Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 4

Verses 1-99

1Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest is still left to us, let us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. 2For (καὶ γάρ = etenim) we have had the good news as well as they (ἐκεῖνοι=3:8, 19); only, the message they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. 3 For we do “enter the Rest” by our faith: according to his word,

“As I swore in my anger,

they shall never enter my Rest”—

although “his works” were all over by the foundation of the world. 4For he says somewhere about the seventh(sc. ἡμέρας) day: “And God rested from all his works on the seventh day.” 5And again in this (ἐν τούτῳ, sc. τόπῳ) passage, “they shall never enter my Rest.” 6Since then it is reserved �

Ἐπαγγελία (v. 1) is not common in the LXX, though it mistranslates סִפְרָה in Psalms 56:8, and is occasionally the term for a human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh (6) it is the divine promise (τὸ ἔλεος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας σου), and recurs in the plural, of the divine promises, in Test. Joshua 20:1 (ὁ θεὸς ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπάξει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν) and Ps. Sol 12:8 (ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας κυρίου—the first occurrence of this phrase κλ. ἐπ., cp. below on 6:12). Καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας (+ τῆς D* 255, from 6:15, 17, 11:9) is a genitive absolute. Ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθεῖν (like ὁρμὴ … ὑβρίσαι in Acts 14:5) κτλ: the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn (still τὸ “σήμερον” καλεῖται); and (b) that the punishment which befalls others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, 1: αἱ γὰρ ἑτέρων τιμωρίαι βελτοιῦσι τοὺς πολλούς, φόβῳ τοῦ μὴ παραπλήσια παθεῖν). By a well-known literary device μή ποτε, like μή in 12:15, takes a present (δοκῇ), instead of the more usual aorist, subjunctive. Δοκῇ means “judged” or “adjudged,” as in Josephus, Ant. viii. 32, κἂν�Proverbs 17:28 ἐνεὸν δέ τις ἑαυτὸν ποιήσας δόξει φρόνιμος εἶναι (where δόξει is paralleled by λογισθήσεται), 27:14 (καταρωμένου οὐδὲν διαφέρειν δόξει); indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which goes back to Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 113 D, of the souls in the underworld, οἳ μὲν ἂν δόξωσι μέσως βεβιωκέναι) and Demosthenes (629. 17, οἱ δεδογμένοι�

In v. 2 εὐηγγελισμένοι is remarkable. Our author, who never uses εὐαγγέλιον (preferring ἐπαγγελία here as an equivalent), employs the passive of εὐαγγελίζειν1 (as in v. 6) in the broad sense of “having good news brought to one.” The passive occurs in LXX of 2 S 18:31 (εὐαγγελισθήτω ὁ κύριός ὁ βασιλεύς) and in Matthew 11:5 (πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται). The καί after καθάπερ emphasizes as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure of the past generation was that they merely heard what God said, and did not believe him; ὁ λόγος τῆς�Genesis 2:18) as consisting [οὐκ] ἐν τῷ χρειώδει μᾶλλον ἢ κράσει καὶ συμφωνίᾳ βεβαίῳ τῶν ἠθῶν, and συγκεκρᾶσθαι in his description of the union of spirit and blood in the human body (Quaest. in Genesis 9:4 πνεῦμα … ἐμφέρεσθαι καὶ συγκεκρᾶσθαι αἵματι).

The original reading συγκεκ(ε)ρα(ς)μένος (א 114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon assimilated (after ἐκείνους) into the accusative -ους (p13 A B C D K L M P vg boh syrhkl etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of τοῖς�

Here, as in Romans 3:28, there is a choice of reading between οὖν (א A C M 1908 boh) and γάρ (p13 B D K L P Ψ 6, 33 lat syrhkl eth Chrys. Lucif. etc.); the colourless δέ (syrpesh arm) may be neglected. The context is decisive in favour of γάρ. Probably the misinterpretation which produced οὖν led to the change of εἰσερχόμεθα into εἰσερχώμεθα1 (A C 33. 69*: future in vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of τήν (the first) may be due to the same interpretation, but not necessarily; p13 B D* om., but B omits the article sometimes without cause (e.g. 7:15). The omission of εἰ (p13 D* 2, 330, 440, 623, 642, 1288, 1319, 1912) was due to the following εἰ in εἰσελεύσονται.

Καίτοι (with gen. absol., as OP 898:26) is equivalent here to καίτοιγε for which it is a v.l. in Acts 17:27 (A E, with ptc.). “Καίτοι, ut antiquiores καίπερ, passim cum participio iungunt scriptores aetatis hellenisticae” (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graeci, 249). Καταβολή is not a LXX term, but appears in Ep. Aristeas, 129 and 2 Mac 2:29 (τῆς ὅλης καταβολῆς = the entire edifice); in the NT always, except Hebrews 11:11, in the phrase�

The writer then (v. 4) quotes Genesis 2:2, inserting ὁ θεὸς ἐν (exactly as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the κατάπαυσις had originated immediately after the six days of creation. In εἴρηκε που the που is another literary mannerism (as in Philo); instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2:6). The psalm-threat is then (v. 5) combined with it, and (v. 6) the deduction drawn, that the threat (v. 7) implies a promise (though not as if v. 1 meant, “lest anyone imagine he has come too late for it”—an interpretation as old as Schöttgen, and still advocated, e.g., by Dods).

The title of the 92nd psalm, “for the sabbath-day,” was discussed about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia; the former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia’s rabbinical tradition preferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W. Bacher’s Agada der Tannaiten2, 1. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Genesis 2:2 in the millennium: “he rested on the seventh day” means that “when his Son arrives he will destroy the time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon and stars; then he will really rest on the seventh day,” and Christians cannot enjoy their rest till then. Our author’s line is different—different even from the Jewish interpretation in the Vita Adae et Evae (li. I), which makes the seventh day symbolize “the resurrection and the rest of the age to come; on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.”

In v. 7 μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον, like μετὰ ταῦτα (v. 8), denotes the interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David, for ἐν Δαυείδ means “in the psalter” (like ἐν Ἠλίᾳ, Romans 11:2); the 95th psalm is headed αἶνος ᾠδῆς τῷ Δαυείδ in the Greek bible, but the writer throughout (3:7f.) treats it as a direct, divine word. Προείρηται (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the original text (p13 A C D* P 6, 33, 1611, 1908, 2004, 2005 lat syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.); προείρηκεν (B 256, 263, 436, 442, 999, 1739, 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David spoke these words before the oath (v. 7 comes before v. 11!), while εἴρηται (Dc K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of quotation. From the combination of Psalms 95:7, Psalms 95:8 with Psalms 95:11 and Genesis 2:2 (vv. 3-7) the practical inference is now drawn (v. 8f.). Like Sirach (46:1, 2 κραταιὸς ἐν πολέμοις Ἰησοῦς Ναυή … ὃς ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μέγας ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ), Philo (de mutatione nominum, 21, Ἰησοῦς δὲ [ἑρμηνεύεται] σωτηρία κυρίου, ἓξεως ὄνομα τῆς�Isaiah 28:16 (ὃς ἐλπίσει ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). But the author of Πρὸς Ἑβραίους takes his own line, starting from the transitive use of καταπαύειν (Joshua 1:13 κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γὴν ταύτην, etc.); not that he reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages of καταπαύειν, like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the relevance of κατάπαυσις to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26), explains why Moses calls the sabbath (ἑρμηνεύεται δʼ�Exodus 20:10 etc.; the only thing which really rests is God—“rest �Hebrews 1:3 φέρων τε τὰ πάντα], θεῷ γὰρ τὸ�

In v. 9 ἄρα, as in 12:8, Luke 11:48, Acts 11:18, Romans 10:17, is thrown to the beginning by an unclassical turn (“müsste dem gebildeten Hellenen hochgradig anstössig erscheinen,” Radermacher, 20). Σαββατισμός, apparently1 a word coined by the writer, is a Semitic-Greek compound. The use of σαββατισμός for κατάπαυσις is then (v. 10) justified in language to which the closest parallel is Revelation 14:13. “Rest” throughout all this passage—and the writer never refers to it again—is the blissful existence of God’s faithful in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in 4 Es 8:52: “for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a Rest appointed” (κατέσταθη?). In�

When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little-frequented way leads, at length reach it and “rest from their labour” (Dissert. xxiii.).

The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages is pressed home (vv. 11-13) with a skilful blend of encouragement and warning.



11Let us be eager then to “enter that Rest,” in case anyone falls into the same sort of disobedience. 12For the Logos of God is a living thing, active and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow—scrutinizing the very thoughts and conceptions of the heart. 13And no created thing is hidden from him; all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to reckon (ὁ λόγος).

In v. 11 the position of τις, as, e.g., in Luke 18:18, is due to “the tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to the beginning of the sentence as possible” (Blass, § 473. 1). For πίπτειν ἐν, cp. Epict. 3:22, 48, πότε ὑμῶν εἶδέν μέ τις … ἐν ἐκκλίσει περιπίπτοντα. This Hellenistic equivalent for πίπτειν εἰς goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Herc. 1091, 1092, ἐν κλύδωνι καὶ φρενῶν ταράγματι πέπτωκα δεινῷ. In Hellenistic Greek ὑπόδειγμα came to have the sense of παράδειγμα, and is used here loosely for “kind” or “sort”; take care of falling into disobedience like that of which these πατέρες ὑμῶν yield such a tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of this kind, writes ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ὑποδείγματι τῆς�

The connexion of thought in vv. 11f. is suggested by what has been already hinted in v. 1, where the writer pled for anxiety, μή ποτε δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑστερηκέναι. He repeats ἵνα μὴ … τις … πέσῃ, and enlarges upon what lies behind the term δοκῇ. Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v. 13), with which the paragraph closes. Σπουδάσωμεν—we have to put heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God whom nothing escapes; ζῶν γάρ κτλ. (v. 12). The term ζῶν echoes θεὸς ζῶν in 3:12 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as καρδίας echoes καρδία πονηρὰ�

The personifying of the divine λόγος, in a passage which described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis 18:15, for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect of God’s λόγος coming into play: ὁ παντοδύναμός σου λόγος�James 1:18f., quite apart from the specific application of the term to the person of Christ (John 1:1-18). Here it denotes the Christian gospel declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired message which carries on the OT revelation of God’s promises and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this λόγος! The rhetorical outburst in vv. 12f. is a preacher’s equivalent for the common idea that the sense of God’s all-seeing scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus (Captivi, 2. 63, “est profecto deu’, qui quae nos gerimus auditque et uidet”). This had been deepened by ethical writers like Seneca (Ep. lxxxiii. I, “nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit”), Epictetus (ii. 14, 11, οὐκ ἔστι λαθεῖν αὐτὸν οὐ μόνον ποιοῦντα�Genesis 15:10. Scripture means, he explains (quis rer. div. haeres, 26) that it was God who divided them, τῷ τομιεῖ τῶ συμπάντων ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ, ὃς εἰς τὴν ὀξυτάτην�

Ἐνεργής (for which B, by another blunder, has ἐναργής = evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity (cp. Schol. on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 45, ζώσας�Luke 16:8) by ὑπέρ, as elsewhere by παρά, and the “cutting” power of ὁ λόγος extends or penetrates to the innermost recesses of human nature—ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος,2 ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν (the conj. μελῶν = limbs is neat but superfluous, for μυελῶν was in the text known to Clem. Alex. quis dives, 41). D K here (as in 11:32) insert τε before the first καί, but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and the physical spheres; ἅρμων … μυελῶν is merely a metaphorical equivalent for ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. Μερισμός (only in LXX in Jb 11:23, Job 11:2 Ezra 6:18) means here “division,” not “distribution” (2:4); the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line between the ψυχή and the πνεῦμα, all this is open to ὁ λόγος. The metaphorical use of μυελῶν in this sense is as old as Euripides, who speaks of μὴ πρὸς ἄκρον μυελὸν ψυχῆς (Hippolytus, 255).

According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8, 9), the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24 is a symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole world in a single day), or of reason, ὀξυκινητότατον γὰρ καὶ θέρμον λόγος καὶ μάλιστα ὁ τοῦ αἰτίου. Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds, to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, ὅς οὐδέποτε λήγει κινούμενος σπουδῇ πάσῃ πρὸς αἵρεσιν μὲν τῶν καλῶν, φυγὴν δὲ τῶν ἐναντίων. But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian’s account of the impression made by the address (ὁ λόγος) of a philosopher: οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἐπιπολῆς οὐδʼ ὡς ἔτυχεν ἡμῶν ὁ λόγος καθίκετο, βαθεῖα δὲ καὶ καίριος ἡ πληγὴ ἐγένετο, καὶ μάλα εὐστόχως ἐνεχθεὶς ὁ λόγος αὐτήν, εἰ οἶόν τε εἰπεῖν, διέκοψε τὴν ψυχήν (Nigr. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo-Phocylides, 124: ὅπλον τοι λόγος�

The μερισμοῦ … μυελῶν passage is “a mere rhetorical accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of man” (A. B. Davidson); the climax is καρδία, for what underlies human failure is καρδία πονηρὰ�

In v. 13 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις�Romans 8:39), and αὐτοῦ is “God’s.” The negative side is followed by the positive, πάντα δὲ γυμνὰ καὶ τετραχηλισμένα. The nearest verbal parallel is in En 9:5 πάντα ἐνώπιόν σου φανερὰ καὶ�Deuteronomy 29:29 (τὰ κρυπτὰ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ, τὰ δὲ φανερὰ γενέσει γνώριμα) by arguing, γενητὸς δὲ οὐδεὶς ἱκανὸς γνώμης�Numbers 5:18) τὴν ψυχὴν “ἐναντίον τοῦθεοῦ στῆσαι” with head uncovered; which means, the soul τὸ κεφάλαιον δόγμα γυμνωθεῖσαν καὶ τὴν γνώμην ᾗ κέχρηται�

Though τραχηλιζω does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler “downing” his opponent by seizing his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield the metaphorical passive sense of “exposed,” is not easy to see. The Philonic sense of “depressed” or “bent down” would yield here the meaning “abashed,” i.e. hanging down the head in shame (“conscientia male factorum in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt,” Wettstein). But this is hardly on a level with γυμνά. The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of exposing an offender’s face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an equivalent for the Latin “resupinata” in the sense of “manifesta.” The bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was “reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam praeberet faciem” (Suet. Vit. Vitell. 17).

In the last five words, πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, which are impressive by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term λόγος here and in v. 12, although in view of the flexible use of the term, e.g. in 5:11 and 13:17, it might be even doubtful if the writer intended more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase is best conveyed by “with whom we have to reckon.” (a) This rendering, “to whom we have to account (or, to render our account),” was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from Chrysostom (αὐτῷ μέλλομεν δοῦναι εὐθύνας τῶν πεπραγμένων) onwards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a commercial metaphor; e.g. OP. 1188:5 (a.d. 13) ὡς πρὸς σὲ τοῦ περὶ τῶν�Judges 17:7 (μακράν εἰσιν Σιδωνίων, καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἔχουσιν πρὸς ἄνθρωπον). The former idea is predominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn 3, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον οὐ πρὸς σάρκα ὁ λόγος,�

At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme, which is to occupy him till 10:18, i.e. Christ as�

Μέγας is a favourite adjective for�Matthew 8:17 (αὐτὸς τὰς�Matthew 25:35f.. Philo uses the term even of the Mosaic law (de spec. eg. ii. 13, τῷ δὲ�

Philo deduces from Leviticus 4:3 (μόνον οὐκ ἄντικρυς�

Hence (v. 16) προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας. Philo (quis rer. div. haeres, 2) makes παρρησία the reward of a good conscience, which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly. But here (cp. ERE ii. 786) παρρησία is not freedom of utterance so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3:6). Our writer certainly includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and body, not for any selfish and material end: “audacter deum roga; nihil illum de alieno rogaturus es” (Ep. x. 4). But even this is not the meaning of παρρησία here. The Roman argues that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the majority of people “whisper basest of prayers to God.” Our author does not mean “palam” by παρρησία.

Our approach (προσερχώμεθα: the verb in the sense of applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP 1119:8 προσήλθομεν τῇ κρατίστῃ βουλῇ, BGU 1022) is τῷ θρονῷ τῆς χάριτος, for grace is now enthroned (see 2:9f.). For the phrase see Isaiah 16:5 διορθωθήσεται μετʼ ἐλέους θρόνος. Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic piety, regarded heaven as God’s royal presence and also as the σκηνή where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Isaiah 6:1f. and Psa_29 (cp. Mechilta on Exodus 15:17), though he only alludes incidentally (12:22) to the worship of God by the host of angels in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of Azariah (Dn 3:38): ὠκ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ … οὔδε τόπος τοῦ καρπῶσαι ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ εὑρεῖν ἔλεος. He rather shares Philo’s feeling (de Exsecrat. 9) that οἱ�Genesis 6:8) εὑρίσκειν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου (τοῦ θεοῦ). In the writer’s text (A) of the LXX, Proverbs 8:17 ran οἱ δὲ ἐμὲ ζητοῦντες εὑρήσουσι χάριν.1 Εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν recalls τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι in 2:18; it signifies “for assistance in the hour of need.” Εὔκαιρος means literally “seasonable,” as in Psalms 104:27 (δοῦναι τὴν τροφὴν αὐτοῖς εὔκαιρον), “fitting” or “opportune” (Ep. Aristeas, 203, 236). The “sympathy” of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all because it is timely (εὔκαιρον being almost equivalent to ἐν καιρῷ χρείας, Sir 8:9). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all his greatness, cherishes compassion (ἔλεον καὶ οἶκτον λαμβάνει τῶν ἐν ἐνδείαις�

How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading is shown by the evidence for προσερχόμεθα: 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206*. 241. 255. 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489. 623. 635. 639. 642. 915. 919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For ἔλεος (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 176:1), the Attic ἔλεον (ἔλεος, masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules (Chrys. Theodoret). B om. εὕρωμεν.









1 Ἀπείθειαν, altered into�

1 The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Proverbs 5:4 ἠκονημένον μᾶλλον μαχαίρας διστόμου.

2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of πνεύματος into σώματος (2, 38, 257, 547, 1245).

W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “quite free from Western readings.”

1 ὁ μὲν δὴ μέγας�