<- Previous   First   Next ->

teach you the elements of the first principles of the oracles of God; and ye are become in need of milk, (and) not of solid food. 13 For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who in virtue of their state have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

( a ) The Hebrews have failed to grow with years (5:11, 12). 5:11 f. The difficulty of unfolding the truth of Christ's High-priestly office typified in Melchizedek is due to the spiritual state of the Hebrews. They are still babes when they ought to have advanced to ripe intelligence.

The character of the complaint seems to indicate clearly that the Epistle could not have been addressed to a large body as a whole, but to some section of it (comp. 13:17) consisting, as it appears, of men in the same general circumstances of age, position and opinion.

11. peri; ou| polu;" hJmi'n oJ lovgo" ...] Of whom ( which ). Vulg. De quo grandis nobis sermo ... The relative is ambiguous. It may mean concerning which, i.e. the High-priestly dignity of Christ, or concerning whom. In the latter case the antecedent may be Christ ( peri; ou| cristou' OEcum.) or Melchizedek (Pesh. about this Melchizedek ) or (as a complex subject) Christ a High-priest after the order of Melchizedek (6:20; comp. o{" 5:7).

The reference to Melchizedek simply appears to be too limited. Although Melchizedek is afterwards spoken of in detail (7:1 ff.), the mysteries to which the apostle refers do not lie properly in his person, but in Him whom he foreshadowed; and, again, the reference to Christ generally is too vague. Hence it seems best to interpret the ou| of Christ as typified by Melchizedek, or of Melchizedek as a type of Christ. Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice is the main and most difficult subject of the Epistle; and this is foreshadowed in Melchizedek, whose significance was overlooked by the Jewish interpreters
(e.g., Bereshith R.). In regard to the general sense it makes no difference whether the
ou| be neuter or masculine (with this reference), but the neuter is less in the style of the Epistle.

It will be observed that, while the writer of the Epistle recognises the difficulty of his theme, he declares no less plainly that he must deal with it. He speaks of the discourse, the teaching ( oJ lovgo" ), which (he implies) it is his duty and his purpose to deliver. There is no indication that the fulfilment of his design is contingent on those whom he addresses. His part must be done, however hard it may be to do it. In this respect he identifies himself with the society which he represents ( hJmi'n ).
dusermhvneuto" ] hard of interpretation: Vulg. ininterpretabilis ad dicendum: hard for a writer to express, so that it will be fully understood. The difficulty of the interpreter lies in the small capacity of his audience. The addition of levgein , which corresponds with the image in tai'" ajkoai'" , shews decisively, as is otherwise most natural, that the difficulty is considered with regard to him who has to make the exposition and not to those who have to receive it.

The sense is rightly given by the early commentators: o{tan ti" pro;" ajnqrwvpou" e[ch/ ( l. levgh/ ) mh; parakolouqou'nta" mhde; ta; legovmena noou'nta" eJrmhneu'sai kalw'" aujtoi'" ouj duvnatai (Chrys.).

Difficultas interpretandi...non fuit in ejus ignorantia cui revelata sunt mysteria a seculis abscondita sed potius in illorum tarditate qui imbecilles, i.e. infirmi in fide...(Primas., Herv.).


<- Previous   First   Next ->