the Week of Christ the King / Proper 29 / Ordinary 34
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
Revised Standard Version
Hebrews 2:6
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- BridgewayEncyclopedias:
- InternationalParallel Translations
It is written some place in the Scriptures, "Why are people so important to you? Why do you even think about them? Why do you care about the son of man? Is he so important?
But one in a certayne place witnessed sayinge. What is man that thou arte myndfull of him?
But one has somewhere testified, saying, "What is man, that you think of him? Or the son of man, that you care for him?
But someone has testified somewhere, saying, "WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU THINK OF HIM? OR A SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
It is written in the Scriptures, "Why are people even important to you? Why do you take care of human beings?
But one has somewhere testified, saying, What is man, that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that you visit him?
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?
But one has somewhere testified, saying, "What is man, that you think of him? Or the son of man, that you care for him?
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
But, as we know, a writer has solemnly said, "How poor a creature is man, and yet Thou dost remember him, and a son of man, and yet Thou dost come to him!
But sum man witnesside in a place, and seide, What thing is man, that thou art myndeful of hym, or mannus sone, for thou visitist hym?
But one hath somewhere testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
But somewhere it is testified in these words: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him?
Somewhere in the Scriptures someone says to God, "What makes you care about us humans? Why are you concerned for weaklings such as we?
But one has [solemnly] testified somewhere [in Scripture], saying, "WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU GRACIOUSLY CARE FOR HIM?
But one hath somewhere testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
But a certain writer has given his witness, saying, What is man, that you keep him in mind? what is the son of man, that you take him into account?
And there is a place where someone has given this solemn testimony: "What is mere man, that you concern yourself with him? or the son of man, that you watch over him with such care?
but one has testified somewhere, saying, What is man, that thou rememberest him, or son of man that thou visitest him?
Instead, someone has declared somewhere,Job 1:7:17; Psalm 8:4; 144:3;">[xr] "What is man that you should remember him, or the son of man that you should care for him?
But, as the scripture testifieth and saith, What is man, that thou rememberedst him, and the Son of man, that thou didst visit him?
But as the scripture testifieth, and saith: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou attendest to him?
But one in a certaine place testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindfull of him: or the Sonne of man that thou visitest him?
For in one place the Scriptures say, "What are mere mortals that you should think about them, or a son of man that you should care for him?
Instead, the Holy Writings say, "What is man that You think of him and the son of man that You should remember him?"
But someone has testified somewhere, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them?
But one in a certaine place witnessed, saying, What is man, that thou shouldest bee mindefull of him? or the sonne of man, that thou wouldest consider him?
But as the scripture testifies, saying, What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
But one somewhere hath borne witness, saying - What is man, that thou shouldst make mention of him? Or the son of man, that thou shouldst put him in charge?
But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
But one in a certayne place witnessed, saying: What is man, that thou arte myndeful of hym? Or the sonne of man, that thou wouldest loke vpon hym?
Instead, as it is said somewhere in the Scriptures: "What are human beings, O God, that you should think of them; mere human beings, that you should care for them?
But someone somewhere has testified:
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
But someone testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that you remember him, or the son of man, that you care for him?
but one fully testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that You are mindful of him; or the son of man, that You look upon him?
and one in a certain place did testify fully, saying, `What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, or a son of man, that Thou dost look after him?
But one in a certayne place witnesseth & sayeth: What is man, that thou art myndefull of him?or the sonne of man, that thou vysitest him?
and this is attested by a certain writer, who says, "what is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him?
Instead someone testified somewhere: " What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him?
The Good Book did say, "Why do you bother with mere cowboys and cowgirls? Why do you even glance their way?
But one has testified somewhere, saying, "WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
But one has testified somewhere, saying,"What is man, that You remember him?Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him?
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
in: Hebrews 4:4, Hebrews 5:6, 1 Peter 1:11
What: Job 7:17, Job 7:18, Job 15:14, Psalms 8:4-8, Psalms 144:3, Isaiah 40:17
the son: Job 25:6, Psalms 146:3, Psalms 146:4, Isaiah 51:12
visitest: Genesis 50:24, Luke 1:68, Luke 1:78, Luke 7:16
Reciprocal: Genesis 1:26 - have dominion Exodus 3:16 - visited John 21:6 - They cast 1 Timothy 2:5 - the man
Gill's Notes on the Bible
But one in a certain place testified,.... That is, David, for he is the penman of the psalm, out of which the following words are taken; and though his name is not mentioned by the apostle, nor the particular place, or the psalm pointed at, as in Acts 13:33 yet this was not through ignorance of either, nor out of disrespect to the penman; but because the apostle is writing to Jews, who were conversant with the Scriptures, and knew full well who said the words, and where they were: and it is usual with the Jews to cite passages in this manner; and the form by which the passage is introduced, by the word testified, is quite agreeable to their way of citing Scripture, of which there is another instance in Hebrews 7:17 and I think that this form is only used in this epistle to the Hebrews, with which they were acquainted: it is common with them to say, התורה העידה, "the law testified" e, as it is said in such or such a place; and here the apostle produces a passage, as a witness and testimony of the truth of what he had said, that the Gospel dispensation is not put in subjection to angels, but to the Messiah: the passage stands in Psalms 8:4 which psalm belongs to the times of the Messiah, as appears from the non-application of it to others; and from the application of a passage in it to the children in his time,
Matthew 21:16 by Christ himself, and of the passage here by the apostle; nor in any other time was the name of the Lord excellent in all the earth, with which the psalm begins and concludes:
Saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? this is not to be understood of mankind in general: not of man in a state of innocence; there were no babes nor sucklings in paradise, nor enemies to restrain; "Enosh", the word for man, signifies a frail mortal man, which Adam then was not; nor could he be called the son of man; nor can it so well suit with him, to be said to be made a little lower than the angels, and then crowned with glory and honour: nor of man as fallen, for all things are not subjected unto him; but of Christ, with whom everything agrees, as the name by which he is called, "Enosh", a frail man; for he was a man encompassed with infirmities; of no note and esteem among men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with griefs; was subject to death, and did die; and is often called the son of man: what is said of him suits with him, as that God was "mindful of him"; which may be expressive of his love and delight in, and choice of his human nature, to be taken into union with his divine person; and of his counsel and covenant in preparing it for him; and of his uniting it to his person; and of his providential care of it, and great affection for it; of his unction of it, and of his great regard to it in its sufferings, by supporting it, and in raising it from the dead: and also that he "visited" him; not in a way of wrath, but of favour, with his presence, with the gifts and graces of his Spirit, with divine supports, and spiritual peace and joy; all which in itself it was not deserving of, nor could it claim; and therefore these things are spoken of as favours, and in a way of admiration.
e T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 37. 1. Maimon. Hilchot Yesode Hattorsh, 3. 7. sect. 6. & Melachim, c. 11. sect. 1. Vid. Aben Ezra in Lev. xvi. 8.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But one in a certain place testified - The apostle was writing to those who were supposed to be familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, and where it would be necessary only to make a reference in general without mentioning the name. The place which is quoted here is Psalms 8:4-6. The “argument” of the apostle is this, that there stood in the sacred Scriptures a declaration that “all things were placed under the control and jurisdiction of man,” but that that had not yet been accomplished. It was not true (Hebrews 2:8) that all things were subject to him, and the complete truth of that declaration would be found only in the jurisdiction conferred on the Messiah - the man by way of eminence - the incarnate Son of God. It would not occur to anyone probably in reading the Psalm that the verse here quoted had any reference to the Messiah. It seems to relate to the dominion which God had given man over his works in this lower world, or to the fact that he was made lord over all things.
That dominion is apparent, to a considerable extent, everywhere, and is a standing proof of the truth of what is recorded in Genesis 1:26, that God originally gave dominion to man over the creatures on earth, since it is only by this supposition that it can be accounted for that the horse, and the elephant, and the ox, and even the panther and the lion, are subject to the control of man. The argument of Paul seems to be this: Originally this control was given to man. It was absolute and entire. All things were subject to him, and all obeyed. Man was made a little lower than the angels, and was the undisputed lord of this lower world. He was in a state of innocence. But he rebelled, and this dominion has been in some measure lost. It is found complete only in the “second man the Lord from heaven” 1 Corinthians 15:47, the Lord Jesus to whom this control is absolutely given. He comes up to the complete idea of man - man as he was in innocence, and man as he was described by the Psalmist, as having been made a little lower than the angels, and having entire dominion over the world.
Much difficulty has been felt by commentators in regard to this passage, and to the principle on which it is quoted. The above seems to me to be what is most probably true. There are two other methods by which an attempt has been made to explain it. One is, that Paul uses the words here by way of “allusion,” or “accommodation” (Doddridge), as words that will express his meaning, without designing to say that the Psalm originally had any reference to the Messiah. Most of the later commentators accord with this opinion. The other opinion is, that David originally referred to the Messiah - that he was deeply and gratefully affected in view of the honor that God had conferred on him; and that in looking down by faith on the posterity that God had promised him (see 2 Samuel 7:16), he saw one among his own descendants to whom God would give this wide dominion, and expresses himself in the elevated language of praise. This opinion is defended by Prof. Stuart; see his Commentary on Hebrews, Excursus IX.
(That the grand and ultimate reference, in Psalms 8:1-9, is to the person of the Messiah, none can reasonably doubt. Both our Lord and his apostles have affirmed it; Matthew 21:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22. Add to these, the place before us, where - as the quotation is introduced “in the midst of an argument, and by way of proof” - the idea of “accommodation” is inconsistent with the wisdom and honesty of the apostles, and therefore inadmissible. The opposite extreme, however, of “sole and original” reference to the Messiah is not so certain. There is a more obvious and primary reference, which at once strikes the reader of the Psalm, and which, therefore, should not be rejected, until disproved. The conjecture, which a learned author mentioned above, has made, regarding the course of thought in the Psalmist’s mind, supposing him to have been occupied with the contemplation of the covenant, as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:0 and of that illustrious descendant, who should be the Son of God, and on whom should be conferred universal empire - at the very time in which he composed the Psalm - is ingenious, but not satisfactory.
The least objectionable view is that of primary and secondary, or prophetic reference. This relieves us from the necessity of setting aside the obvious sense of the original place, and, at the same time, preserves the more exalted sense, which our Lord and his apostles have attached to it, and the Spirit of course intended to convey. And in order to preserve this last sense, it is not necessary to ascertain what was the course of feeling in the Psalmist’s mind, or whether “he” really had the Messiah in view, since the prophets, on many occasions, might be ignorant of the full import of the words which the Holy Ghost dictated to them. This view, moreover, is all that the necessity of the case demands. It suits the apostle’s argument, since the great and prophetic reference is to the Messiah. It presents, also, a complete πληρωσις plērōsis of Psalms 8:1-9, which it is allowed on all hands the primary reference alone could not do. It is sufficiently clear that such universal dominion belongs not to man, in his present fallen state. Even if it be allowed that the contemplation of David regarded “man as innocent, as he was when created,” yet absolutely universal dominion did not belong to Adam. Christ alone is Lord of all. Creation animate and inanimate is subject to him.
Here then we have what has been well styled: “the safe middle point, the μέτρον ἀριστὸν metron ariston, between the two extremes of supposing this, and such like passages, to belong only to the Messiah, or only to him concerning whom they were first spoken.” This middle point has been ably defended by Dr. Middleton. “Indeed.” says he, “on no other hypothesis can we avoid one of two great difficulties; for else we must assert that the multitudes of applications made by Christ and his apostles are fanciful and unauthorized, and wholly inadequate to prove the points for which they are cited; or, on the other band, we must believe that the obvious and natural sense of such passages was never intended, and that it is a mere illusion. Of Psalms 8:1-9 the primary import is so certain that it could not be mistaken.” The only objection to this double reference, worthy of being noticed, is connected with the clause, Ἠλαττωσας αὐτον βραχύτι παρ ̓ ἀγγελους Ēlattōsas auton brachuti par angelous, which, it is affirmed, must possess two senses, not only different, but opposite and contradictory.
In its primary application to man, the idea is plainly that of exaltation and honor. Such was the dignity of man that he was made “but a little” lower than the angels; on the other hand, the secondary, or prophetic application, gives to the language the sense of humiliation or depression. For, considering the original dignity of Christ, the being made lower than the angels, cannot otherwise be regarded. But may not the clause, in both applications, have the idea of exaltation attached to it? If so, the objection is at once met. And that this is the case has, we think, been satisfactorily made out. “What,” asks Prof. Stuart “is his (Paul’s) design?” To prove that Christ in his human nature is exalted above angels. How does he undertake to prove this? First by showing that this nature is made but little inferior to that of the angels, and next that it has been exalted to the empire of the world.” This note has been extended to such length, because it involves a “principle” applicable to a multitude of passages. On the whole, it may be observed in reference to all these cases of quotation, that the mind of the pious and humble reader will not be greatly distressed by any difficulties connected with their application, but will ever rest satisfied with the assertion and authority of people, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.)
What is man ... - What is there in man that entitles him to so much notice? Why has God conferred on him so signal honors? Why has he placed him over the works of his hands? He seems so insignificant; his life is so much like a vapor; he so soon disappears, that the question may well be asked why this extraordinary dominion is given him? He is so sinful also, and so unworthy; so much unlike God, and so passionate and revengeful; is so prone to abuse his dominion, that it may well be asked why God has given it to him? Who would suppose that God would give such a dominion over his creatures to one who was so prone to abuse it as man has shown himself to be? He is so feeble, also, compared with other creatures - even of those which are made subject to him - that the question may well be asked why God has conceded it to him? Such question may be asked when we contemplate man as he is. But similar questions may be asked, if, as was probably the case, the Psalm here be supposed to have had reference to man “as he was created.”
Why was one so feeble, and so comparatively without strength, placed over this lower world, and the earth made subject to his control? Why is it that when the heavens are so vast and glorious Psalms 8:3, God has taken such notice of man? Of what consequence can he be amidst works so wonderful? “When I look on the heavens and survey their greatness and their glory,” is the sentiment of David, “why is it that man has attracted so much notice, and that he has not been wholly overlooked in the vastness of the works of the Almighty? Why is it that instead of this he has been exalted to so much dignity and honor?” This question, thus considered, strikes us with more force now than it could have struck David. Let anyone sit down and contemplate the heavens as they are disclosed by the discoveries of modern astronomy, and he may well ask the question, “What is man that he should have attracted the attention of God, and been the object of so much care?”
The same question would not have been inappropriate to David if the Psalm be supposed to have had reference originally to the Messiah, and if he was speaking of himself particularly as the ancestor of the Messiah. “What is man; what am I; what can any of my descendants be, who must be of mortal frame, that this dominion should be given him? Why should anyone of a race so feeble, so ignorant, so imperfect, be exalted to such honor?” We may ask the question here, and it may be asked in heaven with pertinency and with power, ‘Why was man so honored as to be united to the Godhead? Why did the Deity appear in the human form? What was there in man that should entitle him to this honor of being united to the Divinity, and of being thus exalted above the angels?’ The wonder is not yet solved; and we may well suppose that the angelic ranks look with amazement - but without envy - on the fact that “man,” by his union with the Deity in the person of the Lord Jesus, has been raised above them in rank and in glory. “Or the son of man.” This phrase means the same as “man,” and is used merely to give variety to the mode of expression. Such a change or variety in words and phrases, when the same thing is intended, occurs constantly in Hebrew poetry. The name “son of man” is often given to Christ to denote his intimate connection with our race, and the interest which he felt in us, and is the common term which the Saviour uses when speaking of himself. Here it means “man,” and maybe applied to human nature everywhere - and therefore to human nature in the person of the Messiah.
That thou visitest him - That thou shouldst regard him or treat him with so much honor. Why is he the object of so much interest to the Divine Mind?
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Hebrews 2:6. But one in a certain place — This one is David; and the certain place, Psalms 8:4-6. But why does the apostle use this indeterminate mode of quotation? Because it was common thus to express the testimony of any of the inspired writers; אמר ההוא amar hahu kethab, thus saith a certain scripture. So Philo, De Plant. Noe: Ειπε γαρ που, he saith somewhere; ειπε γαρ τις, a certain person saith. Thus even the heathens were accustomed to quote high authorities; so Plato, Tim.: Ὡς εφη τις, as a certain person saith, meaning Heraclitus. See in Rosenmuller. It is such a mode of quotation as we sometimes use when we speak of a very eminent person who is well known; as that very eminent person, that great philosopher, that celebrated divine, that inspired teacher of the Gentiles, the royal psalmist, the evangelical prophet, hath said. The mode of quotation therefore implies, not ignorance, but reverence.
What is man — This quotation is verbatim from the Septuagint; and, as the Greek is not as emphatic as the Hebrew, I will quote the original: מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו mah enosh ki thizkerennu, uben Adam ki thiphkedennu; What is miserable man, that thou rememberest him? and the son of Adam, that thou visitest him? The variation of the terms in the original is very emphatic. Adam, אדם, is the name given to man at his creation, and expresses his origin, and generic distinction from all other animals. Enosh, אנוש, which signifies sick, weak, wretched, was never given to him till after his fall. The son of Adam means here, any one or all of the fallen posterity of the first man. That God should remember in the way of mercy these wretched beings, is great condescension; that he should visit them, manifest himself to them, yea, even dwell among them, and at last assume their nature, and give up his life to ransom them from the bitter pains of eternal death, is mercy and love indescribable and eternal.
