Hebrews 4:13

Heb 4:13. Neither is there any creature — Especially no human creature; that is not manifest — Αφανης, unapparent; in his sight — Namely, in the sight of God, whose word is thus powerful; for it is God in whose sight, or before whom, Greek ενωπιο, αυτου, every creature is manifest, and of this his word, working on the conscience, gives the fullest conviction; but all things are naked and opened — Γυμνα και τετραχηλισμενα, expressions used with a plain allusion to the state in which the sacrifices called burnt-offerings were laid on the altar. They were stripped of their skins, their breasts were ripped open, their bowels were taken out, and their back-bone was cleft from the neck downward, as the latter word signifies. So that every thing, both within and without them, was exposed to open view, particularly to the eye of the priest, in order to a thorough examination, Lev 1:5-6. And being found without blemish, they were laid in their natural order on the altar, and burned, Heb 4:8. The apostle’s meaning is, that neither infidelity, nor hypocrisy, nor worldly- mindedness; neither covetousness, nor pride, nor ambition, nor any sinful disposition, however secretly it may lurk in the mind, can be concealed from our judge; with whom we have to do — Προς ον ημιν ο λογος, to whom we must give an account. So the word λογος frequently signifies. See Mat 12:36; Mat 18:23; Luk 16:2; and particularly Rom 14:12, where the final judgment is spoken of. So every one of us, λογον δωσει, shall give an account of himself to God; and Heb 13:17, they watch for your souls, ως λογον αποδωσοντες, as those who must give account.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. Thus far is described the searching action of the word upon our inmost being; now is correspondently described the complete passive subjection of our being to the scrutiny of the same word.

Creature—Of any nature, but especially human. From the fact that sight and eyes are affirmed, Lunemann, Alford, and Moll tell us that it is no longer the word, but God, that is described. But: 1. That forgets that nearly every term so far gives personality to this word. Living, energizing, going through, discerning, are its attributes. Now what are sight and eyes other than powers of discerning; powers which are attributed to the word in a very intense degree? 2. The word is the sole subject thus far, and it is a violation of grammar to suppose a change without an indication of change. 3. All the commentators we know overlook the correspondence above mentioned between Heb_4:12-13. Heb_4:12 describes the active scrutiny of the word upon us; Heb_4:13 antithetically describes our absolute nakedness beneath that same scrutiny, namely, of the word.

Opened—The Greek word literally signifies throated. It is used of a wrestler grasped by the throat, and prostrated by his antagonist, and so Alford renders it, “prostrate.” By Roman custom, a criminal’s face and throat were exposed to public gaze by a dagger placed under his chin. But the real allusion is to the exposure of the throat of an animal to the knife of the slaughterer, produced by the drawing back of his head for that purpose. Hence the true meaning is, that we are as exposed to the view of the word as the victim’s throat to the eye of his sacrificer.

Have to do—Literal Greek, him to whom is to us the word. To this divine word there is incumbent upon us an answering human word. From this stern apostle and word turn we now to our gracious High-Priest.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:13 To be naked and exposed speaks figuratively of being vulnerable, helpless, or unprotected. The guilty are not able to hide from God’s penetrating word of judgment (cp. Rev 3:17).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 4:13. Κτίσις, a creature) A word quite general: presently afterwards we find πάντα, all things.—ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, in His sight) His, GOD’S, Heb 4:12. The analysis of the statement will be easy, if both of its parts are put in the nominative case: It is GOD, whose word is quick or living: it is GOD, before whom there is no creature that is not manifest. So, in ch. Heb 11:23, the nominative case is to be understood: By faith the parents of Moses concealed Moses. Ibid., 11"30: By faith the Israelites went round the walls of Jericho, that they might fall down. The omniscience of GOD is laid open to men by the word; and those who have not the word still feel that omniscient power in their consciences. A remarkable argument for the truth of religion from its efficacy.—τετραχηλισμένα) τραχηλίζω, I throw one on his back, is used in Greek and Latin for I lay open. Bodies which lie on the belly are scarcely considered naked, for they cover themselves: those lying on their back are laid open to the view in all their noblest and most distinguishing parts. Show, O man, shame and fear towards thy GOD; for no veil, no twisting, bending, colouring, or disguise, can cover faithlessness.—αὐτοῦ, of Him) This again is to be referred to GOD.—πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, with whom we have to do) We have to do with Him, with God, with such a one as is described, Heb 4:12-13, [whose face and judgment we cannot escape.—V. g.] We have therefore need of earnestness [Heb 4:11, σπουδάσωμεν]. The relative ὅν, whom, has the power of the demonstrative pronoun: λόγος, דבר, concern, business. So the LXX., Jdg 18:28, λόγος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς μετὰ ἀνθρώπου, they had no business with any man; 2Ki 9:5, λόγος μοι πρός σε; comp. Act 19:38. There is the same expression in Chrysostom, περὶ ἱερως., p. 336, αἱ θυγατέρες τῶν ἱερέων, αἷς οὐδεὶς τρὸς τὴν ἱερωσύνην λόγος, the daughters of the priests, who have nothing to do with the priesthood.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_4:13. Transition from the word of God to God Himself. That the twofold αὐτοῦ and the ὅν, Heb_4:13, cannot be referred to Christ,[69] follows from the correct interpretation of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, Heb_4:12. That, however, in general not the total notion ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (so Ebrard still) can form the subject of the pronouns, Heb_4:13, but only the ὁ θεός to be deduced therefrom, is evident from the expression τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, which is appropriate only to the latter, not to the former. The transition from the word of God to God Himself was, moreover, a very natural one, inasmuch as in the word of God, God Himself is present and operative.

κτίσις] as Rom_8:39, and frequently, in the most universal sense: any creature, and indeed here not merely as regards its external existence, but also as regards its inner essence. Quite mistakenly Grotius, who is followed by Carpzov: Videtur mihi hoc loco κτίσις significare opus hominis, quia id est velut creatura hominis.

δέ] on the contrary. See on Heb_2:6.

τετραχηλισμένα laid bare. Hesychius: πεφανερωμένα. τραχηλίζειν means: to bend back the neck of the victim, in the act of slaying, in order to lay bare the chest, then generally: to lay bare, disclose, expose to view. See the Lexicons of Passow and Pape on the word. Comp. Hom. Il. 1:459: αὖ ἔρυσαν, sc. τὸυ τράχηλον τοῦ ἱεροῦ; Orpheus, Argon. 311: ταῦρον σφάζον, ἀνακλίνας κεφαλὴν εἰς αἰθέρα δῖαν; P. Fr. Ach. Nitsch, Beschreibung des häuslichen, gottesdienstlichen u. s. w. Zustandes der Griechen, 2 Aufl. Th. I. p. 667. Others, as Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, and Maier, would, after the precedent of Perizonius, ad Aeliani Var. Hist. 12:58, derive the signification lay bare to τραχηλίζειν, from the practice in antiquity of laying hold of transgressors by the neck when they were being led away to execution, and bending back the head, that they might be exposed to the gaze of all. Appeal is made not amiss to Suetonius in favour of this custom, Vitell. 17: donec (Vitellius) religatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, seminudus in forum tractus est … reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ad visendam praeberet faciem neve submitteret. In like manner to Pliny, Panegyr. 34. 3 : Nihil tamen gratius, nihil seculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum supina ora retortasque cervices. Yet a Roman custom cannot in itself afford a standard for determining the signification of a Greek word. Yet others, as Cameron, Brochmann, and Klee, suppose the general signification: to lay bare, for τραχηλίζειν, to arise from the circumstance that the verb is used also of the wrestler, who grasps his opponent by the throat, and hurls him down backwards, whereby the face of the latter is exposed to the full view of the spectators (Cameron: Videtur esse metaphora petita a re palaestrica. Nam luctatores turn demum adversarium dicuntur τραχηλίζειν, cum obstricto collo ita versant, ut objiciant spectatorum oculis nudum conspiciendum et retectum undiquaque, id quod turn demum maxime fit, quum ejus cervicibus inequitant). But the exposing of the face of the thrown opponent was a circumstance of no importance in the τραχηλίζειν of the athlete, because not at all necessarily connected therewith. Further, and not less improbable derivations, see in Bleek.

πρὸς ὅν κ.τ.λ.] is to be taken in close combination only with the αὐτοῦ immediately preceding, not likewise, as is done by Michaelis, Bloomfield, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. 2 Aufl. p. 104), with the first αὐτοῦ, and upon ἡμῖν falls no emphasis (against Ebrard and Alford). The words for the rest have too little the character of independence to justify our taking them alone, with Alford, and separating them by a colon from that which precedes.

πρὸς ὅν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος] towards whom exists for us the relation, i.e. with whom we have to do. Calvin: vertendum erat: cum quo nobis est ratio: cujus orationis hic est sensus, Deum esse, qui nobiscum agit, vel cum quo nobis est negotium, ideoque non esse ludendum quasi cum homine mortali, sed quoties verbum ejus nobis proponitur, contremiscendum esse, quia nihil ipsum lateat. Comp. 1Ki_2:14 and 2Ki_9:5 : λόγος μοι πρὸς σέ.

Aristides, Leuctr. iv. p. 465: ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο θαυμαστὸν φαίνεται, εἴ τις τὸ μὲν Θηβαίους μόνους ἀντιπάλους ἡμῖν καταλειφθῆναι δέδιε, τὸ δὲ πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἡμῖν εἶναι τὸν λόγου, οὐδενὸς ἄξιου κρίνει φόβον. Further examples in Wetstein and Bleek. Incorrectly do Luther, Vatablus, Cameron, Schlichting, Cornelius a Lapide [Piscator hesitates between this and the rendering above given], Grotius, Calov, Wolf, Schulz, Stengel, al., generally with an appeal to πρός, i. 7, 8, and a comparison of Heb_5:11, take πρὸς ὅν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος as equivalent to περὶ οὗ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. Moreover, something entirely foreign is imported by Ewald when, with a reference to ii. 10 f., he finds in the words the sense: to whom, as a friend and brother, we can always most confidently speak. Finally, the Peshito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus Paraphr., Clarius, Zeger, Owen, Limborch, Michaelis, Whitby, Cramer, Stuart, Hofmann, al., explain: to whom we shall have to give an account of our actions. In itself this interpretation would be admissible; but, inasmuch as the words must in consequence thereof be taken in reference to an event yet future, we should necessarily expect the addition of ἔσται.

[69] As is done even by Dorscheus, Calov, Wittich, Braun, Brochmann, and Schöttgen, although they do not explain hypostatically the word of God in ver. 12.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In God’s sight.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

creature--visible or invisible.

in his sight--in God's sight (Heb 4:12). "God's wisdom, simply manifold, and uniformly multiform, with incomprehensible comprehension, comprehends all things incomprehensible."

opened--literally, "thrown on the back so as to have the neck laid bare," as a victim with neck exposed for sacrifice. The Greek perfect tense implies that this is our continuous state in relation to God. "Show, O man, shame and fear towards thy God, for no veil, no twisting, bending, coloring, or disguise, can cover unbelief" (Greek, 'disobedience,' Heb 4:11). Let us, therefore, earnestly labor to enter the rest lest any fall through practical unbelief (Heb 4:11).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest] God, from whom this word comes, and by whom it has all its efficacy, is infinitely wise. He well knew how to construct his word, so as to suit it to the state of all hearts; and he has given it that infinite fulness of meaning, so as to suit it to all cases. And so infinite is he in his knowledge, and so omnipresent is he, that the whole creation is constantly exposed to his view; nor is there a creature of the affections, mind, or imagination, that is not constantly under his eye. He marks every rising thought, every budding desire; and such as these are supposed to be the creatures to which the apostle particularly refers, and which are called, in the preceding verse, the propensities and suggestions of the heart.

But all things are naked and opened] πανταδεγυμνακαι τετραχηλισμενα. It has been supposed that the phraseology here is sacrificial, the apostle referring to the case, of slaying and preparing a victim to be offered to God.

1. It is slain;

2. It is flayed, so it is naked;

3. It is cut open, so that all the intestines are exposed to view;

4. It is carefully inspected by the priest, to see that all is sound before any part is offered to him who has prohibited all imperfect and diseased offerings; and,

5. It is divided exactly into two equal parts, by being split down the chine from the nose to the rump; and so exactly was this performed, that the spinal marrow was cloven down the centre, one half lying in the divided cavity of each side of the backbone. This is probably the metaphor in 2Ti 2:15, where see the note.

But there is reason to suspect that this is not the metaphor here. The verb τραχηλιζω, from which the apostle's τετραχηλισμενα comes, signifies to have the neck bent back so as to expose the face to full view, that every feature might be seen; and this was often done with criminals, in order that they might be the better recognized and ascertained. To this custom Pliny refers in the very elegant and important panegyric which he delivered on the Emperor Trajan, about A. D. 103, when the emperor had made him consul; where, speaking of the great attention which Trajan paid to the public morals, and the care he took to extirpate informers, c., he says: Nihil tamen gratius, nihil saeculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum supina ora, retortasque cervices. Agnoscebamus et fruebamur, cum velut piaculares publicae sollicitudinis victimae, supra sanguinem noxiorum ad lenta supplicia gravioresque poenas ducerentur. Plin. Paneg., cap. 34. "There is nothing, however, in this age which affects us more pleasingly, nothing more deservedly, than to behold from above the supine faces and reverted necks of the informers. We thus knew them, and were gratified when, as expiatory victims of the public disquietude, they were led away to lingering punishments, and sufferings more terrible than even the blood of the guilty."

The term was also used to describe the action of wrestlers who, when they could, got their hand under the chin of their antagonists, and thus, by bending both the head and neck, could the more easily give them a fall this stratagem is sometimes seen in ancient monuments. But some suppose that it refers to the custom of dragging them by the neck. Diogenes the philosopher, observing one who had been victor in the Olympic games often fixing his eyes upon a courtezan, said, in allusion to this custom: Ιδε κριον αρειμανιον, ὡς ὑπο του τυχοντος κορασιου τραχηλιζεται. "See how this mighty champion (martial ram) is drawn by the neck by a common girl." See Stanley, page 305.

With whom we have to do.] Προς ὁν ἡμιν ὁ λογος. To whom we must give an account. He is our Judge, and is well qualified to be so, as all our hearts and actions are naked and open to him.

This is the true meaning of λογος in this place; and it is used in precisely the same meaning in Mat 12:36; Mat 18:23; Lu 16:2. Ro 14:12: So then every one of us λογοςδωσει, shall give an account of himself to God. And Heb 13:17: They watch for your souls, ὡς λογον αποδωσοντες, as those who must give account. We translate the words, With whom we have to do; of which, though the phraseology is obsolete, yet the meaning is nearly the same. To whom a worde to us, is the rendering of my old MS. and Wiclif. Of whom we speake, is the version of our other early translators.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. Neither is there any creature, etc. The conjunction here, as I think, is causal, and may be rendered for; for in order to confirm this truth, that whatever is hid in man is discerned and judged by God’s word, he draws an argument from the nature of God himself. There is no creature, he says, which is hid from the eyes of God; there is, therefore, nothing so deep in man’s soul, which cannot be drawn forth into light by that word that resembles its own author, for as it is God’s office to search the heart, so he performs this examination by his word.

Interpreters, without considering that God’s word is like a long staff by which he examines and searches what lies deep in our hearts, have strangely perverted this passage; and yet they have not relieved themselves. But all difficulty disappears when we take this view, — that we ought to obey God’s word in sincerity and with cordial affection, because God, who knows our hearts, has assigned to his word the office of penetrating even into our inmost thoughts. The ambiguous meaning of the last words has also led interpreters astray, which they have rendered, “Of whom we speak;” but they ought, on the contrary, to be rendered, With whom we have to do. The meaning is, that it is God who deals with us, or with whom we have a concern; and that, therefore, we ought not to trifle with him as with a mortal man, but that whenever his word is set before us, we ought to tremble, for nothing is hid from him.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(13) In his sight.—Still the proper subject is “the word of God”; but, as explained above, it has assumed the meaning, God speaking and present in His word. Touched by this word, every creature “returns of force to its own likeness”—shows itself as it is.

Opened.—Better, exposed, laid bare. The Greek word is peculiar (literally meaning, to take by the neck), and it seems impossible to determine with certainty the exact metaphor which it here presents. It is usually applied to a wrestler who by dragging back the neck overthrows his adversary: and “prostrate” has been suggested as the meaning here. Another explanation refers the word to the drawing back of a criminal’s head, so as to expose his face to public gaze; but, though we read of such a custom in Latin authors, we have no proof that the Greek word was used in this sense. There seems no good reason for supposing any allusion to a sacrificial victim with head thrown back (slain, or ready to be slain).

Unto the eyes of him . . .—Rather, unto His eyes: with Whom (or, and with Him) we have to do. The last solemn words recall the connection of the whole passage. No thought of unbelief or disobedience escapes His eye: the first beginnings of apostasy are manifest before Him.

Heb_4:14-16 are the link connecting all the preceding part of the Epistle with the next great section, . Heb_5:1 to Heb_10:18. Following the example of Luther, Tyndale and Coverdale begin the fifth chapter here; but the connection of the three verses with what precedes is too close to justify this.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. in his sight] i.e. in the Sight of God, not of “the Word of God.” “He seeth all man’s goings,” Job_34:21. “Thou hast set … our secret sins in the light of Thy countenance,” Psa_90:8; comp. Psa_139:1-12.

opened] The Greek word τετραχηλισμένα must have some such meaning, but it is uncertain what is the exact force of the metaphor from which it is derived. It comes from τράχηλος, “the neck,” and has been explained to mean: (1) “seized by the throat and thrown on the back”; or (2) “with the neck forced back like that of a malefactor compelled to shew his face” (Sueton. Vitell. 17); or (3) “with the neck held back like that of animals in order that the Priest may cut their throats”; or (4) “flayed”; or (5) “anatomised” (comp. Lev_1:6; Lev_1:9). This anatomic examination of victims by the Priests was called momoskopia since it was necessary that every victim should be “without blemish” (amomos), and Maimonides says that there were no less than 73 kinds of blemishes. Hence Polycarp (ad Phil, iv.) says that “all things are rigidly examined (πάντα μωμοσκοπεῖται) by God.” The usage of Philo, however, decisively shews that the word means “laid prostrate.” For the truth suggested see Pro_15:11; “I try the reins,” Jer_17:10; Psa_51:6; Pro_20:27, “the candle of the Lord searching all the inner parts of the belly.”

unto the eyes] “The Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire.” Rev_2:18.

with whom we have to do] This might be rendered, “to whom our account must be given.” Thus in Luk_16:2, “render thy account” (τὸν λόγον). Perhaps, however, our A. V. correctly represents it “Him with whom our concern is.” Comp. 1Ki_2:14; 2Ki_9:5 (LXX.), where a similar phrase occurs in this sense.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Seeing then that we have a great high priest,.... That Christ is a priest, and an high priest, has been observed already, in Heb 2:1 but here he is called a great one, because of the dignity of his person, as follows, and the virtue of his sacrifice; and because of the place where he now officiates as a priest, heaven and with respect to the continuation of his priesthood; and likewise because he makes others priests unto God; and this great high priest is no other than the Word of God before spoken of: so the divine Logos, or Word, is often called a priest, and an high priest, by Philo the Jew (t). This great high priest believers "have", and have an interest in him; he is called to this office, and invested with it; he has been sent to do his work as a priest; and he has done the greatest part of it, and is now doing the rest; and saints receive Christ as such, and the blessings of grace from him, through his sacrifice and intercession:

that is passed into the heavens; he came down from thence, and offered himself a sacrifice for the sins of his people; and having done this, he ascended thither again, to appear for them, and to make intercession for them; whereby he fully answers to his character as the great high priest: and what makes him more fully to appear so is what follows,

Jesus, the Son of God: the former of these names signifies a Saviour, and respects his office; the latter is expressive of his dignity, and respects his person; who is the Son of God in such sense as angels and men are not; not by creation, nor adoption; but by nature; not as man and Mediator, but as God, being of the same nature with his Father, and equal to him; and it is this which makes him a great high priest, and gives virtue and efficacy to all he does as such: wherefore,

let us hold fast our profession: of faith, of the grace and doctrine of faith, and of Christ, and salvation by him, and of the hope of eternal life and happiness; which being made both by words and deeds, publicly and sincerely, should be held fast; which supposes something valuable in it, and that there is danger of dropping it; and that it requires strength, courage, and greatness of mind, and an use of all proper means; and it should be held without wavering; for it is good and profitable, it recommends the Gospel; and it has been made publicly before witnesses; and not to hold it fast is displeasing to God, and resented by him: and the priesthood of Christ is an argument to enforce this duty, for he is the high priest of our profession; he has espoused our cause, and abode by it; he has bore witness to the truth of the Gospel himself; he prays for the support of our faith; he pities and succours; and he is passed into the heavens, where he appears for us, owns us, and will own us.

(t) Alleg. 1. 2. p. 76. De Profugis, p. 466. & de Somniis, p. 597.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Ver. 13. Neither is there any creature] No, not the creature of the heart, the most secret thoughts and intentions.

That is not manifest in his sight] Or in the sight of it, that is, of the word preached; but every the least fibre, the smallest string in the heart, that would escape the sight of the most exact anatomist, is hereby cut up. See 1Co 14:24.

But all things are naked and open] Naked, for the outside, and opened, dissected, quartered, cleft in the back bone (as the word τετραχηλισμενα here signifies), for the inside. Erasmus rendereth it, resupinata, making it a metaphor from those that lie with their faces upwards, that all passengers may see who they are. Theodoret readeth it, Hath the throat cut. So opened (say some others) as the entrails of a man that is anatomized, or of a beast that is cut np and quartered; and not only naked, as when the skin is pulled off. He useth a metaphor (saith an interpreter) taken from a sheep whose skin is taken off, and he hanged up by the neck with his back toward the wall, and all his entrails laid bare, and exposed to open view.

Unto the eyes of him] Or rather, of it, of the word, wherewith we have to do. The word, like a sacrificing sword, slits open, and as it were unridgeth the conscience.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight - There is no being who is not wholly known to God. All his thoughts, feelings, plans, are distinctly understood. Of the truth of this there can be no doubt. The “design” of the remark here is, to guard those to whom the apostle was writing from self-deception - since they could conceal nothing from God.

All things are naked - Exposed; uncovered. There is nothing that can be concealed from God; Psa 139:11-12.

“The veil of night is no disguise,

No screen from thy all-searching eyes;

Thy hands can seize thy foes as soon.

Thro’ midnight shades as blazing noon.”

And opened - - τετραχηλισμένα tetrachēlismena. The word used here - Τραχηλίζω Trachēlizō - properly means:

(1)To lay bare the neck, or to bend it back, so as to expose the throat to being cut;

(2)To expose; to lay open in any way.

Why the word is used here has been a matter of inquiry. Some have supposed that the phrase is derived from offering sacrifice, and from the fact that the priest carefully examined the victim to see whether it was sound, before it was offered. But this is manifestly a forced exposition. Others have supposed that it is derived from the custom of bending back the head of a criminal so as to look full in his face, and recognize him so as not to be mistaken; but this is equally forced and unnatural. This opinion was first proposed by Erasmus, and has been adopted by Clarke and others. Bloomfield, following, as he says, the interpretation of Chrysostom, Grotius (though this is not the sentiment of Grotius), Beza, Atling, Hammond, and others, supposes the allusion to be to the custom of cutting the animal down the back bone through the spinal marrow, and thus of laying it open entirely.

This sense would well suit the connection. Grotius supposes that it means to strip off the skin by dividing it at the neck. and then removing it. This view is also adopted substantially by Doddridge. These explanations are forced, and imply a departure more or less from the proper meaning of the Greek word. The most simple and obvious meaning is usually the best in explaining the Bible. The word which the apostle employs relates to “the neck” - τράχηλος trachēlos - and not to the spinal marrow, or the skin. The proper meaning of the verb is “to bend the neck back” so as to expose it in front when an animal is slain - Passow. Then it means to make bare; to remove everything like covering; to expose a thing entirely - as the naked neck is for the knife. The allusion here is undoubtedly to the “sword” which Paul had referred to in the previous verse, as dividing the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow; and the meaning is, that in the hand of God, who held that sword, everything was exposed.

We are in relation to that, like an animal whose neck is bent back, and laid bare, and ready for the slaughter. Nothing “hinders” God from striking; there is nothing that can prevent that sword from penetrating the heart - any more than when the neck of the animal is bent back and laid bare, there is anything that can hinder the sacrificing priest from thrusting the knife into the throat of the victim. If this be the true interpretation, then what an affecting view does it give of the power of God, and of the exposedness of man to destruction! All is bare, naked, open. There is no concealment; no hindrance; no power of resistance. In a moment God can strike, and his dreadful sentence shall fall on the sinner like the knife on the exposed throat of the victim. What emotions should the sinner have who feels that he is exposed each moment to the sentence of eternal justice - to the sword of God - as the animal with bent-back neck is exposed to the knife! And what solemn feelings should all have who remember that all is naked and open before God! Were we “transparent” so that the world could see all we are, who would dare go abroad?

Who would wish the world to read all his thoughts and feelings for a single day? Who would wish his best friends to look in upon his naked soul as we can look into a room through a window? O what blushes and confusion; what a hanging down of the head, and what an effort to escape from the gaze of people would there be, if every one knew that all his secret feelings were seen by every person whom he met! Social enjoyment would end; and the now frivolous and blithe multitudes in the streets would become processions of downcast and blushing convicts. And yet all these are known to God. He reads every thought; sees every feeling; looks through the whole soul. How careful should we be to keep our hearts pure; how anxious that there should be nothing in the soul that we are not willing to have known!

With whom we have to do - Literally, “with whom is our account.” Our account; our reckoning is to be with him before whom all is naked and open. We cannot, therefore, impose on him. We cannot pass off hypocrisy for sincerity. He will judge us according to truth, not according to appearances; and his sentence, therefore, will be just. A man who is to be tried by one “who knows all about him,” should be a pure and holy man.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

In his sight, or to the eyes, must signify in the sight of God. (Witham) --- If the word of God in Jesus Christ be so terrible, what will Jesus Christ be himself, when he comes to judge us according to the severity of his justice?

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: και is not only copulative, but rational, showing the ground of the former efficacy of the gospel word, because its Author seeth and knoweth all persons and things, and filleth it with this power and force. For every creature which God the Son created, angel, or man, or any other, from the greatest to the least, from the leviathan to a mite, and all parts of every creature, especially of every creature to whom the gospel is preached, Mar 16:15; not any one is αφανης, without light, invisible, unapparent, obscure, or possible to be covered, or hid, or concealed from his view or face: where the relative αυτου agreeth with θεου, God in Christ, and not with λογος, or the word, Heb 4:12, as the following relative evinceth. To this God-man no spirit nor thought can be hid; it shall not be so from the efficacious power of his word; much less shall infidelity or hypocrisy be hid from it, or his most piercing eye.

But all things are naked and opened; but all things in general and particular, not any one excepted, are bare, naked, unclothed, the covering is removed, all secrets are open and manifest to view, God the Son seeth within and without, all are unveiled to him, and laid open as by dissection, τετραχηλισμενα a metaphor taken from the sacrificed beasts, which being skinned, were cut open from the neck, and so divided by the chine to the rump, or by the throat downward embowelled by the priests, so as every part within may be clearly seen whether clean or unclean. The truth of which is, the every thing in the world, even the most secret and inward thoughts of the heart of a sinner, which is a great deep, is opened and laid forth to every scruple unto God in Christ; every secret unbelief, apostatizing principle, or hypocrisy, he discerneth clearly and fully, Jer 17:9,10; he that made the eye, must see best.

Unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do; his eyes who pierceth beyond the vulture’s, into things and places that no eye can discern, the souls of men, Job 28:7,10; Psa 94:9; Pro 20:12. All this is asserted concerning the person of whom Paul writes, Christ, God-man, the great gospel Minister, whose word is so powerfully piercing: of him and his word is all this speech and discourse; he it is who is the all-knowing and impartial Judge, and makes his gospel word of counsel, promise, and threatenings to cut so deeply, and search the secrets of the hearts of all.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and laid open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. The main difficulty in this verse is as to the meaning of the word tetrachlismena (translated laid open"). The verb trachlizw (which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament or LXX, but is, with its compound ektrachlizw , not uncommon in Philo and Josephus) has in classical Greek the sense of "seizing by the throat," or "bending back the neck," as in wrestling. And this, with the further idea of "overthrowing" or "laying prostrate," is the prevailing sense in Philo, from whom Wetstein quotes many passages in illustration. Taking, then, with most modern commentators, the sense of bending back the neck as the primary one, we have only to consider what secondary meaning is here to be attached to it. Some take the idea to be that of being thrown on the ground supine, so as to be thoroughly exposed to view. So Bengel: Trachlizw , resupino, Graece et Latine dicitur pro patefacio. Corpora quae prona jacent vix nuda censentur; nam se ipsa tegunt: resupinata, secundum partes nobilissimas quasque et distinctissimas visui patent." Many (Eisner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Block, De Wette, etc., following Perizonius, on Aelian, "Vat. Hist.," 12:58) see an allusion to the Roman custom of exposing criminals reducto capite," retortis cervieibus," so that all might see their faces (see Suetonius, Vitel., 17; Pliny, "Panegyr.," 34. 3). There is, however, no other known instance of the Greek verb being used with this reference, which there seems to be no necessity for assuming. The idea may be simply the general one thus expressed by Delitzsch, "that whatever shamefaced creature bows its head, and would fain withdraw and cloak itself from the eyes of God, has indeed the throat, as it were, bent back before those eyes, with no possibility of escape, exposed and naked to their view." Many of the ancients (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ecumenius, Theophylact) saw in tetrachlismena a reference to the treatment of sacrificial victims, as being smitten on the neck or hung by the neck for the purpose of being flayed kern the neck downwards, or cut open thence, so as to expose rite entrails to view. But no instance is known of such use of the word trachlizw , the idea of which may have been suggested to commentators by the figure of the sword in the verse preceding; which figure, however, there is no reason to suppose continued in ver. 13, the idea of which is simply complete exposure, introduced by ouk afanhv . The ancients take the concluding expression, progov , as meaning to whom our account must be given," i.e. to whom we are responsible as our judge in the sense of logon didonai . The A.V seems better to give the general idea of relation by the apt phrase, with whom we have to do." Of course, logav here has no reference to the Word of God, the recurrence of the word, in a subordinate sense, being merely accidental.

The omniscience of God. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest, etc.

I THE UNIVERSALITY OF GOD"S KNOWLEDGE, "There is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things," etc. All created things, high and low, great and small, visible and invisible, are comprehended in this word "creature." "His understanding is infinite." Nothing is too great for his comprehension; nothing too small for his notice; (Ps 1) nothing too hidden for his penetration. (Psa_139:11, Psa_139:12)

II THE MINUTENESS AND EXHAUSTIVENESS OF GOD"S KNOWLEDGE. "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him," etc.

1. He sees all things as they really are. "All things are naked unto" his eyes. He beholds them without any covering or disguise. Things and persons are cloaked, concealed, and made to appear other than they are amongst men; but none of these things can impose upon him.

2. He sees all things thoroughly, completely. "All things are naked and opened unto," etc.; Revised Version, "laid open before the eyes," etc. The word rendered "opened" is a difficult one. Alford adopts the meaning "to lay prostrate." He says, "This is the simplest and most frequent sense in the classical writers. I regard the word as signifying entire prostration and subjugation under the eye of God; not only naked, stripped of all covering and concealment, but also laid prostrate in their exposure before his eye." He translates, "lying open unto." Ebrard adopts the interpretation, "to bend any one"s neck backwards, and thereby to lay bare the throat; hence in general, to lay bare." Others interpret it to lay open, as a body, by an anatomist, or as an animal by a sacrificing priest. But whatever may be the exact figure, the meaning conveyed by the figure is quite clear, viz. that God knows all things thoroughly. (cf. Job_31:4 Job_34:21 Psa_56:8 Psa_139:1-5 Pro_5:21 Pro_15:11 Jer_17:10)

III THE SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF GOD"S KNOWLEDGE TO MAN. He is the God "with whom we have to do." Not "unto whom we must render our account." The clause expresses a more comprehensive relation than that. It expresses our whole concern and relation with God." The Divine omniscience has very important practical bearings upon us.

1. As an effectual rebuke to the pride which springs from knowledge or from intellectual attainments. Compared with the knowledge of him with whom we have to do," what does the most intelligent man know? "We are but of yesterday, and know nothing.

2. As a check upon sin, whether in thought and feeling, or in word and action. (See Job_34:21, 22 Psa_90:8 Ecc_12:14)

3. As an encouragement to trust in him. (See 2Ch_16:9 Mat_6:32 Mat_10:29-31)

4. As a great consolation when misinterpreted or slandered. (See Job_16:19 Job_23:10 Psa_37:5, Psa_37:6)

5. As a great comfort and support in affliction and trial. (See Psa_78:39 Psa_103:13, Psa_103:14)

6. As a guarantee of the triumph of his cause. His plans were formed with a full knowledge of every possible obstacle or opposition; and they anticipate and provide for the utilization of such opposition for their own furtherance and realization. W.J.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In his sight - It is God whose word is thus "powerful:" it is God in whose sight every creature is manifest; and of this his word, working on the conscience, gives the fullest conviction. But all things are naked and opened - Plainly alluding to the sacrifices under the law which were first flayed, and then (as the Greek word literally means) cleft asunder through the neck and backbone; so that everything both without and within was exposed to open view.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

There is not any one place of scripture, I think, which more fully informs us of the perfect and exact knowledge of Almighty God, as to all persons and things, than this before us.

Observe, 1. The object, all and everything, our persons, our actions, the manner of our actions, the design and end of our actions: he knows what we have been and done, and what we will be and do.

Observe, 2. The full manifestation and clear representation of all persons and things unto God.

1. All things are here said to be naked, unclothed, their dress and paint taken off: These words are and allusion to bodies, which being stripped and unclothed, all see what they are; there may be many deformities, blemishes, yea, ulcers, upon a body undiscerned, while it is clothed and covered; but when naked, every scar appears, and nothing is hid; all things are naked in his sight; that is, he as plainly discerns what they are, as we discern what a body is that stands naked before us. The knowledge which God has of persons and things, is a clear and distinct knowledge.

2. All things are here said to be open as well as naked, unto God; a metaphor taken, says St. Chrysostom, from the sacrificed beasts, which being excoriated, their skins plucked off, they were cut down from the neck to the rump, so that all the inwards of the best lay bare, and every part might be clearly seen; it is one thing to see a sheep alive, with its skin and fleece on, and another thing to see it naked and flayed; but a farther thing to see it opened and emboweled, with all its intestines and inwards exposed to the eye.

Others think there is in the original word an allusion to anatomists, who open and dissect human bodies, the heart, the liver, the lungs, the bowels, all exactly appear whether sound or decayed: Such a kind of anatomy doth God make upon man’s heart; his piercing eye sees and discerns what is flesh, and what is spirit in us, what is faith, what is fancy, what is grace in reality, and what in appearance only.

Doubtless the phrase doth signify a most intimate, full, and thorough knowledge of all persons, and all things, which is found in that God with whom we have to do, and to whom we must give and account for all that we have done.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. Neither is there any creature. In Christ appears the Word in personal form, while in the gospel we have his spoken word. Here the reference is to the personal Word. Every creature is manifest before him, and all our deeds and thoughts are open to his eyes.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

13. ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, i. e. in the Sight of God, not of “the Word of God.” “He seeth all man’s goings,” Job 34:21. “Thou hast set our … secret sins in the light of Thy countenance,” Psa 90:8; comp. Psa 139:1-12. ἐνώπιον like coram is only used of persons.

πάντα δέ. The δὲ is emphatic as in Heb 2:6.

τετραχηλισμένα, “laid bare.” The word must have some such meaning, but it is uncertain what is the exact force of the metaphor from which it is derived. It comes from τράχηλος, “the neck,” and has been explained to mean: (1) “seized by the throat and thrown on the back”; or (2) “with the neck forced back like that of a malefactor compelled to shew his face” (Sueton. Vitell. 17; Plin. Paneg. 34. 3); or (3) “with the neck held back like that of animals in order that the Priest may cut their throats” (the Homeric αὖ ἔρυσαν); or (4) “flayed”; or (5) “anatomised” (comp. Lev 1:6; Lev 1:9). This anatomic examination of victims by the Priests was called μωμοσκοπία since it was necessary that every victim should be “without blemish” (ἄμωμος), and Maimonides says that there were no less than 73 kinds of blemishes. Hence Polycarp (ad Phil. IV.) says that “all things are rigidly examined (πάντα μωμοσκοπεῖται) by God.” The usage of Philo, however (De Cher. § 24) shews that the word probably means “laid prostrate.” Τραχηλισμὸς meant a wrestler’s victorious grip on the back of his adversary as in Plutarch (ὁρᾶτε τὸν ἀθλήτην ὑπὸ παιδισκαρίου τραχηλιζόμενον). For the truth suggested see Pro 15:11; “I try the reins,” Jer 17:10; Psa 51:6; Pro 20:27, “the candle of the Lord searching all the inner parts of the belly.”

τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ. “The Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire.” Rev 2:18.

πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. This might be rendered, “to whom our account must be given.” Thus in Luk 16:2, “render thy account” (τὸν λόγον). Perhaps, however, our A. V. correctly represents it, “Him with whom we have to do.” Comp. 1Ki 2:14; 2Ki 9:5 (LXX.), where a similar phrase occurs in this sense.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13.] Apart from the difficulties of some terms used, we may give the connexion thus: Such an endeavour is well worth all our σπουδή—for we have One to do with, who can discern and will punish every even the most secret disobedience. For the word of God (in what sense? 1. The λόγος ὑποστατικός, Personal Word, has been understood by many, e. g. the Fathers in general (see the copious reff. in Bleek’s note here), Œc., Thl. (as commonly supposed, but see below, and judge), Thdrt. (by no means certain), Thom. Aquin., Lyra, Cajetan, Corn. a-Lap. (“Longe aptius et melius alii intelligunt Dei Filium”), Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Le Clerc, al. To this the first obvious objection is, that this mode of expression is confined to St. John among the N. T. writers. This, however, though clearly not to be met by alleging such passages as Luk 1:2 and Act 20:32, is not decisive. For our Epistle, though perhaps anterior to all the writings of St. John, is yet so intimately allied to the Alexandrine terminology, that it would be no matter of surprise to find its Writer using a term so nearly ripe for his purpose as we find ὁ λόγος in Philo (see below). The real objections to the Personal λόγος being simply and directly here meant, lie in the Epistle, and indeed in the passage itself. In the Epistle: for we have no where in it this term used with any definiteness of our Lord, nor indeed any approach to it; not even where we might have expected it most, in the description of His relation to the Father, ch. 1 init. Every where He is the Son of God, not His Word. And in ch. 6:5; 11:3, that expression is changed for ῥῆμα θεοῦ, when, especially in the latter place, had the idea of the personal λόγος been familiar to the Writer, he would almost certainly have said νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας λόγῳ θεοῦ, not ῥήματι θ. And in the passage itself: for such adjectives as ἐνεργής and κριτικός, and even ζῶν, as matter of emphatic predication, would hardly be used of the Personal λόγος: and, which to my mind is stronger evidence still, had these words applied to our Lord, we should not have had him introduced immediately after, ver. 14, as Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. But, 2. some of the ancient, and the great mass of modern Commentators, have understood by the term, the revealed word of God, in the law and in the gospel: or in the gospel alone, as contrasted with the former dispensation. And so even some of those who elsewhere in their writings have understood it of Christ: e. g. Origen (on Mat 19:12, tom. xv. 4, vol. iii. p. 656, εἰ τὸν λόγον τις ἀναλαβὼν τὸν ζῶντα κ. ἐνεργῆ κ.τ.λ., … ἐκτέμνοι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς παθητικόν: on Rom 12:7, lib. ix. 3, vol. iv. p. 650: “Verbum Dei omnia, etiam quæ in occulto sunt, perscrutatur: maxime cum vivens sit, et efficax &c. … etenim cum moralis in ecclesia sermo tractatur, tunc uniuscujusque intra semetipsam conscientia stimulatur” &c.), Euseb., Civ. Dei xx. 21. 2 (vol. vii.) al. But neither does this interpretation seem to meet the requirements of the passage. The qualities here predicated of the λόγος do not appear to fit the mere written word: nor does the introduction of the written word suit the context. I should be rather disposed with Bleek to understand, 3. the spoken word of God, the utterance of His power, by which, as in ch. 11:3, He made the worlds,—by which His Son, as in ch. 1:3, upholds all things. This spoken word it was, which they of old were to hear and not harden their hearts: σήμερον, ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε κ.τ.λ.: this spoken word, which interdicted them from entering into His rest—ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου. It seems then much more agreeable to the context, to understand this utterance of God, so nearly connected with God Himself, the breath of his mouth: and I would not at the same time shrink from the idea, that the Alexandrine form of expression respecting the λόγος, that semi-personification of it without absolutely giving it hypostatical existence, was before the mind of the Writer. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to escape this inference, in the presence of such passages as this of Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hær. § 26, vol. i. p. 491, ἵνα ἐννοῇς θεὸν τέμνοντα, τάς τε τῶν σωμάτων καὶ πραγμάτων ἑξῆς ἁπάσας ἡρμόσθαι καὶ ἡνῶσθαι δοκούσας φύσεις, τῷ τομεῖ τῶν συμπάντων αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, ὃς εἰς τὴν ὀξυτάτην ἀκονηθεὶς ἀκμήν, διαιρῶν οὐδέποτε λήγει τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὰν δὲ μέχρι τῶν ἀτόμων καὶ λεγομένων ἀμερῶν διεξέλθῃ κ.τ.λ.: and again, ib. § 27, p. 492, οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἀκονησάμενος τὸν τομέα τῶν συμπάντων αὐτοῦ λόγον, διαιρεῖ τήν τε ἄμορφον καὶ ἄποιον τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν. See, on the whole, Delitzsch’s note.

The idea of Ebrard, that this word, meaning the gospel, is introduced to give weight to σπουδάσωμεν—“Let us do our part, for the gospel of God is not wanting in power on its part,” is too absurd to need refutation or even mention, were it not for his name) is living (not, in contrast with the dead works of the law (Ebr.), of which there is no question here; nor, as Carpzov, nourishing, and able to preserve life: nor enduring, as Abresch and Schlichting: but as E. V., quick, i. e. having living power, in the same sense in which God himself is so often called “the living God,” e. g. ch. 10:31. So in reff.: so Soph. Œd. Tyr. 482, speaking of the prophecies, τὰ δʼ ἀεὶ ζῶντα περιποτᾶται, where the Schol. has, ἰσχύοντα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. Thl., who besides finds in ζῶν a proof of the hypostatic Personality, says well: ὥσπερ τότε, φησίν, οὐ πόλεμος, οὐ μάχαιρα αὐτοὺς ἀπώλεσεν, ἀλλʼ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, αὐτόματοι γὰρ κατέπιπτον, οὕτω καὶ ἐφʼ ἡμῖν ἔσται. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐκείνους ἐκόλασε καὶ ἡμᾶς κολάσει· ζῇ γὰρ ἀεὶ καὶ οὐκ ἔσβεσται. The emphatic position of ζῶν, the omission of ἐστι, the frequent repetition of καί, all tend to increase the rhythm and rhetorical force of the sentence. Some have thought that the Writer was citing from some other source: but for this there does not appear any reason) and active (= ἐνεργός, which is the commoner form (see Bleek), found in Xen., Demosth., and often in Polybius, in which latter however the mss. often give us ἐνεργής. In one place, xi. 23. 2, this latter seems undoubted,—ἐνεργῆ ποιούμενοι τὴν ἔφοδον. It is a word of the κοινή or Macedonian dialect. This activity is the very first quality and attribute of life: so that the predicates form a climax: not only living, but energizing: not only energizing, but τομώτερος κ.τ.λ.: and not only that, but διϊκνούμενος κ.τ.λ.: nor that only, but reaching even to the spirit, κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων κ. ἐννοιῶν καρδίας), and sharper (τομός, an adj. formed from τέμνω, is found in Plato, Tim. 61 e: Plut. Sympos. vi. 8; viii. 9: its comparative in ref., and Lucian, Toxar. ii. al.: the superlative, in the well-known exordium of Ajax’s dying speech, Soph. Aj. 815) than (Bleek has shewn that the construction τομώτερος ὑπὲρ μάχαιραν, for τόμος ὑπὲρ μ. or τομώτερος μαχαίρας, is not Hebraistic; for in Heb. there is no comparative; we have it in ref. Judges, ἀγαθώτερος σὺ ὑπὲρ Βαλὰκ υἱὸν Ζεπφώρ: and the similar construction with παρά in ch. 1:4, where see remarks) every two-edged sword (lit. two-mouthed: meaning, sharpened on both sides, both edge and back. The expression (reff.) is found in classic poetry, e. g. δίστομον ξίφος, Eurip. Hel. 992: δίστομα φάσγανα, id. Orest. 1296, and other instances in Bleek. The more usual word is ἀμφήκης, Il. κ. 256: Soph. Aj. 286: Electr. 485. We have ἀμφίθηκτος, Antig. 1309. As regards the comparison itself, of the word of God or of men to a sword, it is common in Scripture: see Psa 57:4; Psa 59:7; Psa 64:3: Wisd. 18:15, 16: Rev 1:16: and above all, Eph 6:17. It has been questioned, whether the office here ascribed to the word of God is punitive, or merely searching: whether it regards the foes, or the servants of God. There seems no reason why we should separate the two. The same word, to which evidently by the succeeding clause is attributed the searching power, is powerful also to punish. The μάχαιρα belongs to the surgeon, and to the judge: has its probing as well as its smiting office. And so Chrys.: αὐτὸς τὰ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ κρίνει· ἐκεῖ γὰρ διαβαίνει καὶ κολάζων καὶ ἐξετάζων. Bleek points out the close relation of this similitude to a series of passages in Philo, especially in the treatise Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres. There, in speaking of Abraham’s sacrifice, and explaining διεῖλεν αὐτὰ μέσα, which act he refers to God, he says: τῷ τομεῖ τῶν συμπάντων αὐτοῦ λόγῳ· ὅς, εἰς τὴν ὀξυτάτην ἀκονηθεὶς ἀκμήν, διαιρῶν οὐδέποτε λήγει τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὰν δὲ μέχρι τῶν ἀτόμων καὶ λεγομένων ἀμερῶν διεξέλθῃ, πάλιν ἀπὸ τούτων τὰ λόγῳ θεωρητὰ εἰς ἀμυθήτους καὶ ἀπεριγράφους μοίρας ἄρχεται διαιρεῖν οὗτος ὁ τομεύς, § 26, vol. i. p. 491. And further on, he divides these διχοτομήματα made by the λόγος into triads, and says, ψυχὴ γὰρ τριμερής ἐστι, δίχα δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, τέμνεται· μοιρῶν δὲ γινομένων ἕξ, ἕβδομος εἰκότως τομεὺς ἦν ἁπάντων, ὁ ἱερὸς καὶ θεῖος λόγος. From these and similar passages (cf. esp. Quod Deterior Potiori Insid. § 29, p. 212: De Cherubim, § 9, p. 144 ff.), we may reasonably infer, that the writings of Philo were not unknown to the Writer of this Epistle. The same conclusion has been also drawn by Grotius and Bleek. See Prolegg. § i. 155), and reaching through (so ἱκνεῖται λόγος διὰ στήθεων, Æsch. Sept. c. Theb. 515: διικνεῖσθαι διʼ ὤτων ποτὶ τὰν ψυχάν, Tim. Locr. p. 101 a: ἡ δόξα διῖκτο μέχρι βασιλέως, Plut. Deu_20) even to dividing of soul and spirit, both joints and marrow (there has been considerable diversity in the taking of these genitives. I have regarded them as follows: ψυχῆς and πνεύματος, not coupled by τε καί, but only by καί, denote two separate departments of man’s being, each subordinate to the process indicated by μερισμοῦ. The λόγος pierces to the dividing, not of the ψυχή from the πνεῦμα, but of the ψυχή itself and of the πνεῦμα itself: the former being the lower portion of man’s invisible part, which he has in common with the brutes, the ἄλογον τῆς ψυχῆς of Philo; the latter the higher portion, receptive of the Spirit of God, the λογικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς of the same; both which are pierced and divided by the sword of the Spirit, the word of God. Then, passing on to ἁρμῶν τε κ. μυελῶν, I do not regard these terms as co-ordinate with the former ψυχῆς κ. πνεύματος, but as subordinate to them, and as used in a spiritual sense, not a corporeal (as many Commentators and recently Delitzsch): implying that both the ἁρμοί and the μυελοί of the ψυχή and of the πνεῦμα are pierced and divided by the λόγος. This I conceive is necessitated both by the τε, expressed in this second clause, and by the sense, which otherwise would degenerate into an anti-climax, if ἁρμῶν τε κ. μυελῶν were to be understood of the body. (The metaphorical sense of μυελός is amply justified by such expressions as εἰσδεδυκυῖα (ὀδύνη) εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν μυελὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, Themist. Orat. 32, p. 357: χρῆν γὰρ μετρίας εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλίας θνητοὺς ἀνακίρνασθαι καὶ μὴ πρὸς ἀκρὸν μυελὸν ψυχῆς, Eur. Hippol. 255 ff. And ἁρμός is not an anatomical, but a common term, which might be applied to any kind of compages, as ἁρμὸς θύρας, Dion. Hal. v. 7: ἁρμοὶ λίθων, ref. Sir. &c.) This, which is in the main the sense given by Grot., Kuin., Bl., De W., Lünem. (nearly also of Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. p. 258 f., who somewhat harshly makes the genitives ψυχῆς κ. πνεύματος dependent on ἁρμῶν τε κ. μυελῶν), being laid down, I proceed to examine the divergences from it. 1. That which regards the μερισμός as being a division of the soul from the spirit, the joints from the marrow (on this latter see below). This is given as early as by Chrys. as an alternative: ἡ γὰρ ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα διαιρεῖ ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, λέγει· ἢ ὅτι καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ἀσωμάτων διικνεῖται. And Œc., understanding πνεῦμα of the Holy Spirit: ἡγοῦμαι οὖν νῦν τοῦτο εἰρῆσθαι, ὅτι χωρισμὸν ἐργάζεται τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, κ. ἀφαιρεῖται αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς: and so, but giving the alternative, Thl. And so Erasm.-paraph. (“adeo ut dissecet animam a spiritu”), J. Cappellus, Wolf, Bengel, al. The objections to this are both psychological and contextual. It has been rightly urged (see especially Ebrard’s note here) that the soul and spirit cannot be said to be separated in any such sense as this: and on the other hand, the ἁρμοί and μυελοί could not be thus said to be separated, having never been in contact with one another. 2. Many Commentators, who hold the division of soul from spirit, are not prepared to apply the same interpretation to the ἁρμῶν τ. κ. μυελῶν; although, reading the former τε, it becomes philologically necessary that the two clauses should be strictly parallel. Not reading the former τε, it becomes possible to make ἁρμῶν τε κ. μυελῶν dependent, not on μερισμοῦ but on ἄχρι, which has been done by Cyril of Alexandria, de Fest. Pasch. Hom. xxii. vol. x. p. 275 b, καθικνεῖται δὲ καὶ μέχρις ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, and De Adorat. xvi. vol. i. p. 561, μέχρις ἁρμῶν τε κ. μυελῶν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθικνεῖσθαι λόγον, and Schlichting (see below), C. F. Schmid, Paulus, al. But certainly, had this been meant, the ἄχρις would have been repeated before ἁρμῶν. Otherwise it would be exceedingly harsh. 3. Many understand μερισμοῦ to mean, not the act of division, but the place where the division occurs. So Böhme, “Ita ut per intervalla, si quæ sint, animæ animique, et compagum medullarumque penetret, seque insinuet:” Schlichting, “Ad loca usque abditissima ubi anima cum spiritu connectitur, itemque ubi sunt membrorum compages et medullæ.” And so, more recently, Ebrard. The objection to this is, partly the omission of what would in that case be the requisite article before μερισμοῦ, and partly as before, that thus ἁρμ. τ. κ. μυ. must be constructed with ἄχρι: see above. 4. One meaning is given by Œc. (after Cyril: ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν προσφόρῳ χωρίῳ καὶ οὕτως ἐδέξατο … τὸ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ κήρυγμα διαιρεῖ φησὶ καὶ μερίζει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μέρη, δεκτικὴν ποιῶν κ. χωρητικὴν τῶν ἀκουομένων), and Thl. (but not approved by the latter, as Bl. who has been misled by the Latin: for he says τινὲς δὲ οὕτως ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν οὐκ ἀκολούθως τῷ ἀποστολικῷ σκοπῷ, and then proceeds as Œc., except that he puts τοῦ μυστηρίου for τῶν ἀκουομένων). But clearly this cannot be the meaning, with γάρ after a caution), and a judger (or, discerner: not as Kuinoel, condemner. The word is good Greek, as a simple predicate: so Plato, Pol. 260 c, τὸ κριτικὸν μέρος: with a gen., it seems to be of later usage: Palm and Rost quote ὀφθαλμοὶ κριτικοὶ τοῦ κάλλους from Basil the Great: but the government of a gen. by verbals in -ικός is regular: we have παρασκευαστικὸς τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον, κ. ποριστικὸς τῶν ἐπιτηδείων, Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 6: διδασκαλικὸς τῆς αὐτοῦ σοφίας, Plato, Euthyph. p. 3 c: see Kühner, § 530 h h; it is the genitivus materiæ) of (the) thoughts (ἐνθύμημα is the commoner word: but Thucyd. (i. 123), Eurip. (Frag. 20), Isæus, and Aristotle (Bl.) use -ησις in much the same sense; -ησις being properly the action of the thought itself, -ημα the thing conceived or thought of. But these two become frequently confused in later Greek) and ideas (this seems the nearest term to ἔννοια. Plato gives rather a mysterious definition of it—συντονία διανοίας. But the usage, where the word wavers, as here, between the process in the mind itself and that which is the result of the process, points very much to our ‘idea.’ Thus ἔννοιαν λαμβάνειν τινός, Demosth. p. 157 18: ἡ κοινὴ ἔννοιά τινος, Polyb. x. 27. 8. In ib. i. 4. 9, we have ἔννοια distinguished from ἐπιστήμη: ἔννοιαν μὲν γὰρ λαβεῖν ἀπὸ μέρους τῶν ὅλων δυνατόν· ἐπιστήμην δὲ καὶ γνώμην ἀτρεκῆ ἔχειν, ἀδύνατον. Certainly the “intentiones” of the vulg. (“intents,” E. V.), though apparently answering to the Platonic definition, does not give it here (though this seems the sense in 1Pe 4:1), nor does “consilia” of Erasmus: “conceptus” of Crell. is better. Bengel says, “ἐνθύμησις, intentio, involvit affectum; ἔννοια, cogitatio, quæ dicit simplicius, prius et interius quiddam.” But though strictly speaking this might be the meaning of ἐνθύμησις (ἐν θυμῷ), it does not carry so much in ordinary usage) of the heart (the inner and thinking and feeling part of man in Scripture psychology; die innere Mitte des menschlichen Wesenbestandes, in welcher das dreifache Leben des Menschen zusammenläuft, Delitzsch, biblische Psychologie, § 12 init., which see; and Beck, Umriss der biblischen Seelenlehre, p. 63 ff.):

13.] and there is not a creature (for the concrete κτίσμα, as so often, see reff. The term embraces all created things, visible and invisible, cf. Col 1:16) unseen (a classical word: see Palm. and Rost’s references) in his presence (first as to the gen. pron. αὐτοῦ: to what does it refer? to ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, or to τοῦ θεοῦ itself? The idea of its referring to Christ falls with the untenableness of the personal meaning of λόγος: although Calov., Schöttgen, al., abandoning that, yet hold it. Then of the two other, it seems much the more obvious to refer it to τοῦ θεοῦ, especially in the presence of τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, and πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος below. Nor is there any harshness in this; from speaking of the uttered word of God, whose powers are not its own but His, the transition to Himself, with Whom that word is so nearly identified, is simple and obvious. The expression ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, common in the N. T. and especially in St. Luke, is apparently Alexandrine, and borrowed from the LXX, where it answers to the Heb. לִפְנֵי): but (δέ, in the strongly adversative sense which it several times has in our Epistle: cf. ch. 2:6, and note there, also ver. 15 below; ch. 9:12; 10:27; 12:13. This it gains by its force of passing altogether to a new subject, excluding entirely from view that which is last treated: q. d. “tantum absit, ut.… ut.…”) all things are naked (it had been said by Böhme, that this metaphorical meaning of γυμνός was unknown to the Greeks: but see Herod. viii. 19, ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτο παρεγύμνου: also i. 126; ix. 44: and γυμνῶν τῶν πραγμάτων θεωρουμένων, Diod. Sic. i. p. 69. The herald in the Areopagus forbade the witnesses ληρεῖν πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ περιπέττειν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, ὡς γυμνὰ τὰ γεγενημένα οἱ Ἀρεοπαγῖται βλέποιεν, Lucian, Gymnas. p. 401. And Marc. Antonin. xii. 2, says, in language very similar to this, ὁ θεὸς πάντα τὰ ἡγεμονικὰ γυμνὰ τῶν ὑλικῶν αγγείων καὶ φλοίων καὶ καθαρμάτων ὁρᾷ) and prostrate (see at the end of this note: resupinata, manifesta; πεφανερωμένα, Hesych. The various meanings given to this difficult word τραχηλίζειν, form a curious chapter in the history of exegesis. Its first and most common classical acceptation seems to be, to take by the throat, as an adversary in a struggle, or an athlete in wrestling might do, for the purpose of overthrowing. So (to give merely one example among many which will be found in Wetstein, and better arranged in Bleek) ὁρᾶτε τὸν ἀθλητὴν ὑπὸ παιδισκαρίου τραχηλιζόμενον, Plut. de Curiositate, p. 521 b. And thus some have interpreted it here: “laid open,” as an athlete, caught by the neck and overthrown, lies for all to see. But as Bl. remarks, this last particular, which does in fact carry the whole weight of the comparison, comes in far too accidentally and subordinately. Another meaning has been proposed by Perizonius (on Ælian, Var. Hist. xii. 58) derived from the practice of stripping and bending back the necks of malefactors, that all might see their faces and shame, so producing the very opposite of the privacy which a man seeks when ashamed, by bowing down his head and covering his face. Thus Sueton. Vitel. 17: “(Vitellius) relegatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, seminudus in forum tractus est—reducto coma capite ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam præberet faciem, neve submitteret.” And Pliny, Panegyr. 34. 3: “Nihil tamen gratius, nihil sæculo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum supina ora retortasque cervices, agnoscebamus et fruebamur, quum velut piaculares publicæ sollicitudinis victimæ supra sanguinem noxiorum ad lenta supplicia gravioresque pœnas ducerentur.” And this is the interpretation followed by Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Bleek, De Wette, al. But here again, though the meaning is apposite enough, we have no precedent for the Greek word being thus used, or for any such custom being familiar to Greeks. So that this interpretation can hardly be the true one. The ancients give very various renderings. Chrys. says: τετραχηλισμένα εἶπεν ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν δερμάτων τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν σφαζομένων ἱερείων ἐξελκομένων: but does not justify such an application of the word. Œc.: τετραχηλισμένα δὲ φησὶ τὰ γυμνά, ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐκ τοῦ τραχήλου ἠρτημένων κ. γεγυμνωμένων τῆς δορᾶς· ἢ … ἀντὶ τοῦ κάτω κύπτοντα κ. τὸν τράχηλον ἐπικλίνοντα, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἰσχύειν ἀτενίσαι τῇ δόξῃ ἐκείνῃ τοῦ κριτοῦ καὶ θεοῦ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ. Thdrt.: ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τέθεικε τῶν θυομένων ζώων, ἃ παντελῶς ἄφωνα κεῖται, τῆς σφαγῆς τὴν ζωὴν ἀφελομένης, καὶ μετὰ τῆς ζωῆς τὴν φωνήν. οὕτω, φησί, καὶ ἡμεῖς κρινόμενοι θεώμεθα μὲν ἅπαντα τὰ δυσσεβῶς παρʼ ἡμῶν ἢ παρανόμως γεγενημένα· σιγῶντες δὲ τὴν τῆς τιμωρίας δεχόμεθα ψῆφον, ἅτε δὴ τὸ δίκαιον αὐτῆς ἐπιστάμενοι. Thl.: ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ἐκδερομένων προβάτων. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκείνων τραχηλισθέντων, ἤτοι κατὰ τοῦ τραχήλου τὴν μάχαιραν δεξαμένων καὶ σφαγέντων, μετὰ τὸ καθελκυσθῆναι τὸ δέρμα πάντα καὶ τὰ ἔνδον ἐκκαλύπτεται· οὕτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ πάντα δῆλα. τινὲς δέ, τετραχηλισμένα, τὰ ἐκ τοῦ τραχήλου, ἢ μᾶλλον κατὰ τοῦ τραχήλου κρεμάμενα ἐνόησαν. He then mentions the second alternative of Œc. above, and ends, σὺ δὲ τὸ πρῶτον δέξαι. I have given all these to shew how various have been the renderings, and how universally acknowledged the difficulty of the word. The objection to the sacrificial rendering is, that the word never seems to have been used of any such process:—see all the meanings given in Palm and Rost sub voce. In seeking for a way out of the difficulty, it seems to me that the frequent use of the word by Philo, ought, in a passage cast so much, as we have seen, in Philo’s mode of rhetorical expression, to enter as a considerable element into our decision. Wetst. gives us twenty passages in which the word and its compound ἐκτραχηλίζω occur in that writer: and the uniform meaning is, to lay prostrate, generally in a metaphorical sense: e. g. De Cherub. § 24, vol. i. p. 153, μηδʼ ὅσον ἀνακύψαι δυνάμενος, ἀλλὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπιτρέχουσι καὶ τραχηλίζουσι δεινοῖς ὑποβεβλημένος: De Vita Mos. i. 54, vol. ii. p. 127, τραχηλιζόμενοι δὲ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις πάντʼ ὑπομένουσι δρᾶν τε καὶ πάσχειν: Quod Omnis Probus Liber, § 22, p. 470, ὑφʼ ἡδονῆς δελεάζεται, ἢ φόβῳ ἐκλύει, ἢ λύπῃ συστέλλεται, ἢ ὑπʼ ἀπορίας τραχηλίζεται. And as we have seen in the beginning of this note, this is the simplest and most frequent sense in the classical writers. See also very numerous examples in Wetstein. I would therefore accept this metaphorical sense here, and regard the word as signifying entire prostration and subjugation under the eye of God: not only naked, stripped of all covering and concealment,—but also laid prostrate in their exposure, before His eye. I own myself not thoroughly satisfied with this, but I am unable to find a better rendering which shall at the same time be philologically justified) to His eyes (dat. commodi: for His eyes to see); with Whom we have to do (there could not be a happier rendering than this of the E. V., expressing our whole concern and relation with God, One who is not to be trifled with, considering that His word is so powerful, and His eye so discerning. And so Calv., Beza, Bengel, Kuin., Bleek, De W., Lünem., Ebrard, Delitzsch, al. The ancients, without exception, confined this relation to one solemn particular of it, and rendered, “to whom our account must be given:” so Chrys.: ἀντὶ τοῦ· αὐτῷ μέλλομεν δοῦναι εὐθύνας τῶν πεπραγμένων. And many of the moderns also take this view: e. g. Erasm. (par.), Michaelis, Bretschneider, Stuart, al. Others suppose it to mean, “concerning whom is our discourse,” referring to ch. 5:11, περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. So Luther, a-Lapide, Schlichting, Grot., Wolf, al. But, even conceding that πρός may well bear this meaning, which has not been shewn (see Bleek, p. 591 note), the meaning itself is far too vapid here, and finds no fit representation in the Epistle itself, which cannot be said to be, in any such sense, πρὸς θεόν or περὶ θεοῦ.

As regards the punctuation, and emphasis, it seems better to make πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος an independent clause and to set a colon at αὐτοῦ, than as commonly done, to join αὐτοῦ, πρὸς ὅν. For by so doing, we weaken very much the force of the sentence, in which, after the predicative clause, the stress is on ἡμῖν: and besides, we violate the strict propriety of αὐτοῦ, making it = ἐκείνου).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

From the word of God the writer proceeds to God himself as cognizant of all things; thus giving a second ground for the exhortation of Heb 4:11.

Creature (κτίσις)

See on Rom 8:19; see on 2Co 5:17; see on Col 1:15. Here in the sense of thing created.

Opened (τετραχηλισμένα)

N.T.oo lxx. Only later Greek. Evidently connected with τράχηλος neck throat. The exact metaphor, however, it is impossible to determine. The following are the principal explanations proposed: taken by the throat, as an athlete grasps an adversary; exposed, as a malefactor's neck is bent back, and his face exposed to the spectators; or, as the necks of victims at the altar are drawn back and exposed to the knife. The idea at the root seems to be the bending back of the neck, and the last explanation, better than any other, suits the previous figure of the sword. The custom of drawing back the victim's neck for sacrifice is familiar to all classical students. See Hom. Il. i. 459; ii. 422; Pindar, Ol. xiii. 114. The victim's throat bared to the sacrificial knife is a powerful figure of the complete exposure of all created intelligence to the eye of him whose word is as a two-edged sword.

With whom we have to do (πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος)

Rend. with whom is our reckoning; that is to whom we have to give account.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.