glories and say nothing about their beholding and watching earthly events. These saints are not “witnesses” that see our faith and testify about us; God does not ask them to testify about us. They are witnesses whose life, works, sufferings, death attest their own faith, testify to us through the pages of Holy Writ and in other history that they were true men of faith indeed (the faith defined in 11:1). Περικείμενονἡμῖν, “lying around us,” or adverbially simply “all about us” does not refer to an earthly presence of this cloud of witnesses, which gazes down on us from every angle.
Like Abel, though dead (11:2) and long ago gone to their heavenly rest (4:9), their past life and their death still speak to us about what faith really is (11:1). They have left their multitudinous testimony which speaks to us from all sides and in countless ways.
The second participle is an aorist middle that states what must first be done by us in order to run properly: “having put away from ourselves every weight or encumbrance” that would act as a handicap in our running. Καί is explicative: “in particular the easily hampering sin,” εὐπερίστατος; this word is found only here in Greek literature and is hence interpreted variously: C.-K. 1169, easy to avoid, easily surrounding or be-strickend = R. V.’s margin, “closely clinging to us,” and our versions’, “that doth so easily beset us.” Luther combines weight and sin: Suende, so uns immer anklebt und traege macht, which is an interpretative rendering. Because the figure is that of a runner in the main clause, some carry this figure back into the participial clause: the runner runs practically naked, every weight is discarded, especially robes that cling to the limbs when one is running. The fact is that the figurative sense of the participial clause comes from the main clause: “let us go on running the ἀγών.”
From our versions there comes the idea of “besetting sin”: forms and types of sin to which an individual is personally inclined because of temperament, weakness, environment, etc. There are sins of this kind; here, however, sin as such and sin in all its forms and kinds is referred to, sin as such ever hampers us unless it is put away from us. To restrict this to the sin of apostasy, to which the readers were now inclining, narrows the words down too much.
The figure bursts upon us in the wording: “let us go on running the contest lying before us.” The present imperative implies that the readers have been and are now running and calls on them to keep on more strenuously than ever. The preceding participle is involved in the imperatival idea, and we may follow our English idiom which would use two imperatives: “put away and run” and disregard the more exact thought of the Greek that 1) the putting away is one act (aorist), the running is continuous 2) the putting away subsidiary, the running is the main thing. Ἀγών = an athletic event; this may also refer to a “race,” but it is also used with reference to other events. While running implies that the event referred to is a race, it is well to remember that races were not always run with other runners so that only one could be the victor (as in 1 Cor. 9:24); many were only tests of speed which were run to see whether the runner could equal a certain record of speed. The latter is the figurative idea employed here.
The durative idea of the present imperative is enhanced by the emphatically placed phrase: “by means of ὑπομονή,” which is not “patience,” which makes us think of quietness, nonresistance, and the like, but “perseverance” (remaining under and holding out under a severe strain). See Trench. The runners are not to let down under the strain, to slow up, or even to stop for any reason. The writer includes himself in his admonition. R., W. P., regards the subjunctive as volitive: “we will go on running”; it is hortative: “let us go on,” etc. In 10:39 we have positive assertion; here hortation. Many start well in the race of faith “lying before us,” which is like the track laid out for runners, but they do not hold out to the end, they fail in regard to perseverance.
Hebrews 12:2
2 The third participle adds the supreme motive for running with unfaltering perseverance, supreme because it involves the certainty of attaining the goal: “ever looking away (durative present) to the author and completer of the faith who,” etc. We may see many things to dishearten us to continue the running, even to halt us entirely, but by ever keeping our eyes upon the originator and completer of the faith our speed will increase rather than lessen, our stamina will grow rather than fade out.
When Moffatt, like Delitzsch, makes ἀρχηγός “the pioneer of personal faith,” he disagrees with 2:10 and 5:9; with all the Greek exegetes who regard ἀρχηγός = αἴτιος; with the fact that Scripture nowhere speaks of Christ as a believer (Delitzsch states that this is the only place); with the second term τελειωτής which cannot mean that Christ is the completer of his own faith, an example for us likewise to complete our faith.
“The archegos of their salvation” (2:10) = the “αἴτιος, cause of eternal salvation” (5:9); in the same sense we now again have “the archegos and completer of the faith,” i. e., the originator and completer. C.-K. 179 presents the linguistic evidence to prove that only in certain connections does archegos mean an originator who himself first partakes of what he originates, and that this sense does not apply to 2:10 and 12:2. It is, therefore, unconvincing to quote irrelevant connections. The R. V. margin offers “captain,” a meaning that might fit Acts 5:31 (“prince,” Herzog) but does not fit here. Luther is right: “the beginner and completer of faith” (A. V. margin: “beginner”). Christ starts our faith and leads it to its consummation.
“The faith” (article) is not “our faith” (the article used as the possessive pronoun) but the faith defined in 11:1; hence it is specific (confidence and conviction in regard to things hoped for, things not seen) but as any and every believer has this faith and not only the writer and the reader. “Author and completer” (A. V., “finisher”—good; R. V., “perfecter”—not nearly so good) apply equally to “the faith” (objective genitive); the completing takes place when Christ gives to faith and to the believer “the things hoped for,” “the things not seen.” Τελειωτής repeats the τελειωθῶσι used in 11:40: all the Old Testament believers together with all the New Testament believers “shall be brought to completion” at Christ’s Parousia (see 10:40); and as Christ is the beginner, so he is also the completer. The writer once more uses this significant derivative of τέλειος, “complete.” Compare Phil. 1:6.
The statement that Christ did not originate the faith of the Old Testament believers is specious. Moses wrote of Christ (John 5:46), Abraham saw Christ’s day (John 8:56), all the Old Testament believers believed in the promised Messiah. As the object of faith Christ is the cause of faith; even secular faith is kindled by its object. The statement that chapter 11 names nothing but examples of faith, and that thus Christ, too, is such an example, is more specious. Christ should then be mentioned in chapter 11, but without the designation τελειωτής, this second designation being here even connected with the first by one article.
Rationalism and modernism rob Christ of his deity, reduce him to a mere man, and thus depict him as being no more than a perfect example for us to follow. But what good does a perfect example do us who cannot possibly achieve perfection? We need vastly more than a perfect example, which by its very perfection may well cause us to cry in despair: “We cannot hope even to approach such an example!” From start to finish we need the divine Christ as the One who can fill us with faith, keep us in faith, and finally crown our faith.
The relative clause states what makes Christ the One who causes and completes the faith of believers: he is the One “who for the joy lying before him perseveringly endured (the) cross, despising (the) shame, and has sat down at the right (hand) of the throne of God.” “The joy lying before him” is the glorification that followed the sufferings plus his kingship over all believers. As it did in v. 16, ἀντί expresses exchange: in order to get this joy Christ paid the price of the cross with its shame (in order to get the food Esau paid the price of his birthright). Some reverse this by making the joy the one Christ left behind in heaven, which he exchanged for the cross; or the joy he might have claimed as his while he was on earth, which he exchanged for the cross. But as it did in v. 1, προκειμένης means “lying before” or ahead and not somewhere else. During his entire humiliation, especially when he was foretelling the cross, Jesus referred to his resurrection and the enthronement with his Father.
For this “he perseveringly endured (the) cross,” ὑπέμεινε repeats the ὑπομονή used in v. 1 so that we should retain the same word in English and translate either “by means of endurance”—“he endured” or “by perseverance”—“perseveringly endured.” The passion history reveals how much lies in this brief expression. Σταυρός is a post that was driven into the ground as a means for executing a criminal and thus comes to mean a cross. The word has no article as also αἰσχύνη has none and thus stresses the quality of the nouns. “Despising (the) shame” is significantly added, which should be read with a Jewish eye as “cross” itself is. This is not the shame of dying a criminal’s death but the shame of dying the death of a criminal who was accounted as accursed by God by his executioners (Gal. 3:13); so also Phil. 2:8. “Despising (the) shame” does not mean that the shame was a small thing, but that, in comparison with the joy, Christ scorned to consider it.
Τε connects most closely: Christ took the cross and the shame and with it the sessio in glory, this second being “the joy.” We lose the main thought when we overlook the fact that this seating himself at the right hand of the throne of God (see the exposition in 1:3; cf., 1:13; 8:1) is the infinite exaltation of the human nature of Christ and thus the crowning of all his saving work for all eternity. This is the Savior, crucified, glorified, who is the originator and the completer of faith, also of ours. When the writer and the readers had him brought to them by the gospel they believed, he filled them with faith; when they shall see him at the right hand of the throne of God, he shall complete their faith by bestowing upon them the glory hoped for and not seen for so long (11:1).
This is again reduced to an example by some: as Christ was crucified, so we should suffer; as he looked beyond the cross, so we should; as he sat at God’s right hand, so we shall receive glory. Such are “the lessons” we should learn from Christ. We refuse to accept such a reduction. We constantly look away to the Crucified and infinitely Glorified One as the Author and Completer (Rewarder) of the faith that trusts him as 11:1 states; we thus join and remain among the men and the women of faith mentioned in chapter 11. The last verb is the perfect tense: κεκάθικεν: once seated, Christ remains so forever.
Hebrews 12:3
3 From the present hortative the writer turns to the aorist imperative and thus completes his admonition. Γάρ is confirmatory: after saying, “Let us go on running, looking away” to Christ, the writer addresses his readers directly and emphasizes this looking at Christ. Yea, take into consideration him who has perseveringly endured such opposition by the sinners against himself in order that you may not grow tired by relaxing in your souls!
The pivotal word is ὑπομεμενηκότα which takes up the ὑπέμεινε used in v. 2 and most of all the διʼ ὑπομονῆς occurring in v. 1. Now at last the example of Jesus is touched upon in one point, and that is perseverance. In v. 1, 2 we are to keep our eye on the beginner and finisher of the faith, on what he did to make him this. Now we are to take him into consideration as the One who has perseveringly endured in order that we may not grow tired and relax. Yet the imperative does not mean “compare” (R., W. P.), nor is any comparing to be done such as that he endured more than we are asked to endure. The verb means “to consider thoughtfully,” and the aorist imperative calls for an effective, thoughtful consideration.
“Such opposition by the sinners” means the cross and the shame mentioned in v. 2. By calling this ἀντιλογία the author by no means makes it merely verbal “gainsaying” or “contradiction,” for the word is also used to designate a rebellion. One reading has the singular “against him or himself,” and another the plural “against themselves.” Since no one has been able to make acceptable sense of the latter, we abide by the former (A. V., and R. V. American committee).
R., W. P., says the plural may mean “against their better selves,” which is von Soden’s idea; against their better self and their own true interest. Even if one could find this in the reflexive ἑαυτούς, it would be a thought that is out of line. The readers are to put thoughtful consideration on “him who has been perseveringly enduring” such opposition. The perfect participle indicates the enduring, permanent character stamped upon Christ; in 2 Cor. 2:2 the perfect “having been crucified” indicates the same permanent character.
“By the sinners against himself.” These contrasting phrases are abutted in order to let us feel the contrast: sinners—against the Sinless One. He who as the sinless One should have merited the highest praise from all men, who were not sinless, received the most terrible opposition at the hands of “the sinners,” whom the readers well know. As he has persevered through it all, the readers surely ought to consider him well now when they, who are saved from sin by him, are asked to put away the hampering sin and to manifest perseverance in running their race to a successful issue. What Christ did for them is to inspire them “in order that you may not grow tired (aorist, ingressive: get to the point of tiredness) by relaxing in your souls” (present participle, probably middle, picturing the gradual letting down of effort). The imagery of the ἵνα clause appears to be that of the runner letting himself get tired of the effort and thus quitting.
The Sons Chastised by the Father, v. 4–13
Hebrews 12:4
4 The asyndeton indicates a new paragraph and a new thought, which is chastisement. This casts a new and a wonderful light on all the persecutions and the hardships the readers are to endure perseveringly, for these inflictions are plain evidence of the sonship of the readers: only a father who is deeply concerned for his sons chastises them. Bastards, who have no loving father, are left without—do the readers want to be bastards? However painful it may be at the time, chastisement is necessary in order to rid us of the hampering sin (v. 1) and to produce the fruit of righteousness so that we may be true sons.
Not up to the point of blood did you (as yet) resist in contending against the sin; and you have been forgetting the encouragement which reasons with you as with sons:
My son, be not treating lightly the Lord’s chastisements,
Nor be relaxing when reproved by him;
For whom the Lord loveth he chastises;
Moreover, he scourges every son whom he takes over (as a son).
Bengel thinks that v. 4 is still figurative, a cursu venit ad pugilatum, pugilism is added to racing. This is due to the fact that v. 4 is regarded as belonging to v. 1–3 despite the lack of a connective and despite the connective which draws v. 4 to v. 5. Commentators then explain that the boxing matches generally drew blood. This verse is literal. “Up to the point of blood” is far more than a reference to a boxer’s bloody nose, mouth, etc.; it refers to a bloody death. The aorist states the historical fact that the readers have not had to resist to the point of bloody martyrdom in their athletic contest with “the sin,” being face to face with it as the antagonist. Only the last participle continues the figurative touch.
We have “the hampering sin” in v. 1 and “the sinners” in v. 3 and now again “the sin,” but it is now almost personified as a power that may bring the readers to martyrdom. This sin would win if in fear of blood the readers would relinquish their faith; it would be vanquished if the readers, unafraid of a bloody death, held fast to their faith. The reason the writer notes the fact that the readers have as yet not had to face bloody martyrdom is to clear the way for what this paragraph says about chastisements, for chastisements do not kill, they only correct. The death of martyrs belongs to a different class; it is a high, glorious distinction that is reserved for only a few while chastisements are applied to all God’s sons with distinctions also but only as marks of sonship.
The readers were shrinking from further inflictions such as those mentioned in 10:32–34, which they gladly endured while they now thought to escape them by turning back and again becoming Jews. They had forgotten what God says about chastisement. God might have had the higher distinction of martyrdom in mind for them as he had for other believers, and now these readers foolishly shrink from even this lower and universal distinction which God finds necessary in the case of all his sons. The implication is that certain other believers had, indeed, been called to bloody martyrdom. Who these others were we have attempted to show in the introduction: they were the believers in the old congregation in Rome. As far as the martyrs referred to in 10:35b are concerned, we need not exclude them although they belong to the Old Testament period; Jesus is, however, in a class by himself as we see from the expression “contending against the sin,” nor is Jesus ever regarded as a martyr in Scripture.
Hebrews 12:5
5 What has come upon the readers up to this time is only chastisement such as is common to all God’s sons, and in recent days the readers have been altogether (ἐκ in the verb) forgetting the παράκλησις or “encouragement” (better than “exhortation” in this connection), the character of which (ἥτις, qualitative) is to reason, to talk things through with us as with sons. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs just as paraklesis is here; her word is quoted from Prov. 3:11, 12. To treat the Lord’s chastisements lightly, as something that is little, and the synonymous expression to relax (the same verb is used in v. 3) when reproved by the Lord, means to fail in appreciating what the Lord thus does for his sons, to desire to be rid of his chastisement and his reproof: the very thing the readers were thinking of doing. In the classics and in the papyri παιδεία = “education” in general; in the New Testament (see Eph. 6:4) the word means “discipline,” and in the present connection painful discipline, so that we translate “chastisement,” for it includes “scourging.”
Hebrews 12:6
6 The main point of the quotation lies in the reason that prompts chastisement and reproof; the Lord administers this only to those whom he loves; all chastisements are the plainest kind of proof that he loves those who are chastised. Ἀγαπάω, however, denotes the highest type of love, the love that is full of complete understanding and of corresponding lofty purpose and not the shallow, weak, grandfatherly love (seen in Eli) which lets sons go unchastised and uncorrected.
The last line says still more: the Lord lashes or scourges every son whom he accepts as a son in his family. Chastisement in its severest form is thus strong evidence of one’s sonship. This casts the clearest light on all persecution that God lets us bear in this life for Christ’s sake. It does correct us, drive out the sin that is still in us, but only in order that we may be more truly the sons that God would have us be. The last line follows the LXX which read the Hebrew with a different and, as Delitzsch thinks, a more correct vowel pointing than appears in our Masoretic pointing; the case is like that of 10:21 where the LXX reads vowels that have the word mean “staff” while the present pointing in our Hebrew Bibles has it read “bed.”
Hebrews 12:7
7 The writer expounds. Only a few minuscules have εἰ in place of εἰς although some of the old versions follow this reading as does the A. V.; it seems to be modeled after v. 8. Since the thought of the attested reading is very acceptable, we follow this. For chastisement you perseveringly endure; as with sons is God dealing with you.
The phrase and the datives have the emphasis. The two terse statements point to the main things in the quotation: 1) the aim or object of the persevering endurance (the same word that occurs in v. 1, 2, 3) is “chastisement”; 2) this is treatment of the readers “as sons” (προσφέρεται, “he is treating you,” M.-M. 552). These are the things the readers have been forgetting entirely. They are emphatically pointed out here. The two statements are now combined in the self-answering question: For what son (is there) whom a father does not chastise? Sonship and fatherly chastisement invariably go together.
Hebrews 12:8
8 This involves a negative deduction. Now if you are without chastisement, of which all have become partakers, then are you bastards and not sons. This is a regular negative syllogism. Major premise: All sons are partakers of chastisement. Minor premise: You are without chastisement. Conclusion: You are bastards and not sons. “If” in the condition of reality states that this conclusion inevitably follows with its judgment on the readers the moment they are no more chastised by their heavenly Father. This deduction is effective for the readers because they were growing weary of God’s chastisement and were thinking of getting away from it.
Νόθος, here an adjective used as a noun, is one who has no known father, a bastard. Thayer and von Hofmann narrow the word down to mean the son of a concubine or a slave, and the latter then argues that God cannot have sons of this kind. Esau would be a case in point. Such an idea is not indicated in the words of the writer.
Hebrews 12:9
9 The negative syllogism is followed by an argument from the less to the greater which pursues the matter of chastisement a step farther and still keeps the human analogy. Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh as chastisers and kept respecting them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of the spirits and live?
The imperfects refer to an indefinite past duration of time, indefinite because it varies with the individual readers. We all, who are grown up, had earthly fathers who chastised us, and yet despite their chastising us we ever respected them (the middle “turn oneself to” is used in this sense). Shall we not much rather be in subjection to our heavenly Father and not only “respect him,” give him honor, but far more “live,” ever receive true spiritual life from him? The question again answers itself.
The comparison covers three points: 1) the kinds of fathers 2) the time of their fatherhood 3) our relation to them. The one kind were “the fathers of our flesh,” the other is “the Father of the spirits.” These genitives have been referred to when we were discussing the question of creationism and traducianism, a question that is not even touched here much less decided in favor of the conception that our flesh or body is procreated by the earthly father while our immortal spirit is created by God in the instant of our bodily procreation and in that instant joined to our body. Both body and spirit are derived from our parents, and God is the creator of both. “He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses, and still preserves them,” a simple Catechism truth on which no erudite, speculative commentator shall confuse us. These genitives do not elucidate the questions as to from whom and in what way we originate; they are genitives of relation and no more: the fathers who have to do with our bodily nature and themselves have this nature; the Father who has to do with far more than our flesh, with the spirits, both the bodiless, angelic spirits and the embodied human spirits, ourselves, all human spirits. This one divine Father is thus infinitely above all human fathers.
Hence we only “had” the latter fathers; in the case of most of us they are dead and gone, their whole father activity is ended. While the writer naturally says “fathers,” the word by no means intends to exclude mothers who also certainly were our “chastisers.” In v. 8 “son” and “sons” in no way exclude daughters—or is this writer speaking only to males and of males? This other Father is spoken of with a future tense which reaches from the present into the indefinite future: “shall we not much rather be in subjection” to him? His is to be an eternal fatherhood for us. But this is a question that is directed to our volition and not one about a fatherhood (creatorship) that simply exists but about a filial relation and attitude that we should assume, acknowledge and assume gladly. The question does not deal with a parallel: “We had earthly fathers; shall we not have a heavenly Father?” The question goes beyond that: “We respected our earthly chastisers; shall we not be subject to our heavenly Father?”
The point dwells on our relation, which our will may alter to our terrible detriment or may retain in the normal way to our great advantage. We should not be misled by the verbal correspondence: καὶἐνετρεπόμεθα—καὶζήσομεν. The tenses warn against making these two parallel: an imperfect that lies wholly in the past, a future that continues into eternity.
Much more should the meaning of the verbs prevent such a paralleling. Our having respected the earthly fathers is greatly advanced by asking about being subject to the heavenly Father. While being subject to him includes our willing acceptance of his chastisements it means far more, namely willing acceptance of our entire relation to him as our Father, we being his sons. It is thus that “we shall live”; the verb is used as it was in 10:38. This is a question, and hence the two future tenses are deliberative (see R. 875 on this use of the future): “Do the readers want this result of their relation to the heavenly Father?” Surely, they do. The verb means “to possess the true ζωή,” the life that makes us true sons of this Father (John 3:15, 16).
The future tense is not to be referred only to the hereafter, it begins now and extends into eternity. Blessed relation, indeed, that assures our possessing this life forever, and that not in spite of the chastisements it entails but as making these chastisements an aid for ever remaining in this spiritual life.
Hebrews 12:10
10 “For” explains the matter a little more fully and retains the comparison of the less and the greater: For they kept chastising for a few days according to what seemed good to them; but he for what (really) profits so that we partake of his holiness; οἱμέν and ὁδέ contrast the two. The imperfect “kept chastising” is the same as that used in v. 9. These earthly fathers did the best they could for the short time during which they had their children as minors. “According to what appeared good to them” (τὸδοκοῦν, the present neuter participle) passes no judgment on the fathers but only marks their natural limitation just as “for a few days” indicates the limitation regarding the time at their disposal.
The chastising of our heavenly Father is a far greater thing, which we are to appreciate accordingly. Instead of mechanically contrasting the time: “for all the days of our earthly life” and the insight: “according to what seems good to him,” the writer at once reaches much farther: “but he for what (really) profits” (again a neuter present participle). Those earthly fathers could do only what seemed good to them when they were chastising; all chastising of the heavenly Father rests on (ἐπί) what is actually profitable for us. There is never a mistake either subjectively or objectively on his part; the only question is: “Shall we subject ourselves and receive this blessed profit?” What this profit is, is made plain by the added clause. This is generally regarded as expressing purpose or intent under the impression that εἰςτό must mean purpose if at all possible. By ridding ourselves of this restriction we are free to find purpose, contemplated result, or actual result, according to which fits best. Contemplated result is surely correct here: “so that we partake of his holiness,” an aorist to express actuality.
Like all derivatives of ἅγιος, ἁγιότης is not found in secular Greek and, with the exception of 2 Macc. 15:2, appears only here. It is an essential attribute of God. Absolutely holy himself, not only separated from sin but reacting against all sin, God is the source of holiness for all who are holy. Those who are holy are so only because they partake of his holiness. Our partaking of God’s holiness is often taken to mean no more than similarity to God in moral character, his chastisements producing this character in us. In G.
K. 115 this is narrowed down to our final perfect holiness in heaven. We agree with C.-K. 55 that the thought can here scarcely be only ethical and moral but must be soteriological and refer to the saving gift offered to us, in which we share, for the acceptance of which chastisement is to make us more and more ready. We may add that all holiness and Godlikeness in us has the whole of soteriology back of it and cannot be separated from this its source. Since we are to be ἅγιοι and ἡγιασμένοι already in this life we are partakers of God’s holiness now although it is true that perfect holiness is ours only at the end.
Hebrews 12:11
11 The better reading is δέ. The writer takes up the last point in regard to our chastisement. Now every chastisement for the present does not seem to be (a matter) of joy but of grief; yet later on it yields for those who have been exercised by means of it peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Μέν and δέ contrast only the expressions of time: “for the present” (present neuter participle)—“later on.” The two genitives are not ablatives: springing from joy—from grief (R., W. P. and Grammar), for this would be a strange thought; they are either predicative (our versions thus translate by means of adjectives) or the Greek idiom “to be of” which equals “to belong to.” Those who expand “all chastisement” so as to include all chastisement by human fathers must, after all, in the second clause think only of chastisement by the heavenly Father. Every time God chastises us it does not seem to us to be a matter of joy but only a matter of grief. The writer does not deny this but indicates that this seeming is due only to our shortsightedness. Chastisement seems to be a matter to grieve over “for the time being”; “afterward,” when we have its valuable fruit, it seems the reverse. Matt. 5:10–12.
The statement is the more effective because it is worded objectively. This objectiveness takes care also of the fact that some believers are not shortsighted but are like the Twelve who bore all chastisement and persecution with rejoicing (Acts 5:41). Not all who receive God’s chastisement obtain its blessed fruit but only “they who have been exercised by its means” (the perfect tense to indicate the enduring effect). While the figure of the athlete is found at the beginning of the chapter it still lingers in the reader’s mind and is thus revived by the verb γυμνάζω. When the strain and struggle of the spiritual athlete are over, he receives the reward. This is “peaceful fruit of righteousness,” a compact expression in which the genitive is appositional: fruit = righteousness, the idea of peace is added by the adjective.
This is the so-called acquired righteousness, yet it is forensic since God is the judge who passes his verdict on this fruit. Its peacefulness is the taste of sweetness which we experience when all is well between us and God. Chastisement tries us out; persecution reveals whether we shall be true to God, and when it does this it reveals that we are righteous, and that our soul may rest in peace.
Hebrews 12:12
12 Admonition rounds out this section: Wherefore straighten out the limp hands and the paralyzed knees and make straight paths for your feet in order that the lame thing may not get turned off wrong but rather be cured.
In v. 12 the wording alludes to Old Testament language such as that found in Isa. 35:3, and v. 13 alludes to Prov. 4:26. Allusion is not quotation. The figurative language cannot be made physical, for a man who has paralyzed knees cannot straighten them up so as to bear him. The readers are allowing themselves to grow disheartened amid the persecutions that have been coming upon them. This laming, paralyzing discouragement they are fully able to shake off and so are able to straighten themselves up again in the full strength of faith. In the preceding verses the writer furnishes them full power to do this, and we may add all that this epistle has presented as the basis for these verses. He, therefore, now issues the peremptory (aorist) call: “Brace up!”
Hebrews 12:13
13 With this goes the allied call to make straight tracks for their feet (not “with” their feet). These tracks or paths are the thoughts of the readers, which are to be true, straight, leading directly to their spiritual goal. All false and even inadequate thoughts about persecution are like twisted paths that run off in all directions so that the feet do not know where they are going. To the order: “Brace up!” there is added the second: “Go straight!” Both apply to the heart and to the mind.
The neuter to τὸχωλόν is “the lame thing” and may refer to whatever is still lame in any individual after these orders have been obeyed; or more likely to the lame part of the body of the readers, the spiritual cripples among them. If there were a mass of crooked, twisted thoughts in the hearts of the membership generally, this lame contingent would get turned off completely (passive and also aorist). Instead of that this lame part is to get cured (again passive and aorist). The readers who brace up and go straight will thereby not only carry the lame along, they will thereby effect a cure of the lame. The first part of v. 13 is a perfect hexameter; the variant reading which spoils it is textually too weak to be allowed to do this (R. 421).
The Warning Found in Esau, v. 14–17
Hebrews 12:14
14 The writer has more to say regarding what the readers must do to prevent anyone of their members from going wrong and perhaps contaminating many others. His admonition turns to warning and offers the sad example of Esau. Verses 14–17 should be read as a unit; when this is not done, parts of the whole are misunderstood.
Peace continue to pursue with all, and the sanctification without which no one shall see the Lord! If this were a general admonition in a series of similar admonitions, we might translate “with all men,” i. e., both inside and outside of the church (our versions). It would then be a parallel to Rom. 12:18; however, in the present context which centers on “the lame thing” (v. 13) and on any individual who may go wrong the parallel is Rom. 14:19: peace with all the members of the church so that no dissension may afford anyone cause for turning from Christ. This pursuit of peace is a part of the wider obligation of the whole membership with reference to its individuals, namely all that is comprised in “the sanctification, without which no one shall get to see (ingressive future) the Lord” (Matthew 5:8).
Ἁγιασμός is a word that expresses an action. It is not Heiligkeit but Heiligung, which is well described in G. K. 115 as always proceeding from a holy person, and thus in the case of self-sanctification (as here) always presupposing the holiness that is obtained by Christ’s reconciliation in justification. The word denotes a process by which we become separated unto God in our entire life and conduct. We, who are already ἅγιοι by faith, are ever to continue in pursuit of ἁγιασμός, a life that is more and more sanctified to God. It is true that peace thus refers to every one of our fellow members, and sanctification to the Lord.
Hebrews 12:15
15 Verse 14 is only the preamble, the main concern is stated in the participle used in v. 15 with its three object clauses of warning: continuing to exercise oversight lest anyone be dropping away from the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up be causing trouble and by means of it many get to be contaminated; lest there be any fornicator or profane one like Esau, who for one meal gave away his own primogeniture. For you know that even when afterward wanting to inherit the blessing he was rejected, for he did not find a place for repentance although having sought it (the blessing) with tears.
Episkopos is a bishop; the participle bids all the readers act the part of episkopoi, overseers, by exercising continuous oversight over each other. The three μή clauses merely unfold the ἵναμή clause used in v. 13, “that the lame thing may not turn off in the wrong direction.” The three sides of such an act are now unfolded: 1) loss of God’s grace for the person himself 2) damage to many others 3) inability to make the loss good as shown by the example of Esau. The three clauses refer to the same person. The copula is to be supplied in the first and the third clause; it is omitted in the first for a special reason: the predicate is a participle, and the omission of the copula avoids the appearance of a periphrastic tense form, which is not intended by the writer. After the copula is omitted in the first clause it is omitted also in the third although the predicate of this clause consists of two nouns. We have two perfect trimeters in v. 14, 15: οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνΚύριον; and: ἐπισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶνἀπό. B.-D. 487.
The calamity ever to be guarded against is first of all “that anyone may drop away from the grace of God,” literally, “fall behind” and thus be separated “from the saving grace of God.” We should say “lose the grace of God.” The picture is that of believers being carried forward to eternal salvation by God’s grace, and instead of being carried forward to heaven like the rest this individual is left standing behind and is thus lost.
“Grace” is the unmerited favor Dei that comes to the guilty sinner in the gospel to free him from his guilt and sin, to make him a child of God, to keep and to bless him as such. To have that grace and then to drop away from it is calamity indeed. Yet the readers were in danger of doing this very thing by shrinking from persecution and thus being inclined to think less and less of Christ and again falling in love with their former Judaism.
If anyone among the readers thus loses the grace of God, it is not merely a loss for himself, it is also a danger for many others: “lest any root of bitterness springing up be causing trouble.” The wording is adopted from the LXX of Deut. 29:18 (it is an allusion and not a quotation): μήτίςἐστιἐνὑμῖνῥίζαἄνωφύουσαἐνχολῇκαὶπικρίᾳ. Little is gained by referring to the Hebrew of Deuteronomy and by discussing the text of the LXX which the writer may have had, for he is not quoting.
We all use allusion, i. e., borrow some word, some expression, some turn of phrase from well-known writers and modify these to fit our purpose. This is done to embellish our writing; it is sometimes done almost unconsciously. Anyone who is steeped in Scripture language will thus keep using allusion to its language; this will sometimes be faint, sometimes plain and strong as it is in the present instance. Peter uses “gall of bitterness” in Acts 8:23, a fainter allusion to Deuteronomy. In 1 Macc. 1:11 Antiochus Epiphanes is called ῥίζαἁμαρτωλός, “a sinful root”; so here, too, “any root of bitterness” denotes a person, one such as the writer has just described as having left the grace of God. “A root springing up” to strong growth is a figure that is used repeatedly in Scripture to designate a person who develops a certain quality and thus affects others.
The attributive genitive describes the root or person. Some take “bitterness” in the sense of poisonous, which may pass. The point is the effect this person has upon the rest of the readers with whom he comes into contact: he “troubles or perturbs” them with his bitterness. Himself bitter against Christ, he embitters others against Christ, poisons them if you will. The verb is derived from ὄχλος. The writer’s verb ἐνοχλῇ is not even in sound due to the phrase ἐνχολῇ which is used in Deut. 29:18.
A second clause completes the thought: “and by means of it (such a root of bitterness, i. e., such a person) many get to be defiled or contaminated” (ingressive aorist). It is bad enough when one loses the grace of God by becoming bitter against Christ; it is much worse when such a man spreads his bitterness so as to defile (μιαίνω) many in addition to himself. This verb would have a ritual meaning to readers of the LXX (cf., John 18:28): those defiled and made unclean would be debarred from every approach to God.
The thought is greatly reduced when it is referred only to the moral life, to sins of various kinds. It goes far deeper, it denotes the defilement that is due to the loss of God’s grace, to sinking back into the filth and the guilt of sin, to the bitterness which scorns Christ and his blood and his righteousness. The writer is in no way blind to the danger which would ensue for the mass of his readers if even a single one of them should fall away from Christ and return to Judaism. We may say that the danger was the greater because the readers were a compact body, all of them Jewish Christians, all worshiping in their old synagogues in Rome, which had now become Christian churches. By returning to Judaism some influential former rabbi among them might draw a large number with him. In fact, as these synagogues had become Christian, so they might again become Jewish.
Obsta principiis! Resist the beginnings!
Hebrews 12:16
16 The third clause warns against the inability of escaping from irreparable loss and damage after these are once incurred: “lest there be any fornicator or profane one like Esau, who for one meal gave away his own primogeniture.” Some commentators seriously discuss whether sexual fornication is referred to or not and then often conclude that it is and charge the writer with adopting the Jewish notion that Esau was a fornicator (of which Scripture says nothing).
Others separate “fornicator” and “profane one” and then disregard this sexual fornicator and attach all that is said about Esau only to βέβηλος. Why should this one sin of sexual fornication be mentioned in this context when the writer discusses this sin where it properly belongs, in 13:4, in the section that deals with sins and virtues? The inadequate interpretation is not made right by setting up the claim that spiritual fornication is never predicated of an individual. Let us look at the text. This does not deal with a lone individual, with a lone moral lapse of one person, but with irreparable damage that may result for οἱπολλοί as the result of one man’s losing the grace of God, especially when he is one of the leaders who turns back to Judaism.
The writer at once explains πόρνος by adding ἢβέβηλος and by explaining what he means by this by giving an example, “as (for instance) Esau.” We often use “or” in the same way for the very purpose of excluding misunderstanding. “Or” means that “fornicator” is not to be understood in the physical but in the spiritual sense, i. e., as the sin of “a profane one,” an “unhallowed one.” Both terms carry forward the ritual connotation of contamination which is so abominable to Jewish ears. “Fornicator” emphasizes all the implied vileness from which the readers would recoil; and “profane one,” which is made alternative by “or,” brings out the idea that the person referred to is a fornicator in the sense of caring for nothing that is sacred or holy, treating it as secular or common.
Even this is not enough for the writer. An example very often elucidates a definition more than the addition of other terms would. We have such an example in Esau and in the way in which he traded away his own right of being the first-born for one βρῶσις or meal (one satisfaction of his appetite) as if that sacred right were a common thing to be used in trade for another common thing. The reflexive “his own” helps to bring out the distinctness of Esau’s great right; he did not have it in common with his own twin brother. Ἀπέδοτο, which is also written ἀπέδετο, is the second aorist middle.
Hebrews 12:17
17 “For” shows from the sequel of Esau’s history that his birthright was anything but a common thing, and how fateful it was for him to act the πόρνος or βέβηλος by treating it so. Esau’s birthright did not involve only headship of the family and great property rights as it did in the case of the first-born in Oriental lands and as it still does in royal families of our own time; it involved the inheritance of “the blessing,” i. e., the Abrahamitic blessing, the bloodline of the Messiah. What Esau threw away for one meal was the ancestorship of the Messiah and the prerogatives which went with this. Moreover, this was one of those rights which, once lost, could not be recovered no matter what the effort put forth. Once gone, forever gone! After that: Too late, too late!
There are acts that, once done, can never be undone. That is what Esau illustrates in the way of warning.
We regard ἴστε as the indicative: “You know that,” etc., as the readers know; not as the imperative since the readers did not need to be told: “Know that,” etc. They know “that even when he afterward wanted to inherit the blessing” by getting back his right of primogeniture “he was rejected” as one who had been tested out and found wanting and was thus cast aside. God is the agent of the passive. After the attitude which Esau had assumed toward the inheritance, which came to a climax in his cheap trading away the inheritance, God refused to have him as the heir.
“For he did not find a place for repentance although having sought it (the blessing) with tears” = he had repentance enough for his act, but there was no place where he might put it in order to make it restore the inheritance to him although he most earnestly (ἐκ in the participle) sought this inheritance. It is sometimes asked whether μετανοίας or τὴνεὐλογίαν is the antecedent of αὐτήν so that the R. V. and others insure the latter by placing “for he found no place of repentance” in parentheses. The A. V. chooses the other antecedent. There is no ambiguity in the Greek.
The antecedent cannot be the genitive that is dependent on the other noun, for the two form one concept and are in this case even articulated; it must be the independent articulated noun τὴνεὐλογίαν. Our English “it” as a translation of αὐτήν leaves us at sea and would refer to τόπον (a masculine in the Greek). The English must thus use some device to convey what the Greek intends to say. Transposition would do it: “even when afterward wanting to inherit the blessing although having sought it with tears, he was rejected, for he did not find a place for repentance.”
It is unnecessary to say that Esau sought repentance with tears; tears are themselves evidence of repentance. This leads Riggenbach to seek for some other meaning for μετάνοια, but this word is not the antecedent. Even the καίπερ clause is participial and, like θέλων, modifies the main verb “was rejected.” Gen. 27:30, etc., shows plainly that Esau did repent, strong man that he was, “with a great and exceeding bitter cry.” Μετάνοια = a change of mind, and this fits exactly. But the damage had been done, it was impossible for him to find “a place” where any repentance of his would do any good for recovering his birthright and thus “the blessing” of being the heir who was to continue the Messianic bloodline. Certain types of damage are irrevocable.
All this has nothing to do with Esau’s eternal salvation or predestination. Our passage as well as Rom. 9:10–13 are misinterpreted by Calvinists (see the author on Rom. 9). “The blessing” is not Esau’s salvation, which was sold to Jacob. Nor does the writer make the application that, if any of his readers goes wrong, he will irrevocably lose his salvation. It is inadequate to point to 6:6, for the impossibility of repentance is asserted there; but Esau did repent. What is taught by the example of Esau is the fact that, if one becomes a root of bitterness and defiles many others, although he repent, no repentance of his will ever revoke the damage he will have done to others. A terrible thing for anyone who is still Christian as the readers are to contemplate! It should be the final dread that would make every reader shrink back from returning to Judaism and leaving Christ.
The Holy City and the Assembly to Which You Have Come, v. 18–24
Hebrews 12:18
18 In one grand sentence (v. 18–24) in which the writer draws a comparison with Judaism he presents to his readers to what they have come as Christians. In the preceding admonition he asks that no one drop away from the grace of God and do irreparable damage to others; with “for” he explains what this grace really is, or rather to what it has brought them.
Some commentators leave us under a wrong impression, namely that as Jews the readers had had only Moses and the law while they now have Christ and the gospel. This view is unhistorical. Chapter 11 corrects it. The Jews had Abraham and the Abrahamitic covenant with all the Messianic promises, and we are told in 11:39, 40 that, although God fully attested their faith in his Messianic promises, all the Old Testament saints died without seeing these promises fulfilled in Jesus (Matt. 13:16, 17). In the development of God’s plans, when the children of Abraham became a nation and were brought out of Egypt under Moses (11:27, etc.), the Jews had come only as far as Sinai and the giving of the law 430 years after Abraham (Gal. 3:17), this law being given to them because of transgression in order to keep them in the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20).
But the readers have come to the actual fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, to Jesus Christ and to all that he has actually brought. This is the history of grace. The present paragraph must be read in the light of this history. The tragic mistake of the Jews was the fact that they clung to Sinai and Moses, to the law, and were blind to the covenant of Abraham with its promise of the Messiah and thus blind also to the fulfillment of this promise in Jesus. The readers who had made this mistake and had been rescued from this mistake were inclined to fall back into it in order to escape the persecutions that were connected with their faith in Jesus. This entire epistle seeks to keep them from taking this fatal step.
For you have not come to what is touched and to fire having been set ablaze and to murk and to blackness and to tempest and to trumpet’s blast and to sound of utterances, which those who heard made entreaty that there be not added for them (any more) word, for they were not bearing (i. e., not able to bear) the thing being enjoined: And if a beast (even) touch the Mount it shall be stoned! and—so frightful was the appearance—Moses said: I am terrified and quaking; on the contrary, etc.
The writer’s skillful Greek seems awkward even when parts of it are rendered only ad sensum as is done in our versions and still more awkward when we seek to conserve something of the Greek idiom; it is actually masterly and rich in meaning. Note all the anarthrous nouns, to say nothing of the Greek tenses and what each conveys. By omitting the articles the author makes all the nouns strongly qualitative although the whole description is strictly historical.
The very first tense, a perfect, is significant: “you have not come” to what is here described = to remain with this as the final thing, the τελείωσις. All that transpired at Sinai to which God brought Israel was not the completion of the Abrahamitic testament and promise. It was added only because of the transgression (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20) until Christ should come. The law made nothing complete (7:19), it came in only on the side. It was temporary, intended only for Israel. With this perfect tense the writer says: “You have not come to Sinai as the destination where you are to remain.” With the same perfect tense he says in v. 22: “You have come ever to remain to Mount Zion.” Bengel and then Delitzsch find seven items to which the readers have not come in v. 18–21 and again seven to which they have come in v. 22–24; but only for the first two and the last two items in these two sevens is correspondence claimed, and hence the two sevens would be merely formal for us.
The addition of ὄρει is so poorly attested that it can scarcely be admitted into the text on the plea of a very early omission in transcription. Yet it might just as well be there as “Mount” is certainly used in v. 20 and in the opposite “Mount Zion” in v. 22. Its omission by no means makes one item of ψηλαφωμένῳκαὶκεκαυμένῳπυρί whether we translate “to what may be touched and is kindled with fire” (i. e., the Mount, regarding πυρί as instrumental, R., W. P.), or “to fire that may be touched and has been kindled.” Fire is certainly not something to be touched. The difference in the tenses of the two participles causes us to regard them as two items: “to what is touched,” i. e., the Mount (R. 1118, and B.-D. 65, 3 have this mean what is “touchable” like a verbal in -τος), “and the fire having been set ablaze.”
The present participle is simply descriptive: the Mount is touched (or “touchable”) at any time (present participle), even now; unlike Mount Zion, Sinai is earthly, a mass of rock that any person may touch. The absence of the article describes it as being such a thing. The perfect participle that is used with “fire” is entirely different: fire, once set to blazing and continuing to blaze for a certain length of time, is then extinguished. This participle lies wholly in the past and denotes only a certain length of time during that past. The fact that two items are intended is evident also from the observation that the writer would not begin with fire and say nothing about where such fire was located. The place is earthly and still remains; the fire is unearthly and blazed for a time.
The next five items are also qualitative (minus articles): γνόφος, “murk,” an impenetrable black pall. Then ζόφος, “blackness,” which is stronger than “darkness.” Then θύελλα, “tempest” or “whirlwind.” All is unearthly at this earthly Mount. Compare Deut. 4:11 and 5:22.
Hebrews 12:19
19 The “trumpet’s blast” which made all the people in the camp tremble is quoted from Exod. 19:16; the “sound of utterances,” from Deut. 4:12, when, according to Exod. 20:1, etc., God spoke the Ten Commandments from the Mount; and the petition that no more should be spoken in this way from Deut. 5:25 and 18:16. The genitive ἧς, the object of οἱἀκούσαντες, refers to “voice” as belonging to a speaker, the accusative would refer to what the voice says; the speaker’s very voice terrified. Λόγον refers to contents. This clause can be translated smoothly only ad sensum. The remark made in G. K. 195 to the effect that the request, which was originally made in humble fear of God and was acknowledged by God, is in Hebrews treated “as sinful declination of divine revelation” is unjustifiable, for the very next clause explains and justifies this request.
Hebrews 12:20
20 The Israelites “were not bearing the rigor” of an injunction that was as severe as this one (τὸνδιαστελλόμενον, note the article): “And if a beast (even) touch the Mount it shall be stoned!” In Exod. 19, 10–13 this command which was given in regard to men is extended also to beasts; it is thus cited here (not verbally) as an indication of the awfulness of all the manifestations. “The thing being enjoined” is not the Decalogue but, as the article indicates, the command regarding a beast.
Hebrews 12:21
21 Moses’ own exclamation is added as being corroborative and still stronger: “I am terrified and quaking!” In Deut. 9:14 the LXX has καὶἔκφοβόςεἰμιδιὰτὸνθυμὸνκαὶτὴνὀργήν. While this occurred when Moses was coming down from the Mount (Deut. 9:19), there is no reason for saying that the writer of Hebrews was inexact in reporting Moses or for surmising that the writer is merely following a Jewish tradition. As to the wording, the previous quotation already shows that the author is citing only the substance without attention to verbal exactness. He is doing the same with the words of Moses. As to the situation, Moses was just coming down out of the thick darkness and was thus under the impression of the terrors of the law against all violators. The construction is perfectly in order when we read as parenthetical: “so frightful was the appearance” (present passive participle = the whole thing made apparent to the senses). Thus καί introduces εἶπεν.
Hebrews 12:22
22 You have not come, etc., on the contrary, you have come to Mount Zion and to the living God’s city, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels in festal assembly; and to a church of first-born enrolled in (the) heavens; and to a Judge, God of all; and to spirits of righteous ones who have been brought to completion; and to a new testament’s Mediator, Jesus; and to blood of sprinkling speaking something better than Abel.
On the perfect tense see v. 18: “you have come,” i. e., are still there ever to remain. When Israel came to Sinai, Israel had reached only a way station. Sinai was not to be the completion of the testament and the promise given to Abraham. Sinai was necessary only because of transgression. The completion is Mount Zion and all that goes with Mount Zion.
We have used the semicolon to separate the items. We find that there are eight and not seven. As in v. 18, 19 each new item was added by καί, this is again done in v. 22–24. Since the writer uses καί thus in two lists, it is unwarranted to assume that he should use two καί in different ways, namely in v. 18 only to connect two modifying participles as one item and in v. 22 to connect only πόλει and ὄρει as one item: Zion, “mount and city” of the living God, with “heavenly Jerusalem” as an apposition to both.
Delitzsch has Mount Zion = τὰἅγια, the Holy of Holies in heaven, and the city = ἡσκηνή, the Tabernacle (8:1, 2; 9:11, 12), the former being the place where the divine doxa “dwells in sacred seclusion from the world of his creatures.” But that is rather fanciful. “Zion” is the name of the highest elevation on which Jerusalem is built; the Temple hill Moriah is of a lower elevation. This seems to be the reason the term “Zion” or “Mount Zion” and not Moriah (although this bore the Temple, the earthly place of God’s presence, where Abraham built the altar to offer Isaac) came to be idealized to denote the sacred city, the land, or the people, and then also heaven, the home of the blessed with God. The term “Zion” excludes the idea of God’s dwelling alone “in sacred seclusion”; “Zion” never connotes the Holy of Holies. “Mount” is added because Sinai, too, was a mount. Israel came to the physical mountain; this Zion is heavenly. Both are called Mount, but what a vast difference!
This first item takes us only a little of the way, and hence the second is necessary: “and to the living God’s city, heavenly Jerusalem.” Sinai has no city; none could be built upon its crags or its pinnacle. While “Mount” marks the resemblance between Zion and Sinai, “city” adds the vast difference between them, and “city of the living God,” like “heavenly Jerusalem,” removes us from earth altogether. God only came down to Sinai accompanied by the phenomena mentioned in v. 18, 19 and not in order to remain there but only to remain a short time, only to communicate with Israel while this people stood afar off. The city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, is the home and dwelling place of God and of all his people forever; the earthly city of Jerusalem is its faint shadow.
How far removed is the idea that God reserves Zion for himself while Jerusalem is reserved for his people we see at once when we note the earthly city in which the Temple with its Holy of Holies stood on Moriah and not on Zion. The idea that “Mount Zion” and “city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem,” constitute only a verbal difference is nullified the moment we think of Sinai and of the kind of a mount that it is. This is the city referred to in 11:10, 16, also in 13:14 (Rev. 21:2; especially 21:10, etc.). “The living God” is repeatedly used by the writer (3:12; 9:14; 10:31), each time according to the context; thus he is here the founder and the king of this city, which is, therefore, eternal and blessed forever.
Since καί separates these items, we construe: καὶμυριάσινἀγγέλωνπανηγύρει: “and to myriads of angels in festal assembly,” the latter being a dative of manner. Some may prefer to make this an apposition to the first dative. Sinai, too, had its angels, but they did not appear in festal assembly, see Acts 7:53 and Gal. 3:19. The word “myriads” or ten thousands is repeatedly used with reference to angels (Dan. 7:10; Jude 14; Rev. 5:11). Since Christ has entered heaven after his work of redemption, the whole angel world rings with festal panegyrics (Rev. 5:1–12). Πανήγυρις is a general festal assembly and not merely a “general assembly” (our versions), and for this reason also it cannot be joined to ἐκκλησία. The church on earth is not as yet a festal assembly.
Hebrews 12:23
23 The fourth item reads: “and to a church of first-born enrolled in (the) heavens.” This is the church on earth, for its members are enrolled in heaven, are thus not as yet there. “First-born” denotes rank and not precedence in time. Some recall Esau (v. 16), but his was physical and temporal precedence. The word is not elsewhere used with reference to believers, and it seems to denote the fact that as first-born the heavenly inheritance, the city of God, belongs to them as the heirs. All other men receive only a share of earthly gifts which they so often fail to appreciate. The perfect participle indicates that a permanent record has been made of their names in heaven.
The expression goes back to Jesus’ word spoken in Luke 10:20, but this itself goes far back into the Old Testament. Exod. 32:32 speaks of blotting out Moses’ name “from thy book which thou hast written”; cf. Ps. 69:28. Isa. 4:3: “everyone that is written among the living in Jerusalem.” Paul writes of his “fellow laborers whose names are in the book of life” (Phil. 4:3). Daniel does the same: In the great tribulation “thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (Dan. 12:1). The passages found in Revelation (3:5; 13:8; 20:12) are familiar, especially 21:27: through the portals of the new Jerusalem (into the eternal communion with God) none shall enter “but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
This figure is most probably derived from the genealogical records that were kept by the Jews. To be recorded in heaven = to be counted among the justified. The moment a man is pronounced righteous by God (i. e., is justified), his name stands recorded in heaven. If his faith ceases, his name is blotted out. “They that depart from thee shall be written in the earth because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters,” Jer. 17:13. See also C. Tr. 1071, 25, etc.; 1085, 66 and 70.
“And to a Judge, God of all” (not neuter: “of all things”) should not be reversed: “to God as Judge of all.” This Judge has no limited view so that, when he judges some one person or a group, he may err; he is God of all. The idea of “Judge” is the fact that he will avenge any and all wrongs done to the righteous who may ever appeal to him for vindication against their oppressors; his court is ever open. So he is “Judge of the widows” (Ps. 68:5) and also “Father of the fatherless” who sees to it that their rights are not violated and punishes those who abuse these helpless ones. In v. 19 we are told that he proclaimed his holy law, and that those who heard shrank from the terror of his voice; here those whose names are recorded in heaven may freely place their sad case before him and be sure of vindication.
“And to spirits of righteous ones who have been brought to completion,” i. e., brought to the final goal by a blessed death, the perfect participle stating that they remain there. The first of the great men listed in chapter 11, Abel, received God’s testimony that he is “righteous.” So we do not debate as to whether the Old Testament believers are included. The fact that πνεύματα means the spirits who have departed from their earthly bodies should not be doubted. God has judged them, pronounced them righteous (Rom. 3:24–26). Τετελειωμένοι, “having been brought to completion,” will not be fully understood until we follow this word and its various forms through our epistle. Jesus is “the completer” of our faith as he is its author (v. 2). Not without us are the Old Testament believers brought to completion (11:40), for the completion of all believers in both Testaments is found in Christ.
Study the nouns, the verbs, and the adjective in 2:10; 5:9; 6:1; 7:11, 19; 9:9, 11; 10:1, 14. The spirits of the blessed are now complete, their bodies will soon follow.
Hebrews 12:24
24 The list is continued with a consideration of him on whom all the foregoing depends: “and to a new testament’s Mediator, Jesus,” and then there is added wherewith he accomplishes his mediation: “and blood of sprinkling, speaking something better than Abel.” The anarthrous nouns are qualitative. On “testament” review 7:22, on “Mediator” 8:6. Called καινή in 8:8, this testament is now said to be even νέα, not merely new as replacing the Mosaic testament which was old but as being totally different, beside which the Mosaic testament with what it had of promises concerning the earthly Canaan does not deserve serious consideration. The newness of this testament has nothing to do with the testament that was given to Abraham, for this stands forever and cannot be called old in any sense since Christ fulfilled its promise and sealed the inheritance to all the heirs.
Christ did this with his own blood (9:14) which is called “blood of sprinkling” (10:22) because it cleanses those who have it applied to them in faith. “Sprinkling” is derived from the Mosaic ritual (9:19–22). This blood makes the testament “eternal” (13:20). It speaks “something better than Abel”; κρεῖττον is scarcely an adverb: “better,” i. e., in a better way; but a neuter noun. Abel, who was murdered by Cain, i. e., Abel’s blood (Gen. 4:10), cried for vengeance. Christ, too, was murdered, but his blood speaks as we read in Luke 23:34. Christ’s blood speaks of expiation, reconciliation, pardon even as it is intended for sprinkling and cleansing (1 John 1:7). Παρά = “than.”
How have we come to all that is here named and described? Not in a physical way as the Israelites once came to Sinai but spiritually by faith. As far as the church of first-born ones is concerned, we are in its blessed communion; as far as Jesus and his blood are concerned, we have the cleansing; as far as heaven, the angels, the glorified saints are concerned, we have come very near to them and will soon be in the Eternal City. How is any reader able to think of turning back after he has come thus?
Let Us Be Grateful, v. 25–29
Hebrews 12:25
25 The admonition is not presented as a deduction from the things to which we have come in Christ; no “therefore,” οὖν, is inserted. The connection, however, becomes clear when we note that v. 18–24 state to what we have already come while this admonitory section tells us to what we are presently to come when God will again shake not only the earth but also the heaven. The τελείωσις, the completion, of which the writer has said so much, is in his mind; it shall extend to heaven and to earth (Rev. 21:1, 2). Instead of adding “the unshakable kingdom” to which we have almost come to the list given in v. 22–24 the writer reserves it (since we have not as yet actually come to it) for the admonition with which he desires to continue.
See lest you refuse him that speaks! It is God who speaks in all to which we have come. To refuse him = to say “no” to him and to what he says, to deny its reality. This would be unbelief, the very thing to which the readers were inclining. The negative admonition is a litotes, for the writer wants his readers to accept and to believe what God is speaking to them. He has just said regarding the blood of Jesus that it “speaks something better than Abel” and so repeats that word in the expression “him that speaks,” namely God by means of this expiating blood which speaks of grace, pardon, eternal salvation. God spoke also on Sinai, there his voice struck terror into those who heard.
Let no reader think that because God now speaks pure grace he may refuse to hear in humble faith. For if they did not escape when coming to refuse him making divine communication on earth, we on our part (shall not escape) when turning away from him (making divine communication) from (the) heavens; whose voice, etc.
This is self-evident; it is impossible to assume the opposite. The Greek can condense the apodosis; the English must fill in the elision. The condition is one of reality even as the Israelites did not escape. The first participle has no article and is an aorist of fact: “when actually refusing,” or ingressive: “when coming to refuse” by the disobedience of unbelief. Τὸνχρηματίζοντα is a timeless, descriptive, present participle with the article; they said “no” to the divine speaker, namely to God at Sinai. This word is used to designate any supernatural, divine communication.
We cannot refer this protasis to v. 19–21, namely to the request of the Israelites that God no longer speak with his terrifying voice from Sinai, but that he speak to them through Moses. This common interpretation states that by this request the Israelites refused God in unbelief, but this is not true; the request is also regarded as a sample of all future unbelief, but also this is not true. The Israelites refused God and his divine communication when they turned away from God and worshipped the golden calf. On that occasion they did not escape but suffered dire punishment.
Much more we on our part (emphatic ἡμεῖς) shall not escape when turning away (iterative present participle) from God who makes divine communication from heaven; in our idiom it would be “much less shall we escape.” While God is the communicator in both clauses (and not Moses in the one, and Christ in the other), this does not conflict with the difference that at Sinai God makes his communication (the law) “on earth” while the communication we now hear (the gospel) is made “from (the) heavens.” There is an intentional contrast in these directly opposite phrases, and no less a contrast than that God’s present communication is far, far superior to the one he at one time made to the Israelites on Sinai. Although all those manifestations at Sinai were so stupendous they were, nevertheless, only “on earth,” in that one locality. They magnified the law mightily indeed, yet this law came only because of transgression (Gal. 3:19), as an adjunct to the Abrahamitic testament and promise. Great as this communication was, its greatness only makes this other stand out as being vastly greater even as it comes to us “from heaven.”
We see its exalted contents in v. 22–24, to which there must be added the consummation indicated in v. 26, 27. It is asked how this communication comes from heaven. We find the answer in John 15:26, 27; 16:7–15; Acts 2:11: “We hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” The Holy Spirit conveys the divine gospel communication which begins at Pentecost. As now being embodied in the New Testament writings this revelation speaks to us. These readers in Rome had heard Paul and then also Peter for a brief time (see the introduction); but the entire gospel is God’s voice from heaven. The refusal to hear at Sinai was severely punished (Exod. 32:28, 35); the refusal to hear the gospel shall certainly not escape punishment. The trajection of ἐπὶγῆς by separating it from τὸνχρηματίζοντα has been called unprecedented, but all efforts to connect it with the intervening participle cancel the contrast with ἀπʼ οὐρανῶν; we shall have to learn that the Greek is flexible enough to do what it plainly does here.
Hebrews 12:26
26 The contrast, one communication made on earth, the other coming from heaven, is only preliminary; it is the relative clause that brings the main contrast, which lies in what the voice did at Sinai and in what it declares it will yet do when bringing in the consummation of all that v. 22–24 contain: whose voice shook the earth at that time but now has given promise, declaring: Yet once again I will rock not only the earth but also the heaven. Now this yet once again indicates the change of the things shaken as things that have been made in order that there may remain the things not shaken.
The fact that the great rock-mass of Sinai shook and quaked is attested by Judges 5:4, 5; Ps. 68:8, 9; 77:18; 114:7. The writer combines this with Hag. 2:6, the promise which the same voice of God made and which, as the perfect tense implies, still stands: “Yet once again I will rock not only the earth but also the heaven.” The writer quotes, not verbatim, but correctly, and inserts “not only but also” in order to emphasize the truth that this “once” will include also the visible heaven itself. To shake something is to show its instability and therefore its temporary nature. Sinai shook, it was not the final, unshakable place for Israel, who also left it behind soon enough. What happened through the voice of God at Sinai is only an advance sign of what, according to that voice, shall happen again, namely the whole earth and the very heaven about the earth shall be made to rock (σείω).
Although the earth and the firmament with its heavenly bodies seem so stable and permanent they are really transient; God founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands, “they shall perish” (1:10). Being shakable and unstable, they cannot endure in this condition. When time ceases, when only eternity, which means timelessness, exists, no shakable things will remain. Thus, as far as the earth is concerned, the Scriptures point us to every earthquake that occurs as a sign of the transient condition of the earth, Matt. 24:29. We read still more in 2 Pet. 3:10–13. This is, however, promise: “the voice has promised” us this mighty coming change (v. 27).
We are to look forward to it with joyful anticipation. We are to long for it as we long for the coming of the beautiful springtime when the fig tree buds and puts forth its leaves, Matt. 24:32, 33.
Hebrews 12:27
27 Expository δέ tells us what is contained in the prophecy and promise: when the voice says “yet once again,” this indicates the μετάθεσις (the same word is used in 7:12) or “change of the things shaken as things that have been made” (the perfect describes them as being made or created by God and still existing as such). Τό makes a noun of ἔτιἅπαξ; μετάθεσις = “change” or “removal” only in the sense of change. “As things having been made,” these things are subject to the will of their Maker (Riggenbach) who might have made them to be unshakable and permanent; but God would then not have promised this final shaking and change.
Such permanency is promised in Isa. 66:22 in regard to the new heavens and the new earth: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me (i. e., never to be shaken into a change), so shall your seed and your name remain.” Add Isa. 65:17, etc.: “Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying,” etc.
When one is considering this subject, no single passage should be unduly stressed. If 1:10; 2 Pet. 3:10–12; the passages about “passing away” are so stressed they might lead us to conclude that the present heaven and the earth shall be totally annihilated in order to be replaced by a new heaven and an earth that are created ex nihilo. Our passage, Rom. 8:19, etc., and especially Rev. 21:1–5 reveal that annihilation will not occur but a complete change of rejuvenation, and this to the extent that the present separation of our heaven and our earth from the heaven of the blessed, glorious presence of God, the angels, and the saints will be abolished. So great shall be the “change” that is produced by this shaking which is promised by Haggai.
God’s purpose or rather the result contemplated by this “yet once again” is “that there may remain (aorist, for good and all) the things not shaken” (present participle: not of a quality to be shaken), the things unshakable which Abraham expected when he lived and died in the faith of the hoped for and the unseen (11:1, 10), “the city having the foundations (hence never to be shaken), whose architect and constructor is God,” “Mount Zion, a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem” (v. 22). This heavenly part is already existing and will at the last day come down and be joined to the transformed earthly part (Rev. 21:10–27).
The ὡς is not causal. R. 1140 says that ὡς may be causal, temporal, conditional, modal, etc., also concessive, yet he here regards the “as” as causal. The resultant sense is that because things have been made they are shakable and subject to change. But what about the new heaven and the new earth which are also to be made by God, the city having foundations whose architect and maker is God (11:10)? “As” denotes manner. As having been made by God = to be as he has wanted them to be, not at once of permanent and timeless but of transient form to await their final, permanent form. Although they were created in perfection (Gen. 1:31), even this perfection was not the final form. If Adam had not sinned, if he had resisted the tempter and been confirmed in holiness and righteousness like the good angels, the earth and the heavens would have become glorified; now they must wait.
We are told that ἵνα may be construed with τὴνμετάθεσιν or with τῶνπεποιημένων. But another construction may well be possible. The clause modifies the whole of what is indicated by the promise of Haggai, namely “the change of the things shaken as having been made” (this combination is not to be separated); in fact, “that there may remain the things not shaken” is the real point indicated by “yet once again,” indicated so that we may know it. There is no reason for making “remain” signify “await” (a meaning that is foreign to this epistle; we have only one example of this meaning, Acts 20:23) especially in the face of Isa. 66:22: “The new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me.”
28, 29) Wherefore, as receiving a kingdom unshakable, let us be grateful, whereby we serve God in a well-pleasing way together with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.
Warning against refusal (v. 25) and admonition to gratitude lie close together, in fact, are combined in these last two verses. The greater the promised consummation “when all things shake and fall” and the kingdom awaits us, the greater should be our gratitude to God, and yet, ever prone to sin as we are, the more should our gratitude be coupled with reverence and awe of God who is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24) for those who reject him by unbelief in his Son.
The reading of the relative clause varies between the subjunctive “may serve” and the indicative “serve.” Which to accept is a problem; we choose the latter because it is a little more simple. “Together with reverence and awe” should not be attached to the relative clause but to χάριν of the main clause, for the μετά phrase is too weighty to be a mere appendage to the relative clause, for it is substantiated by καὶγάρ (= etenim).
“A kingdom unshakable” is the city which Abraham was expecting (11:10), Mount Zion, etc., (12:22), God’s rule of glory in all eternity which is unshakable, final. We are now in the act of receiving it through God’s grace. When we think of the poor sinners that we are, the thought of this kingdom should overwhelm us with gratitude. Ἔχωχάριν = “to be grateful, to exercise gratitude.” Through this we certainly serve God in a way that pleases him. The verb “to serve” (λατρεύω) is used repeatedly in this epistle with reference to the service and the worship which are due to God from all of us. Much may be said about this gratitude, as to why it pleases God, and why it renders all our service so acceptable to him. Yet the fact that in his wrath against ungrateful unbelief God is a consuming fire is revealed already on Sinai (v. 18); cf., 10:31. Grace and blessing so infinite; judgment so fiery—how can the readers, how can we today, waver or hesitate?
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
C. Tr. Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.