Hebrews 4

CHAPTER IV

The Attractive Promise:

Those Who Believe Enter into God’s Rest, chapter 4.

The Rest Promised to Faith, v. 1–5.

The passage quoted from the psalm (3:7–11) is full of threatening and thus serves as a warning; but in this very threat there lies the most blessed promise, which the writer uses with equal effect to make his readers firm and to stop their wavering. He thus uses both law and gospel in the true, evangelical way and becomes a model that we may well follow.

Οὖν is merely transitional and not deductive. Let us fear, then, lest perhaps, although there is (still) left a promise to enter into his rest, someone of your number imagine he has come to be behind. For also we have been told glad tidings just as also they; but the Word of the hearing (the Word heard) did not profit them, not having mixed itself by faith with those who heard.

The imperative is an aorist which is perhaps ingressive: “let us get this fear”; it may also be constative: “let us fear,” taking the whole course of fear together; in any case, the aorist is stronger than the present would be. Μήποτε is the literary expression that indicates anxiety (B-D. 370, 1). Verse 2 helps us to understand the force of the genitive absolute; it asserts the fact that “a promise of entering into God’s rest is (still) left” to the readers, the glad tidings of it have been told them by the gospel preachers (v. 2). We translate this construction with “although”; our versions retain the genitive absolute of the Greek. The new and important word is “promise,” to which v. 2 adds the equally sweet word “to bring good tidings,” i. e., the gospel. After the warning voiced in chapter 3 we now have the drawing power of the promise.

We very properly have no article with ἐπαγγελίας: “promise of entering into his rest”; for while this repeats the psalmist’s words about “entering into God’s rest” (3:11) and “enter in” (v. 3, 19), in the case of the Israelites of the Exodus this included the earthly and the heavenly Canaan, but in the case of the readers of Hebrews it refers only to the heavenly Canaan. Those Israelites failed to enter into both because of unbelief (3:19); the promise of entering God’s rest in heaven still remains to the readers of our epistle.

Yet someone may imagine that this is not the case. The writer again says only “someone,” (3:12, 13), for he is reluctant to think that all or a large number of his readers could entertain such thoughts. How anyone might get such an idea is not stated. We have only the perfect infinitive ὑστερηκέναι, the subject of which is “someone of your number” (compare 3:13). Was the opinion held that by turning to Christianity this “someone” might think that he and his fellow Jews had made a great mistake, “had fallen behind”? Turning back to Judaism would then seem to be the way in which to regain this lost ground.

Alas, this would be the very way in which to fall behind, to be debarred forever from entering into God’s eternal rest; for this would repeat the unbelief of the Jews of the Exodus in the worst way. The μήποτε is here used with the infrequent present subjunctive, δοκῇ, “lest he continue to think or imagine.”

This is the meaning. Our versions and some dictionaries like Thayer, B.-P., Abbott-Smith translate: “seem to have come short of it,” and call this a polite form of expression that is used in place of the outright: “have actually come short of it,” i. e., of God’s rest. Some commentators say: “No one is even to seem to miss God’s rest, to say nothing of actually missing it.” But this cannot be the writer’s meaning for the simple reason that both the writer and the readers were still in this life, had not as yet entered this heavenly rest; hence no one could “seem to have come short of it” (our versions). God’s heavenly rest was still only “promise” in their case, was still awaiting fulfillment. No; someone could “think or imagine” that Judaism and not Christianity had the promise, and that turning from Judaism to Christianity was a mistake, a terrible falling behind and a losing of the promise. The genitive absolute assures the readers that the promise remains for all of us, and that for this very reason no Christian must imagine that he has lost it by becoming a Christian.

A few regard δοκέω as a technical legal term (a rare use); Riggenbach translates: befunden werde, “be found” in the finding of a judge as having fallen behind. The dictionaries have, however, not adopted this meaning. It is ruled out by the present tense of the subjunctive; a judge “finds” once and not continuously. This idea seems to be due to the effort to find something better than a polite statement or a statement that implies seeming.

Hebrews 4:2

2 “For” clears up the main point as to why nobody is to imagine that by having left Judaism and having become a Christian he has fallen behind: “For also we have been told glad tidings just as also those.” The καί is not added for the sake of the pronoun “we” (there is no ἡμεῖς) but for the sake of the entire periphrastic perfect: “also we have been told glad tidings” . Gospel tidings are referred to. The verb defines “promise to enter into God’s rest” (v. 1).

Note that this verb is to be construed with “we,” Jewish Christians, and with ἐκεῖνοι, the Jews of the Exodus. In their case the promise of God’s rest was by no means only the earthly Canaan but also the heavenly Canaan, of which the land flowing with milk and honey was only the type. They also had the gospel tidings, of course in the Old Testament form (covenant with Abraham), while the writer and the readers have it in its New Testament form.

“But” the sad and tragic thing was that “the Word of the hearing (qualitative genitive: the Word they heard) did not profit them, not having mixed itself by faith with those who heard.” They had it but did not believe it. “It did not profit” is the historical aorist and summarizes 3:7–19. The point stressed is the hearing: “the Word of the hearing,” “they who heard,” reverting to the psalm (3:8): “if you should hear his voice.” We should note that “promise” and “telling good tidings” (v. 1, 2) certainly involve the thought that both be heard. But not only heard: the voice of his Word heard, the promise and good tidings heard, must also be believed. Therein the Jews of the Exodus failed so tragically: they heard the promise of God’s rest, all that the glad tidings about this rest contained, but they hardened their hearts (3:8, etc.), they refused to believe and thus lost both the earthly and the heavenly Canaan.

The textual evidence for the accusative plural συγκεκερασμένους is very strong; it would modify ἐκείνους, but this would result in the strange meaning: “those (Jews of the Exodus) not having been mixed by faith with those who heard.” Our versions have translated this accusative plural participle; R. V.: “they were not united by faith with them who heard.” But who were those who heard and with whom those unbelievers were not united (mixed)? Joshua and Caleb; some unnamed people? If such were referred to, we should have: “have not been united by faith with them who did believe.”

We give up this reading and prefer the one that has the nominative singular συγκεκερασμένος modifying ὁλόγος: “the Word of the hearing (did not benefit those), not having mixed itself by faith (dative of means) with those who heard (that Word),” dative after σύν in the verb. Eberling: by faith ist es (das Wort) ihnen nicht in Fleisch und Blut uebergegangen.

The forms of the perfect passive and of the perfect middle participle are the same. The passive would here cause difficulty with the two datives. Shall we translate “not having been mixed with faith for those who heard,” or, “by those who heard” (dative of agent)? Neither is likely. The middle is far better: “not having mixed itself by faith with those who heard.” The Word did its utmost to accomplish this by beating constantly upon their ears so as to enter their hearts by faith. They, indeed, heard it but hardened their hearts, the very thing the Word warned them not to do (3:8, etc.).

That is why they perished in the wilderness. Their tragedy was their unbelief (3:19). We, the writer says, have the same “promise to enter into God’s rest,” “we have been evangelized even also as they” (v. 1, 2); we see why the Word of hearing “did not benefit them.” Are we going to repeat their folly and not let the Word mix itself by faith with us who also have this Word (promise, glad gospel tidings)?

Hebrews 4:3

3 “For” elucidates by carrying the positive thought a step farther: For we are entering into the rest, (we) who have come to believe, even as he has said:

So I swore in my wrath:

They shall not enter into my rest,

the works certainly existing since the foundation of the world, for he has said somewhere regarding the seventh day thus: And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, and in this (place) again:

They shall not enter into my rest.

This positive part of Ps. 95:11 (Heb. 3:8) is the promise, the glad tidings of the Word of the hearing, that tell about “God’s rest.” Although it occurs in the dire oath which shut out those Israelites of the Exodus, what is stated in the psalm implies that there is this “rest,” which is closed to unbelief but is sure and certain for all who believe.

“We are entering this rest, we who came to believe.” This is not the present tense that is used in abstract statements, as some explain the tense, for it should then read: “they enter”; “we enter” is personal and refers to the writer and to his readers. The οἱπιστεύσαντες is, of course, emphatic, being placed at the end; it is a historical aorist: “who did come to believe” as we did. This aorist stops with the past fact, and properly so; for the readers were wavering in their faith, and the writer warned them (chapter 3) and drew them with the Word and promise (chapter 4) to hold fast their faith. Will they do so? He hopes so and hence says, “We are entering into the rest.” Like those desert pilgrims on the way to Canaan, we are plodding on through a harsh world. One by one, as we die, we enter into God’s heavenly rest; all of us will soon get there, but as “those who came to believe,” only as such and never as those who became apostate (3:12) and fell because of unbelief.

This our entering into the rest is “according as he has said” in his awful oath which we have explained in 3:11. The very fact that God swore that those unbelievers should not enter into his rest implies that God had wanted them to enter in, that he wants us to enter in even as he has left us the promise (v. 1), the glad tidings and the Word that seeks to mix itself by means of faith with those who hear. God calls it “my rest,” and it is his indeed, established by him with all infinite blessedness, peace, and calm. The human mind is unable to fathom all that this word contains.

Κατάπαυσις is the human word that is chosen because of the unrest, the desert wandering of Israel, which in their case was to end in the “rest” of possession and enjoyment in Canaan, which was a prelude to the far higher “rest” in heaven with God. God’s rest is not for himself alone; from the creation onward and despite man’s fall God’s rest is open to all men, his Word and promise produce the faith by which we all may enter it.

Note the perfect εἴρηκε; this tense denotes the permanence of the word he once spoke. His word does not pass away. Yet “has said” quotes written Scripture: in that written word God still speaks just as he did in the first utterance. This perfect is the companion to γέγραπται, “it has been written” and thus remains permanent forever. R. 132. Both terms combine revelation and inspiration.

Καίτοι and its genitive absolute have caused much Kopfzerbrechen, and various inadequate interpretations have resulted. It is not enough to state that καίτοι is concessive. It is concessive as a fact that is undisputed by the readers: “the works got to exist from the foundation of the world,” i. e., they came into existence (γενηθέντων) then and not since then. Ἀπό is the Greek idiom: The works came into complete existence when God founded the κόσμος, the orderly universe, and “from” that time onward they “were” so for us who now look at them or speak of them. Ἐκ is used in the same way: from the distant object forward to the writer and not, as in English, from the writer back to the distant object. God’s rest, which he intends that we shall enter, dates from the completion of the universe and will have no end. The κόσμος was made for us (2:1–8). Adam and Eve were to enter into the glory of God’s rest.

They sinned and did not believe God’s word. Then came the gospel promise which they and all their descendants were to believe and thus, despite sin, to enter into God’s rest.

This is the rest which Jesus promises, the beginning of peace in this life through pardon and sonship, the consummation to follow in glory. This is what the Spirit says in Rev. 14:13: “they shall rest from their labors.” It is not allegory but a true parallel: God creates and thus establishes this rest; we, for whom it is intended, who are to be with Christ and God in glory, labor because we live amid sin, but we finally enter it by faith. God rested “from his works” (not “from his labors”). What this implies will never be understood by man because men cannot know what it means to create. Therefore they cannot comprehend what it means to cease creating.

4, 5) This genitive absolute is terse, and γάρ thus amplifies. It does not bring a proof; καίτοι concedes the fullest agreement on the part of the readers. We have a further statement that is taken from the Scriptures themselves, namely that God himself “has said somewhere—indefinite because it is said in three places: Gen. 2:2; Exod. 20:11; 31:17—concerning the seventh day: ‘And God rested on the seventh day.’” The writer combines this statement of God himself concerning himself with the one he has just used: “and in this place (v. 3) again (Ps. 95:11; see the exposition in 3:8): ‘They shall not enter into my rest.’” The point lies in taking all these passages together. The rest from which the Jews of the Exodus were excluded, into which we are entering, is God’s rest, the great Sabbath since the seventh day, of course not the earthly days and years that have rolled by since then and are still continuing but the timeless, heavenly state that has been established and intended for men in their glorious union with God.

These are not different kinds of rest: the rest of God since creation and a future rest for his people; or a rest into which men have already entered and one that has been established since the redemptive work of Jesus, into which they are yet to enter; or a rest “at the conclusion of the history of mankind.” The seventh day after the six days of creation was a day of twenty-four hours. On this day God did not create. Thus God made the first seven-day week (Exod. 20:8–11; 31:12–17), and the Sabbath of rest was “a sign” (v. 17) so that at every recurrence of this seventh day Israel might note the significance of this sign, this seventh day of rest being a type and a promise of the rest instituted for man since the days of creation, the rest with God in eternal blessedness. Like Canaan, the Sabbath was a type and a promise of this rest.

The Admonition to Be Diligent to Enter into God’s Rest, v. 6–11.

Hebrews 4:6

6 Since, then, it remains for some to enter it, and those formerly given the glad tidings did not enter because of disobedience, he again fixes a day, Today, saying in the person of David after so long a time even as it has been said before:

Today if you shall hear his voice,

Do not harden your hearts.

For if Joshua had given them rest he would not be speaking afterward about another day. Accordingly, there (still) remains a Sabbath for the people of God.

Ἐπεί draws the conclusion and sums up v. 3–5. The first point is the fact that God wants people to enter into his rest. That is why he made the original seventh day a day of rest even for himself, “a sign” (Exod. 31:17) of the blessed, eternal rest in which men were to be joined with him. B.-P. 148 renders aptly: “since, then, it abides by this that some,” etc. Others: “it is a sure thing that some,” etc.

“Some” is to be understood in the broadest sense: God wants men, as many as possible, to enter (actually, aorist) into his rest. Secondly, since “those who formerly were given the glad tidings (passive: were gospelized) did not enter because of disobedience,” God once more fixes a day (τινά = our indefinite article, R. 743). It is always so: when some refuse to take the places that have been prepared for them, others will be offered these places (Matt. 22:8–10; Acts 13:46), and many of these will come.

Hebrews 4:7

7 From these premises the conclusion is drawn: “again he fixes a day, ‘Today,’ saying in the person of David after so long a time even as it has been said before: ‘Today if you will hear,’” etc. God fixed a great day of grace for the Israel of the Exodus. This Israel is significantly called “they who were given the glad tidings” this same participle was used in v. 2, but it is now the historical aorist. It was in vain. “Disobedience” would not accept these tidings (3:18: “they who disobeyed”). The word used might be “unbelief” as it is in 3:19. The way in which to disobey the gospel is not to believe its promise.

God’s grace might have stopped when those Israelites so completely rejected it, but God again “fixes a day,” a signal “Today,” a great day of grace. He does it by “speaking in the person of David” (ἐν as in 1:1, 2, R. 587), speaking to us “after so long a time even as he has spoken before” when David composed his psalm: “Today if you shall hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

The first “Today” is a part of the quotation. This word is written twice and is thereby strongly emphasized: “Today, today if you shall hear,” etc. On these lines from the psalm see the exposition of 3:8. The meaning is that “after so long a time” God is now, in this Messianic time, speaking to us in this call of David’s. The writer is not concerned with the Israel of David’s day; he says nothing about them and the following generations; he regards David as speaking to the generation of Jesus (1:2) and to the one following (2:3, 4). The warning feature in these lines of David has been used in 3:8, etc.; their gospel promise is now brought out in order to draw to faith and to bolster it up.

The Exodus was a glorious day of grace; the day of Jesus and of his apostles was a still greater day of grace. Will the readers of this letter repeat the disobedience of the generation of the Exodus?

Hebrews 4:8

8 This γάρ intends merely that the word “rest” shall be properly understood. Joshua did bring the children of those whose carcasses fell in the wilderness (3:17) into the earthly Canaan. But when these attained the type they had not yet attained also the antitype, the heavenly Canaan. This is the point the writer wants the readers to note. He is not starting a discussion about the Israelites who did get to Canaan and about their descendants who lived there. What he wants noted is the fact that the rest of which God speaks in David’s psalm is vastly more than anything earthly. Joshua did not bring those whom he led into this rest by merely bringing them into Canaan. The condition (εἰ with the aorist) is one of past unreality. Living in the Holy Land is not yet entering into God’s rest.

The apodosis is one of present unreality (the imperfect with ἄν): “he would not be speaking afterward (μετὰταῦτα, ‘after these things’) about another day.” There would be no need of this if living in Canaan secured the heavenly rest for every Israelite. So God speaks of another day “in the person of David” to both the Israelites of David’s time and to us who now have this other day of grace. It is the day of Jesus and his salvation. David’s generation and the generations that followed were to look forward to this blessed day by faith in the promise of its coming and thus to embrace its salvation by faith.

That was the object God wanted to attain by means of David’s psalm. Whether God attained it, and to what extent he attained it during the time between David and Jesus is not discussed. The point is that God still speaks to us in David’s psalm now that that day has come in Jesus so that we may believe and by believing be entering the heavenly rest (v. 3), the rest that is typified by the earthly Canaan, but only typified and not attained for Israel through Joshua. A greater “Joshua,” namely “Jesus,” brings us this rest, and he does that by faith alone.

Yeschu‘a is our English Joshua and Jesus; there is but one Hebrew word for both characters. In English we spell the two names differently in order to distinguish between the two persons. The older idea that Jesus is referred to in our passage need not be refuted.

Hebrews 4:9

9 Ἄρα (which is never the first word of a sentence in the classics) draws the main conclusion from what has been said regarding the promise that is contained in the two lines that are quoted from David’s psalm (v. 3–8): “Accordingly, there (still) remains a Sabbath for the people of God.” God calls it “my rest” in the psalm; the new designation is due to the elaboration that was added in v. 4 which explains this rest on the basis of Gen. 2:2; Exod. 20:11; 31:17, God’s resting on the seventh day. The old Jewish Sabbath, which goes back to Gen. 2:2, is a type of heaven, the eternal Sabbath of peace, rest, enjoyment in communion with God.

Since the days of the apostles our day of worship is Sunday and no longer Saturday. This does not abolish the type which, like all other types, belongs to the Old Testament. The New Testament adds no types. It also continues none, for the antitypes begin in the New Testament. Our Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection and of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is thus by no means the Jewish Sabbath which has been shifted to the first day of the week. It is far more, for by the power of Christ’s resurrection and by his Spirit (Rom. 8:11) our mortal bodies shall be raised up to enter the blessed rest of the heavenly Sabbath, which the resting of God on that first seventh day only typified.

The statement is entirely general. All that is said in v. 6, 7 is that, although the Israelites of the Exodus failed to attain God’s heavenly rest, God’s promise still bids men to enter his rest, and v. 8 adds that this means far more than Joshua’s bringing the Israelites into the earthly Canaan. It is God’s eternal and heavenly Sabbath that is meant throughout. This is left, this remains as our great hope. Instead of again saying: “for those who believe” or “for those who do not disobey” (compare v. 3 and 3:18), we now have “for God’s people.” Λαός, which is so often used with reference to Israel, refers to the true Israel (compare Rom. 9:6) in this passage.

Hebrews 4:10

10 Γάρ adds the explanation which helps us to understand that this “Sabbath” is what God means by “my rest.” For he who did enter into his rest did rest (or come to rest) from all his works even as God from his. The Greek uses the simple aorist tenses of fact whereas the English prefers the perfect: “he who has entered … has rested.” This, too, is general, applying to any and to all time. When one, who as a believer belongs to God’s people, dies he enters God’s rest and, like God, rests from his works. It is true of all God’s people who have already died and will be true of all his people who shall die at some future time. In v. 9 we have the collective “the people of God” and the present tense; we now very effectively have the singular and the aorist: “he who did enter,” etc. We may think of Moses (3:5), of Joshua, of Caleb, of David, who have been named thus far; but turn to chapter 11 and read all the great names that are mentioned there.

As to the “works” from which we rest, the similarity with God’s works is simply this: as God set himself a task to perform during the six days of creation and, when he had finished it, rested in the contemplation of his work and its glorious perfection, so we have a task set for us, a vocation assigned us by God as his people, and when we complete it we are made partakers of his rest with all that this means of heavenly satisfaction and joy. In our case there are, of course, also much toil and pain (κόπος, Rev. 14:13, “labors”), it is not so in the case of God. God’s rest is not idleness, nor shall ours be when we enter his rest. It is useless to speculate, for who can make plain what heaven is like? Scoffers mock at what the Scriptures reveal in figurative descriptions of heaven. The thought of a dolce far niente is unworthy, and that of an endless development both foolish and false.

To carry ideas of time into the timelessness of eternity is misleading. Wait, be content, you shall soon see.

Hebrews 4:11

11 Let us, then, be diligent to enter into that rest lest anyone in the same type of the disobedience get to fall.

The admonition, in which the entire discussion culminates, goes together with the admonition voiced in v. 1. All of the intervening explanation justifies both. In v. 1 it is “let us fear”; in v. 11, “let us be diligent,” both are strong aorists, decisive, effective. The latter strikes the positive note: “Let us exercise diligence to enter that rest” which awaits the people of God. God’s grace alone can bring us into that glorious rest, but it does so by the objective means of his Word which we must diligently hear and receive, and by the subjective means of faith which the Word kindles and increases, which we must constantly exercise. To be diligent is not to grow cold, slack, or to give way to doubt.

Diligence keeps to God’s grace and Word and thus enters into the promised rest, its labors then being completed. The diligence referred to is the clinging to the Word in diligent faith; good works will, of course, follow, yet these are not discussed here.

The clause with “lest” again touches the negative side. We regard the verb as being complete in itself: “lest anyone fall,” “anyone” as in 3:12, 13; 4:1. Ἐν is not “after” (our versions) nor “into,” for one cannot fall into an example. The idea is that, if any one of the readers “falls,” he will add the same kind of example of disobedience as the Israelites of the Exodus furnished in such great numbers long ago. The thought is not that he will fall into their example. The verb “fall” re-echoes 3:17: whose carcasses “fell.” “Disobedience” is used as in v. 6 (3:18), and the word might again be “unbelief” (3:19), see v. 7. The aorist “get to fall” means no less than a fatal, final fall.

Do not Underestimate the Word of God, v. 12, 13.

Hebrews 4:12

12 This appendix is vital as the concluding word of both the warning voiced in chapter 3 and the promise given in 4:1–11. It is so essential because not only the warning and the promise are based on the Word of God as being “my voice,” Ps. 95 (see 3:8–11), but also because all that this epistle contains from 1:1 onward (“God spoke”) and will contain in the following chapters is based directly on God’s Word. So the writer says: Let there be no illusion in you, my readers, regarding this Word of God and what it says about Jesus; let no one think that disbelieving or disobeying this Word is a light matter. The writer has dwelt especially on Ps. 95:11 (3:8, 11; 4:3, 4), God’s oath, a most terrible Word of God. He now stresses the full power of the Word in its damning force. He has likewise dwelt on Ps. 95:7b plus 11: “Today” and “my rest,” with all the promise that lies in this Word (3:8, 15; 4:3–8). This, too, leads him to stress the power of the Word, the blessed promise of which is so mighty.

For living is the Word of God and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword and piercing as far as division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and keen to judge a heart’s considerations and thoughts. And there is not a creature unexposed before him, but everything naked and laid open to the eyes of him facing whom this Word is for us.

The idea that ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ refers to the Son, the personal Word, as it does in John 1:1, etc., is advocated by some of the Greek and also by a number of the Latin fathers. It is a fact that a person is referred to in v. 13 although he is not called “the Word”; ὁλόγος at the end of the statement merely repeats this term from v. 12. It would not be out of harmony with the Christology of this epistle (note, for instance, 1:2) to have the Son called “the Word.” When some, like Delitzsch, point us to the language of Philo, we note that this writer does not use the term “Word” in the sense of a divine person, and neither John nor the writer of Hebrews adopts the philosophizings of this Hellenized Jew.

This is rather certain in regard to the writer of Hebrews because of the date of the composition of this letter. The fact is patent that our writer does not speak of the Logos as John does. He does not employ this designation in passages where the term would be appropriate if he intended to use it. Its sudden introduction in the present connection would confuse the reader by taking him unawares. Moreover, what is said of “the Word of God” and the comparison with a sword do not fit a person.

This is the spoken and the written “Word of God,” and not the word of the New Testament alone, or of the Ninety-fifth Psalm alone, but of the Scriptures which these former Jews had. This Word of God is not a mere sound that disappears and ceases when it is uttered, of which, at most, a record can be made in some book. That is what the word of man amounts to. The Word of God is as “living” as “the living God” (3:12) himself. God and his Word cannot be separated, which explains the pronouns that are used in v. 13, these denote God.

“Living” (“quick” in the older sense, A. V.) is “the Word of God.” The participle is placed first for the sake of emphasis and dominates all that follows. It is “living” as being the Word of the “living” God, altogether like God in its power. It is an outflow of his life and therefore instinct with the same divine, imperishable, powerful life, either to kindle similar life in us or to react against all opposition. “God does not separate himself from his Word. He does not disown it as if it were a foreign thing to him. His it remains also when it comes into our ears, into our hearts, into our mouth, into our book.

He knows it well as his own Word, as the expression of his own life. Therefore it is never dead matter, insensible to what is done with it; for it is a bond of union with the living God.” Schlatter.

Four καί add further specifications. Ἐνεργής = full of living energy to carry out the will of God by either blessing or cursing as the case may be. What folly to treat the Word of God as though it is subject to our minds, our “views,” our opinions! It is electric and smites him who tampers with it; it is electric to light him who bows beneath it. Who can escape its blasting power when he scorns its threats? Read, for example, Ps. 95:11 and look at the Jews of the Exodus. Read Matt. 23:38 and look at “the desolate house,” desolate for almost 2, 000 years. But the blessings of the Word are equally “effective” and energetic. Eternity rings with their praise.

The next “and” states this in figurative language, and the last “and” expounds this figurative language. The Word is not only like a sword, it is “sharper beyond any two-edged sword” (literally: two-mouthed, στόμα, mouth). Μάχαιρα was commonly used as a designation for the short, two-edged sword of the Roman hoplite or legionary (Eph. 6:17) although other types of swords could be called thus.

“Piercing,” etc., makes a comparison with the penetrating power of the Word and thus uses an instrument which penetrates most quickly and effectually, the Word even exceeds any such instrument. The figurative sword is repeatedly used in this way: Isa. 49:2; Rev. 1:16; 2:12; 19:15. Some think only of the destructive power of the Word as it is exercised against “the disobedience” (v. 11). But while this is certainly included, all the other predications are indeterminate so that we must say that the figure brings out strikingly the ability of the Word to penetrate the innermost part of man, either to change him inwardly into a new man or, in case of self-hardening (3:8, 15; 4:7), to lay bare all his deadly guilt.

The statement is striking even in Scripture: “piercing as far as division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrows” (we should not use the plural). The ψυχή, as distinguished from the πνεῦμα, is the life which the spirit gives to the body as long as the two are connected; hence the ψυχή is the seat of the thoughts, emotions, feelings, desires, volitions, and actions pertaining to our earthly and bodily existence; the πνεῦμα, which is the source of the ψυχή, is the immaterial part of our being that was created and breathed into us by the breath of God and is, therefore, the real seat of all his gracious operations in regenerating and renewing us.

In the unregenerate the psyche rules and the pneuma is enslaved; in the regenerate this is reversed, the pneuma is enthroned. Thus we are no longer ψυχικός (1 Cor. 2:14), ruled by our earthly animated, sensual nature, but πνευματικός, “spiritual,” ruled also in body and in bodily life by the spirit. “Piercing up to or as far as division of psyche and pneuma” is, therefore, not a sundering of the soul and of the spirit by the Word of God. The Word never does such a thing even also as the soul that animates our bodies and the spirit are not two entities which something may cut apart.

This applies also to the figurative terms which are added for the sake of illustration: “of both joints and marrow,” for the joints, where the bones of the body articulate, and the marrow, which is inside the bones themselves, are not next to each other so that one could speak of cutting them apart. To pierce up to division of psyche and pneuma is that activity of the Word upon man by which it separates and shows up in its true nature all that inheres in his earthly, bodily life and in the condition of his spirit. This it does just as a piercing physical sword lays bare both the joints, where the bones meet, and even the bones themselves, where the marrow lies. Yet psyche and pneuma are not paralleled with joints and marrow or, assuming a chiasm, with marrow and joints, for these two are joined by τεκαί so that the illustration “both joints and marrow” belongs as well to soul on the one hand as to spirit on the other. All the links of our soul life, of our thoughts, emotions, etc., as well as all the inner substance of them are penetrated, laid bare, exposed in their true nature by the Word. The same is true with regard to all that lies in, occurs in, and conditions the spirit, with all that God has wrought there or has been prevented from working there. The Word of God is the only power that can penetrate so deeply and expose so completely the inwardness of our being.

The practical side of this is apparent. In the light of the Word we recognize the vanity and the sinfulness of many of our earthly thoughts, strivings, purposes, and achievements, especially also our earthly, worldly, unspiritual opposings of the spirit. The world may laud many of these activities as being good, even praiseworthy; the Word pierces right through and shows what the soul is doing to the spirit. The Word likewise reveals the things of the spirit, its bondage under sin when the psyche rules, its liberation by grace and all that it receives in regeneration and renewal, in repentance, faith, and sanctification, which change the entire man. The Word makes us see the very joints and marrow of all these things.

The idea of Delitzsch that the Word exposes the corrupting power of sin in even our body (“joints and marrow” are taken in a physically literal sense as contrasted with psyche and pneuma) is rightly rejected by commentators as violating the language. Von Hofmann has the genitives “both of joints and marrow” depend on “psyche and pneuma,” but they evidently are a figurative and an elucidative addition. By combining the expression “up to division of soul and spirit” (as if these two could be cut apart) with 1 Thess. 5:23, “body, soul, and spirit” (as if these three could be cut apart) trichotomy is defended against dichotomy. But we are still waiting to see how soul and spirit are split into two entities.

In a consideration of this whole matter it should be remembered that our English word “soul” is not a true equivalent of the Greek ψυχή. In ordinary English “soul” is nearly the same as “spirit,” but not so psyche and pneuma in the Greek. Psyche is often taken only in the sense of “life” because it animates the body. More than this, from ψυχή the Greek forms ψυκικός, an adjective that denotes a low condition that is due to nothing but the animation of the physical body and the resultant carnal appetites, desires, etc. We do not have such an adjective that is derived from “soul” because we think of “soul” as something that is far higher; hence arises our difficulty in translating a word such as psychikos. See 1 Cor. 2:14.

The illuminating addition “and keen to judge (κριτικός) a heart’s considerations and thoughts” helps greatly in understanding the penetrating power of the Word. In place of “soul and spirit” we now have “heart,” the center of our personal being, where the ἐνθυμήσεις arise, the “reflections” or the meditations, and the ἔννοιαι, the definite “thoughts or notions” that result. On these the Word as being kritikos passes true and genuine judgment as an infallible, unimpeachable, impartial judge. In order to escape the verdicts of the Word of God many try to dethrone this judge, to alter or in some way to evade his true verdicts. The readers of this epistle were starting on this course by shutting their eyes to what the Old Testament says about Jesus, to what, for instance, Ps. 95 says so plainly in warning and in promise as these are here set forth (3:8–4:11). But who can escape? Heaven and earth shall pass away but not the Word (Matt. 5:18); it shall judge us at the last day (John 12:48).

Hebrews 4:13

13 God and his Word are often identified as is done when the Word is said to foresee. In v. 12 it acts as a person, especially in its judging. Thus, without further indication, the two pronouns αὐτοῦ refer to God: “And there is not a creature unexposed before him, but everything is naked and laid open to the eyes of him,” etc. Hide as a creature may, this Judge, God in his Word, sees him fully and completely exposed. “Not a creature unexposed (ἀφανής)” is strong because of the double negation; “creature” is a wide term which includes every person and everything that have been created by God. The singular “not a creature” is followed by the plural πάντα, “all things,” and the negative statement “not one unexposed” by the positive “all things naked,” etc. This is the height of emphasis.

Clothes hide, and men cover themselves with disguises, but they are “naked” in God’s sight even as to their very inmost soul that animates their body and the spirit that forms their ego. The idea is intensified: “laid open to his eyes,” omniscience penetrates utterly. The perfect passive participle is a form of Τραχηλίζειν and has caused much linguistic discussion (see Riggenbach’s long note). Men wonder how it comes to be employed in the way in which it is used here. The old Greek expositors had different opinions in regard to it, to which new ones have been added. The sense of the participle was, however, never in doubt, the companion term “naked” making it certain: “having been laid open and remaining so” in God’s eyes.

The best explanation of the figure seems to be: the neck of the victim is bent back in order to expose it to the eyes for the thrust of the knife. Like other terms, this one, too, seems to have lost much of its original literal meaning when It was applied generally. It is here used with the subject “all things.”

The relative clause: πρὸςὃνἡμῖνὁλόγος also causes difficulty. Many understand the noun to mean “business,” “reckoning,” “account,” and then translate: the eyes of him “with whom we have to do” (our versions), with whom we have to settle our account, to whom we are responsible. But this seems to be a rather weak ending of a strong sentence; it was self-evident to the readers that they had to account to God. Moreover, ὁλόγος recalls the fact that this term is used in v. 12; here at the end just as at the beginning of v. 12 it ought to mean: “the Word.” The dative ἡμῖν with the copula understood is a common Greek idiom: “facing whom this Word is for us,” i. e., is ours. It is ours as putting us face to face (πρὸς, the face-to-face preposition) with God and his all-seeing eyes. C.-K. 679: an den es uns weist. This last clause thus most effectively connects God and the Word of God and justifies all that is said of both in connection with each other.

“The readers are to realize how closely what has just been said concerning God (3:8–4:11) touches them. They are not to imagine that they will be able to hide from God the real and inmost reasons of their discouragement and their unbelief or the slightest stirrings of their resistance against him and to present themselves before him as other than they are. The penetrating criticism which the divine Word exercises upon their entire being to the inmost parts illustrates to them the piercing sharpness of the divine vision and warns them not to subject themselves by indifference and disobedience to the judgment of God, whose verdict is proof against every bribe and unaffected by anything that would cloud or deceive it.” Riggenbach. This is good as far as the warning is concerned (3:8–19). But 4:1–11 is promise and stimulates faith and obedience. These are equally exposed to the eyes of God, these are equally judged by the penetrating Word which sees through soul, spirit, and everything in the heart.

This Word approves and thus upholds, strengthens, comforts all who believe and obey. Add this to Riggenbach’s remarks and see how thus these two verses form the strong conclusion of chapters 3 and 4.

THE THIRD MAIN PART

Jesus, the Son of God, Our Compassionate High Priest, 4:14–6:20

The Son Touched with Our Infirmity because of His Suffering, 4:14–5:10

The Readers Aroused and then Assured, 5:11–6:20

—––––

The Son Touched with Our Infirmity because of His Own Suffering, 4:14–5:10

The Invitation to Come to This Our High Priest, 4:14–16.

Hebrews 4:14

14 All are agreed to make a division at this point. But where to stop is a question. To go on to 12:29 under the caption “Our Perfect High Priest” we consider impossible; chapter 11 which has no less than forty verses stops us. We should be compelled to make major divisions. We make them. One could combine 4:14–8:2 since 8:1 states the “sum.” Yet 4:14–6:20 is a unit, and 7:1–28 is another; we keep them distinct, and 8:1, 2 sums them up before a new unit begins.

Having, then, a great High Priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us continue to hold fast to the confession! For we do not have a High Priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses but having been tried in all respects in like manner (as we) except for sin. Let us, then, continue to approach with boldness the throne of the grace in order that we may receive mercy and find grace for timely help!

These verses form a compact unit in which the hortation is at once included. All that follows up to 6:20 is appended. Οὖν is again not folgernd, makes no deduction but merely proceeds to the new topic. True, the title High Priest has already been used (2:17; 3:1), so also “the Son of God” (1:2, etc.; 3:6), his suffering and temptation (2:9, etc.; 2:18), and “our confession” (3:1); but these are scattered and were used in other connections and thus cannot be resumed here with a mere οὖν.

On “High Priest” see 2:17 and 3:1; the addition “great” exalts his person and his office above all the Levitical high priests of the Jews and matches the fact that he “has gone through the heavens” in his high-priestly function, into the Holy of Holies of the very presence of God. “Passed into the heavens” (A. V.) is incorrect. In the Jewish Tabernacle the high priest passed from the altar that was outside through the Holy Place and so stepped behind the veil of the Holy of Holies. So our great High Priest, in a far more exalted manner, proceeded through what we call the created heavens into the presence of God. Only his greatness and this great act are now stressed and not the blood of expiation (2:17) and its effect although the title “High Priest” involves them; these points will be treated presently. As befits the new section of the letter together with the greatness of our High Priest, his name is added, “Jesus,” which again calls to mind his incarnation, his life, sufferings, and death here on earth, but with the mighty apposition “the Son of God,” which expresses his deity. Our High Priest is infinitely great in his person and his office.

“Having him, let us continue to hold fast to the confession!” We “have” him because of his having been made the great High Priest; God has given him to us as such. “The confession” recalls 3:1 where we are bidden “to consider thoroughly the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” He, “our great High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God,” and all that lies in this designation are the substance of the confession; κρατῶμεν means that we are to continue to hold him fast with all our “strength” by confessing our faith in him. The writer admonishes himself as well as his readers. Yet the present tense signifies that he and they have been doing this, it asks for steady continuation. The implication is that the readers have given evidence of wavering, of giving up this confession. “Keep on confessing him with heart and soul!” is the appeal.

Hebrews 4:15

15 We have the strongest motive for holding fast to him. The writer reverts to 2:17, 18 where he calls our High Priest “merciful,” “himself tempted and thus able to help those being tempted,” who calls us “brothers” (2:11, etc.). Our weaknesses dispose us to give up our confession instead of holding to it with strength; here is the answer that lifts up beyond any such weakness: “For we do not have a High Priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,” the very contrary is the case; he knows all these weaknesses from his own experience, “having been tried in all respects in like manner (as we) except for sin.” Is not his personal name “Jesus” which he bore here on earth when in his humiliation he took upon himself so many of our human weaknesses? How can we then think that he does not feel with us (συμπάσχω) in our weaknesses?

Already in 2:18 we have the aorist participle πειρασθείς which states the fact that he was tried. The perfect participle now says the same thing and adds only the full length of his trial and spreads it out in the past until it came to an end with his death (the graph would be————). The emphasis is on the two κατά phrases: “in all respects” (literally, “along in everything”), “in like manner” (literally, “in accord with likeness” to us).

But this last has one limitation: χωρὶςἁμαρτίας, “without, apart from, except for, sin.” In all other respects there was ὁμοιότης but not in this respect. Luther translates: doch ohne Suende; our versions follow him: “yet without sin.” But this “yet” is not in the text. To insert it means to construe the phrase with the participle whereas it belongs to the two κατά phrases. The difference is this: Luther and those who follow him take it that in all his temptations Jesus did not sin, did not yield to the tempter in committing a single sin, which is, of course, very true. The statement itself says more. Jesus’ likeness to us, in which he was tempted, was total with one exception, namely sin. “Likeness without sin” resembles Rom. 8:3, “in likeness of sinful flesh.” When temptation assailed Jesus it found no sin with which it could connect.

For this reason the temptations of Jesus were far more severe than ours ever are. The very first one was offered by the devil in person, continued for forty days (Luke 4:2), and ended with the devil’s bringing all his cunning to bear upon him; but not the slightest yielding on Jesus’ part was evident because there was not even the resemblance of sin in him. It is said that all that is necessary is to say that Jesus did not sin; more is in place after calling him “the Son of God,” “the great High Priest who has passed through the heavens,” namely that his likeness to us, while he was on earth was “without sin.” It has been well pointed out that the point is not the outcome of Jesus’ temptation but the extent and the degree of his temptation. On the possibility of Jesus’ falling, although that is not introduced here, see The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 155, etc.

Hebrews 4:16

16 The γάρ used in v. 15 leads to the οὖν which occurs in v. 16. One who was so tempted, so able thus to feel for those who are tempted, is able to help us who are now being tempted (2:18), tempted even to fall away from him as he was tempted to turn from his Father and that Father’s will: “Let us, therefore, approach with boldness to the throne of the grace in order that we may receive mercy and find grace for timely need.” Here, as in 3:6, we may translate “with confidence,” namely with the confidence that fears not to lay all our weaknesses before the throne of the (divine) grace. The word “throne” is especially appropriate to the idea of “grace,” for the King dispenses his unmerited favor (χάρις) upon the guilty. 2:17 has already shown how he is able to do this: our High Priest has made expiation for our sins. The genitive is attributive. Jesus sits at God’s right hand, and his expiation makes God’s throne one of grace.

The fact that our approach will be made in contrition and in faith in our great High Priest and in corresponding prayer is self-evident. Ἵνα may express purpose: “in order to,” etc., or contemplated result: “so that we may receive mercy and find grace,” etc. The doubling emphasizes. The verbs and the objects are placed chiastically so that “mercy and grace” come together. “Mercy” is the love that helps the wretched, “grace” the love that pardons the guilty. “Mercy” is placed first because our weaknesses have been stressed. “For timely help” (in 2:18 the verb used is “to help”) is help in good season, when we need it, before it is too late. How often we need such help of both pitying mercy and pardoning grace!

Luther very properly starts a new chapter with verse 14.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.