Hebrews 6:16

Heb_6:16

An oath … the end of all strife

The lawfulness and obligation of oaths

I.

FOR THE NATURE OF AN OATH, AND THE KINDS OF IT. An oath is an invocation of God, or an appeal to Him as a witness of the truth of what we say. So that an oath is a sacred thing, as being an act of religion and an invocation of the name of God; and this, whether the name of God be expressly mentioned in it or not. There are two sorts of oaths, assertory and promissory. An assertory oath is when a man affirms or denies, upon oath, a matter of fact, past or present: when he swears that a thing was, or is so, or not so. A promissory oath is a promise confirmed by an oath, which always respects something that is future; and if the promise be made directly and immediately to God, then it is called a vow; if to men, an oath.

II. THE GREAT USE AND EVEN NECESSITY OF OATHS, IN MANY CASES, WHICH IS SO GREAT, THAT HUMAN SOCIETY CAN VERY HARDLY, IF AT ALL, SUBSIST LONG WITHOUT THEM. Government would many times be very insecure, and for the faithful discharge of offices of great trust, in which the welfare of the public is nearly concerned, it is not possible to find any security equal to that of an oath; because the obligation of that reacheth to the most hidden practices of men, and takes hold of them, in many cases, where the penalty of no h ,man law can have any awe or force upon them; and especially it is the best means of ending controversies. And where mens estates or lives are concerned, no evidence, but what is assured by an oath, will be thought sufficient to decide the matter, s,, as to give full and general satisfaction to mankind.

III. THE LAWFULNESS OF OATHS, WHERE THEY ARE NECESSARY.

1. I shall prove the lawfulness of oaths from the authority of this text, and the reasons plainly contained, or strongly implied in it.

Because the apostle doth not only speak of the use of oaths among men, without any manner of reproof, but as a commendable custom, and in many cases necessary for the confirmation of doubtful matters, and in order to the final decision of controversies and differences among men.

2. The insufficiency if the grounds of the contrary opinion, whether from reason or from Scripture.

(1) From reason. They say the necessity of an oath is occasioned by the want of fidelity among men; and that every man ought to demean himself with that integrity as may give credit to his word; and then oaths will be needless. This pretence will be fully answered, if we consider these two things.

(a) That in matters of great importance, no other obligation besides that of an oath hath been thought sufficient amongst the best and wisest of men, to assert their fidelity to one another.

(b) This reason, which is alleged against oaths among men, is much stronger against Gods confirming His promises to us by an oath. For He, who is truth itself, is surely of all other most to be credited upon

His bare word, and His oath needless to give confirmation to it; and yet He condescends to add His oath to His word and therefore that reason is evidently of no force.

(2) From Scripture. Our Saviour seems altogether to forbid swearing in any case (Mat_5:33-34).

(a) That several circumstances of these words of our Saviour do manifestly show that they ought to be interpreted in a limited sense, as only forbidding swearing in common conversation; needless and heedless oaths, and in general all voluntary swearing, unless upon some weighty cause, in which the glory of God and the wood of the souls of men is concerned. For that in such cases a voluntary oath may be lawful, I am induced to believe from the example of St. Paul, who useth it more than once upon such occasions.

(b) It is very considerable to the explaining of this prohibition, that there are like general expressions in other Jewish authors concerning this very matter, which yet must of necessity be thus limited:--Maimonides, from the ancient, rabbles, gives this rule, that it is best not to swear at all: and Philo useth almost the same words. And Rabbi Jonathan comes very near our Saviours expression when he says, The just man will not swear at all; not so much as by the common names of God, nor by His attributes, nor by His works, as by heaven, or the angels, or by the law. Now it is lint imaginable that these learned Jews should condemn oaths in all cases, when the law of Moses did in many cases expressly require them. And therefore they are to be understood of voluntary oaths in ordinary conversation.

(c) This prohibition of our Saviours cannot be understood to forbid all oaths, without a plain contradiction to the unboubted practice of the primitive Christians and of the apostles, and even of our Lord Himself. Origen and Tertullian tell us that the Christians refused to swear by the emperors genius; not because it was an oath, but because they thought it to be idolatrous. But the same Tertullian says that the Christians were willing to swear by the health and safety of the emperor. Athanasius being accused to Constantius, purged himself by oath, and desired that his accuser might be, put to his oath, by calling the truth to witness: by which form, says he, we Christians are wont to swear. But, which is more than this, St. Paul, upon weighty occasions, does several times in his epistle call God to witness for the truth of what he says;

153 which is the very formality of an oath (Rom_1:9; 2Co_1:18; 2Co_1:23; Gal_1:20; Php_1:8; 2Th_2:5). These are all unquestionable oaths; which we cannot imagine St. Paul would have used had they been directly contrary to our Saviours law. And whereas some defend this upon account of his extraordinary inspiration, I cannot possibly see how this mends the matter. For certainly it is very inconvenient to say that they who were to teach the precepts of Christ to others, did themselves break them by inspiration. But I go yet farther, and shall urge an example beyond all exception. Our Saviour Himself (who surely would not be the first example of breaking His own laws) did not refuse to answer upon oath, being called thereto at His trial. So we find Mat_26:60.

IV. THE SACRED OBLIGATION OF AN OATH: BECAUSE IT IS A SOLEMN APPEAL TO GOD AS A WITNESS OF THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE SAY: to God, I say, from whose piercing and all-seeing eye, from whose perfect knowledge, nothing is or can be hid; so that there is not a thought in our heart but He sees it, nor a word in our tongue, but He discerns the truth or falsehood of it. Whenever we swear, we appeal to His knowledge and refer ourselves to His just judgment, who is the powerful patron and protector of right, and the almighty judge and avenger of all falsehood and unrighteousness. So that it is not possible for men to lay a more sacred and solemn obligation upon their consciences than by the religion of an oath. (Abp. Tillotson.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 6:16-17. For men verily swear by the greater — By persons greater than themselves, whose vengeance they imprecate if they swear falsely; and particularly by Him who is infinitely greater than themselves; and an oath for confirmation — To confirm what is promised or asserted; is to them an end of all strife — Πασης αντιλογιας περας, usually puts an end to all contradiction. This shows that an oath taken in a religious manner, is lawful, even under the gospel: otherwise the apostle would never have mentioned it with so much honour, as a proper means to confirm the truth. Wherein — In which business of confirming his promise; God, willing more abundantly — Beyond what was absolutely necessary, and out of his superabundant love to and care for us; to show unto the heirs of promise — To Abraham’s spiritual seed, whose faith is counted for righteousness, and who partake of the blessings promised; the immutability of his counsel — Of his purpose, which is accompanied with infinite wisdom; confirmed it — Greek, εμεσιτευσεν, interposed, or came between the making of the promise and its accomplishment. The expression, says Macknight, “literally signifies, he mediatored it with an oath: he made an oath, the mediator, surety, or ratifier of his counsel.” This sense of the word merits attention, because it suggests a fine interpretation of Heb 9:15, where see the note. What amazing condescension was this of God! He, who is greatest of all, acts as if he were a middle person; as if, while he swears, he were less than himself, by whom he swears.

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

VI

Exhortation to Christians to hold fast to the promise which has been in such a manner assured to them

Heb_6:16-20

16For men verily [indeed, μέν]5 swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife [and to them a confirmatory limit to all gainsaying is an oath]. 17Wherein God, willing [wishing] more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of [the] promise the immutability of his counsel [purpose], confirmed it by [interposed with] an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was [is] impossible for God to lie, we might [may] have a strong consolation [incitement], who have fled for refuge 19to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that [the part] within the vail; 20Whither [literally where, ὅπου] the forerunner is [om. is] for us [on our behalf] entered, even [om. even] Jesus, made [becoming] a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.

[Heb_6:16.—Μέν rendered as often in our Ep. in Eng. ver., verily; but always improperly. It is never a particle of emphasis but of concession, or simply where the two members are equally balanced, of contrast; to be sure, it is true, indeed.—πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας, of all gainsaying to them=of all their gainsaying; here not, strife as between equals or rivals, but contradiction, gainsaying, as of one who questions the assertion, or doubts the promise of another.—Εἰς βεβαίωσιν belongs apparently to πέρας, not to ὃρκος=a limit for confirmation, a limit or end designed for and producing confirmation.—Ὁ ὃρκος, the oath—the article generic, that thing called oath.

Heb_6:17.—Ἐν ᾧ, In which matter=in which state of the case, viz., the confirmatory power of the oath; ᾦ neuter (with Bl., De W., Thol., Ebr., Lün., Del., etc.), not masc, agreeing with ὃρκῳ—βουλόμενος, wishing, θέλων might be more properly rendered willing.—ἐπιδεῖξαι more than simply show (δηλόω, φανερόω) or even point out (δεῖξαι); rather exhibit, make an exhibition of. display; ἐπίδειξις, Greek rhetorical term for display, exhibition. The term thus carries with it an idea of more formality than is implied in the simple show.—ἐμεσίτευσεν, hardly confirmed; rather, came between, to wit, Himself and His promise, interposed.

Heb_6:18.—παράκλησιν, not here consolation (which the context disfavors), but encouragement, incitement, exhortation (so Del., Moll, Ermunterung, Alf., etc.).—κρατῆσαι, to seize upon, to lay hold of, (Eng. ver., De W., Thol., Del., Alf., etc.), or with Moll, hold fast. If we render hold fast, it would seem more natural to connect it with παράκλ. ἔχωμεν (though Moll constructs it with καταφυγόντες). If lay hold of it is more naturally, with most, constructed with καταφυγ. fled for refuge to lay hold. In favor of lay hold is, as mentioned by Alf., the Aor. tense; to hold on to would seem to require the Pres. κρατῖν. On the other hand the construction παράκλ. ἔχωμεν κρατ., may have strong incitement to hold on to, would make a sentiment eminently in harmony with the context. But as καταφυγ. is rather harshly left absolute, and κρατῆσαι, Aor. can hardly be rendered hold fast, I think the rendering of the Eng. ver. preferable to any other, agreeing with Moll in the construction, but not in rendering κρατῆσαι.

Heb_6:19.—Είσερχομένην, ἀσφαλῆν τε καὶ βεβαίαν. I am strongly inclined to regard all these words as agreeing with ἣν, scil., ἐλπίδα, and not with ἄγκυραν. The construction is perfectly easy and natural, and avoids the figure of the anchor entering, etc., which though we may, when it is once admitted, defend and even find beautiful, yet must be conceded to be at first view harsh and unnatural.—Εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον, into the part within=within.

Heb_6:20.—ὅπου, where, with εἰσῆλθεν, used pregnantly for ὃποι, whither=whither He entered and where He remained.—πρόδρονος, forerunner, placed emphatically at the beginning of the clause, Ἰησοῦς, emphatically at its close—ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, on behalf of us.—εἰσῆλθεν, entered, historical, not (as Eng. ver.), is entered.—γενόμενος, becoming, when He entered, not being made.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb_6:16. For men, indeed, etc.—Statement of the reason why God has employed the swearing of an oath, and that in the form here described. Ἀντιλογία never has the signification of dubitatio, doubt, (Grot., Cram.) though it may have that of judicial controversy (Theophyl., Erasm., Schlicht., etc.). Here, however, the meaning of gainsaying is to be preferred with Bleek, inasmuch as the subject is the credibility of the promises of God.

Heb_6:17. In which matter, etc.—Εν ῷ refers not to the oath (Vulg., Primas.), nor to the transaction between Abraham and God (Bez., etc.), but introduces the deduction drawn from Heb_6:16, and is=in accordance with which relation or circumstance, viz., that the oath is the highest means of confirmation, or, on account of which. Heb_6:18 shows that the “heirs of the promise” cannot be merely the pious of the Old Testament (Calv., Thol., etc.), while neither are we authorized (with Lün.) to restrict the language entirely to Christians. This latter restriction would annihilate the historical basis of the entire passage; while, in fact, the historical illustration forms the starting-point for a more expanded statement. Beza and others erroneously take περισσότερον as = “over and above,” ex abundanti. For the point of the statement is not to affirm that God’s truthful word needs in itself no confirmation by an oath, but that God, in a condescending regard to the relations and usages of men, has given His promise in a more emphatic manner than by the mere assurance.

Heb_6:18. A strong incitement, etc.—The nature of the connection forbids our taking παράκλησις (with Luth. and most others, after the Vulg.) as = consolation. Κρατῆσαι, as Inf. Aor. marks purpose, and is not = lay hold of, seize upon (De W., Thol., etc.), but hold fast. The readers have hope; what they lack is πληροφορία. But this Infin. is not dependent on παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν, under which construction οἱ καταφυγόντες, they that have fled for refuge, denotes the fugitives or secured ones, and is taken absolutely (Œc., Theoph., Grot., Bl., Lün.) as an independent idea, whether εἰς θεόν, be understood or not. The: προκειμένη ἐλπίς, is in that case the hope, lying, as it were, in readiness in the soul. If, on the contrary (with Primas., Erasm., Bez., Grot., De W., Ebr., Del., etc.), we make κρατῆσαι dependent on καταφυγ., then καταφυγεῖν receives the undoubtedly legitimate meaning of profugere, and the προκειμ. ἐλπίς, is the hope, objectively regarded, which belongs to and lies before Christians. If author and readers have already, as Christians, taken their refuge in the holding fast to this hope, they must receive a strong encouragement to this holding on from the sworn promises of God. In harmony also with the objective meaning of ἐλπίς, is the following clause, in which the author by uniting the two images of sea and temple, glides gracefully back to his main theme. The anchor, elsewhere unmentioned in Scripture, appears often in the classics and on ancient coins, as a symbol of hope. The several predicates—particularly the last one, “entering, etc.,”—intimate that the anchor is found not merely in the soul, but at the same time in heaven, and this too, not, as is commonly maintained, by the fact of the soul’s having thrown in thither its anchor of hope, but by the fact that Christ, as our high-priest, has preceded us thither; and the soul, although it as yet sees Him not, withdrawn as He is into the inner sanctuary, and His life hidden in God, yet in faith stands connected with Him, and by this connection attains, on the one hand, like the ship riding at anchor, to rest in this restless world, and on the other, to the possibility and the assurance of being itself drawn thither, where, holding it securely, its anchor already lies. For assuming a blending of the subjective and objective signification of ἐλπίς, there is no adequate reason; nor is προκειμ. ἐλπίς=ἐλπ. τῶν προκειμένων (Bl., De W., Thol.). Only we must guard against taking the objective ἐλπίς, in the sense of the res sperata (the thing hoped for); but take it in the same way in which we speak specifically of Christian faith.—Ὅπου, where, instead of ὀποι, whither, implies the remaining at the attained goal, and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, is not to be connected with πρόδρομος (as Heinr., Böhm., Thol., Ebr.), but with εἰσῆλθεν.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The strongest assurance of our salvation as purposed by God, and the most powerful incitement to a believing maintenance of our Christian hope, lies partly in the reliableness which belongs to those sure promises which God for our establishment has confirmed by an oath; partly in the fact, that Jesus, as forerunner, has already entered into heaven on our behalf, and there mediates forever for our salvation, embodying in Himself not only the Aaronic but the Melchisedek high-priesthood, and carrying the type of that priesthood to perfection.

2. That which holds of the word of promise made to Abraham and confirmed by the oath of God, holds also of that word of promise in regard to the everlasting high-priesthood of Christ (Psa_110:4) which in like manner was accompanied by an oath, and which to us as Christians is specially important.

3. The admissibleness of the oath of promise, as well as that of asseveration, within the Christian world, is by this passage of Scripture assured beyond doubt, which in fact derives the strength of the exhortation from the two-fold assurance of the promise by God’s word and oath, and regards the latter as the authorized form of mediatorial interposition, which by appealing to God puts an end to gainsaying with regard to the matter in question, and is followed by a consequent βεβαίωσις. “And the case stands thus; that our intention is accredited by the oath, but the oath itself is accredited by God; since so far from God’s being worthy of credit on account of His oath, the oath rather derives its credit from God.” (Philo). The idea that God may make Himself surety for man appears also in Job_17:3; Isa_38:14.

4. The substance of Christian hope is the inheritance of the promise; its goal is union with the exalted Christ; its foundation the word of God; its root is living faith. It forms thus, not merely an indispensable, but powerfully efficacious means for the maintenance of our connection with the unseen world, and for the attainment of the heavenly blessings which are promised to us.

5. “As the Aaronic high-priest, after he had, in the outer court, slain the heifer as a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then slain the goat as a sin-offering for the congregation, entered with the blood of the slaughtered victim into the typical holiest of all, so Jesus, after offering up Himself in sacrifice upon earth, and shedding on earth His own blood, has entered into the Heavenly holiest of all, in order thereby to accomplish, once for all, an expiation on our behalf, and there perpetually to represent us; but at the same time (Heb_10:19-21), in order to break the path, and to open the way, for us, who are eternally to be where He is. That He thus, in His entrance on our behalf, is at the same time our precursor, this it is which distinguishes Him from the legal high-priests of a community that was absolutely excluded from the inner sanctuary. And not only this: He is not merely high-priest, but also king; and He is a high-priest not merely for a season, but forever.” (Del.).

6. “What a firm anchoring-ground for hope is God’s eternal heaven, by which our Jesus is encompassed. Since after having suffered for us, He has also, on our behalf, been so highly exalted. We see Him not, since the place of God to which He has gone is hidden from our carnal eyes, and in so far, there is still a veil between us and Him. But the anchor of our hope, unrestrained by this limitation, reaches into those silent deeps of the spirit world into which He has withdrawn from our senses, and amidst the wild waves of life keeps our souls firm and tranquil.” (Del.).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The unchangeableness of the purpose of God: a. to what that purpose refers itself; b. by what its unchangeableness is assured; c. to what this assurance should incite us.—Nature, object and justification of the Christian oath.—The maintenance of our Christian hope: 1. as it is rendered difficult; a. by unsteadiness of faith; b. by the condition of the world; c. by the veil before the future; 2. as it is made easy; a. by the word of promise; b. by the oath of God; c. by the entrance of Jesus into heaven.—The advantage of Jesus’ entrance into the heavenly sanctuary; a. to Him; b. to us.

Starke:—Believers can, with steadfast faith, be certain of eternal life.—The purposes of God are in part without condition, and are thus surely executed; but those which belong to the economy of salvation are under a certain condition established and bound to this economy.—The first attribute of faith, is, in the feeling of our deficiency in every good, and of our extreme need, to look around after Jesus, in order to seek from Him help and counsel. Its next attribute, is to lay hold of the blessedness that has been obtained through Christ, and to hold fast with manly strength and power to the blessedness once obtained, and on account of no threat or danger, come they as they may, timidly, to cast it away.—God deals with us as with a father’s spirit, since while He knows our weakness, to wit, that as with the aged Moses, both our arms speedily sink down, and become faint and weary, so He sustains with these two strong pillars, His unchangeable truth, and His priceless oath.—Word, faith and hope must stand together; the word lays the foundation; Faith builds thereon; and Hope expectantly stretches herself forth from time into eternity.

Rieger:—By keeping in view the oath of God in regard to His gracious promise, we are incited to follow on in faith and patience.—The Christian hope is a sure anchor, with which we cannot receive harm, and a firm one, as consisting entirely of God’s counsel at once firm and confirmed by an oath.

Heubner:—The hope of the Christian has a limitless reach. It reaches outwardly into eternity, inwardly into the sanctuary of God.—The surety of our hope is Christ. His entrance into the sanctuary is the pledge of our own future entrance into it.

Ahlfeld:—The ascension of Christ is the final pledge of our entrance into glory. 1. There is a hidden kingdom of glory. 2. Into this our hope casts its anchor. 3. Christ’s entrance therein renders this hope a certainty.

Footnotes:

[5]Heb_6:16.—Μέν is wanting; in Sin. A. B. D*. 47, 53, [and is expunged by Lach., Bl., Lün.; but retained by Tisch., Del., Alf., but of course before they had the testimony of Sin. It seems on the whole not unnatural, and yet as the following clause is not added with a contrasted θεὸς δέ, but rather as if filling out the thought, (ἐν ᾦ), I should prefer to follow the authorities that omit it.—K.].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6:16 It is a general principle in human relationships that when people take an oath, the oath is binding. If in human contexts oaths give assurance that something is true, an oath from God ought to inspire much greater confidence (6:17-19). • someone greater than themselves: Cp. 6:13.

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

Heb 6:16. Κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος, by the greater) generally by GOD Himself.—καὶ, and) and so, on account of the authority of the greater, which is appealed to.—ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν, an end of contradiction, or strife, unto confirmation) by which a controversy is terminated in the confirmation of the point in dispute, beyond all exception: Pro 28:18, מדינים, ἀντιλογίας παὐει κλῆρος.—ὁ ὅρκος, the oath) The last resource, which we ought not to use, so long as any other method of removing strife remains.

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

Heb_6:16. Γάρ] establishes the ἐπεὶ κατʼ οὐδενὸς κ.τ.λ. ὤμοσεν καθʼ ἑαυτοῦ, Heb_6:13. Not, however, Heb_6:16 merely (against Hofmann), but the whole paragraph, Heb_6:16-18, is to be looked upon as an establishing of these words. For Heb_6:16 is only a lemma, only a preparation for Heb_6:17 f.; and, indeed, Heb_6:16 states the practice valid among men with regard to the taking of the oath, while Heb_6:17 f. there is shown in connection with this the object contemplated by God in His declaration upon oath.

κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος] by the Higher One. μείζονος is not neuter (MCaul: to a thing that is greater, e.g. the temple, the altar; Hofmann), but masculine, and thereby God is intended.

With καί the second half of the sentence, Heb_6:16, is closely attached to the first: and so, and consequently. To the habitual practice of men just mentioned, the legal relation therefrom arising is joined on.

πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος] the oath is to them an end to every kind of (every conceivable) contradiction, unto establishment. Comp. Philo, de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, p. 146 (with Mangey, I. p. 181): Τοῦ τε μὴν πιστευθῆναι χάριν ἀπιστούμενοι καταφεύγουσιν ἐφʼ ὄρκον ἄνθρωποι· ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ λέγων πιστός ἐστιν· ὥστε καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ βεβαιότητος ἕνεκα μηδὶν ὅρκων διαφέρειν.… Οὐ γὰρ διʼ ὅρκον πιστὸς ὁ θεός, ἀλλὰ διʼ αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ ὅρκος βέβαιος.

For ἀντιλογία as contradiction (Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Woerner), comp. Heb_7:7, also Heb_12:3; Jud_1:11. The signification dispute, litigation, assumed by Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, Cameron, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stengel, and the majority, is certainly perfectly warranted by the usage alike of the classical writers (Xen. Hellen. 6:3. 9) as of the LXX. (Exo_18:6, Heb. דָּבָר; Deu_19:7, הָרִיב; Pro_18:18, מִדְיָנִים, al.). But here this meaning is remote from the connection, since Heb_6:16 serves for the explanation of the trustworthiness of a divine declaration, but not the explanation of a contention between God and men (Bleek). The meaning dubitatio, doubt, assigned to the word by Grotius and Cramer, it never has.

εἰς βεβαίωσιν] unto ratification, or the creation of an indefeasible claim. Wrongly do Jac. Cappellus, Peirce, Paulus, and others take eh εἰς βεβαίωσινwhich belongs to the whole second clause, not merely to πέρας (Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford)along with ὁ ὅρκος: the oath given in confirmation, which must have been expressed by ὁ εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὅρκος.

It results as a necessary inference from Heb_6:16, that the author did not regard the taking of the oath on the part of men as anything forbidden. Comp. Calvin: Praeterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse ligitimum.… Nam apostolus certe hic de ratione jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat.

Heb_6:16-20. Not without design did the author, in connection with the historic fact, Heb_6:13-15, make mention also of the divine oath, although the mention thereof in that place was not necessarily required by the relation to Heb_6:12. His object, namely, was further to bring into special prominence the practical advantage accruing to the readers from this circumstance. This he accomplishes Heb_6:16-20. For, since the promise imparted to Abraham, in so far as it respected the blessing of all nations by means of his seed, could receive its fulfilment only in conditioning connection with Christ, the Saviour of all believers, the Christians are thus the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant; so also by the oath of God there is guaranteed to them, no less than to Abraham, an indefeasible claim to the object of promise. To hold fast to the Christian hope, objectively assured and undisappointing as this is, the Christians therefore must feel themselves most powerfully animated.

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.

Heb 6:16 . ἄνθρωποι γὰρ , κ . τ . λ . “For men swear by the greater.” The procedure of God in confirming His promise by an oath is justified by human custom, and the confident hope which God’s oath warrants is justified by the fact that even a human oath ends debate. ἄνθρωποι refers back to ὁ Θεός of Heb 6:13 and forward to Heb 6:17 . τοῦ μείζονος , him who is greater than the persons taking the oath, the idea of an oath being that a higher authority is appealed to, one of inviolable truth and power to enforce it. καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς … “and of all gainsaying among them an oath is an end for confirmation”. “The oath has two results negative and positive; it finally stops all contradiction; and it establishes that which it attests” (Westcott). On βεβαίωσις as a technical term, see Deissmann, Bibl. Studies , p. 104. ἀντιλογία is rendered by “strife” in A.V., and by “dispute” in R.V.; and this meaning is found in Exo 18:16 ; Deu 19:17 οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι οἶς ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀντιλογία . But in the other instances of its use in N.T., Heb 7:7 ; Heb 12:3 ; Jud 1:11 , it has the meaning of “contradiction” or “gainsaying”. So also in Polybius xxviii. 7, 4: πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν ἀνίσταντο πολλοί . It is this sense which suits the context here, as it is not a strife between God and man which is in question. Besides, εἰς βεβαίωσιν is more congruous with this meaning. The meaning is that when one man disputes the assertion of another, an oath puts an end to the contradiction and serves for confirmation. So Davidson, Westcott, Weiss, etc. πάσης is added not to indicate the universal deference paid to the oath (Bleek), but the completeness of its effect; no room is left for contradiction. ὁ ὅρκος the generic article, best translated “an oath”. f1πέρας an end or limit, as in Psa 119:96 , πάσης συντελείας εἶδον πέρας ; and Psa 145:3 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστι πέρας . εἰς βεβαίωσιν almost in the technical sense of a guarantee. See Deissmann’s interesting treatment of the word in Bibelstud. , pp. 100 104. On the verse Calvin remarks: “hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legitimum. Quod observandum est contra homines fanaticos qui regulam sancte jurandi, quam Deus lege sua praescripsit, libenter abrogarent.”

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

for confirmation--not to be joined, as English Version, to "an oath"; but to "an end" [ALFORD]. I prefer, "The oath is to them, in respect to confirmation (of one's solemn promise or covenant; as here, God's), an end of all contradiction (so the Greek is translated, Heb 12:3), or "gainsaying." This passage shows: (1) an oath is sanctioned even in the Christian dispensation as lawful; (2) that the limits to its use are, that it only be employed where it can put an end to contradiction in disputes, and for confirmation of a solemn promise.

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 16. Men verily swear by the greater] One who has greater authority; who can take cognizance of the obligation, and punish the breach of it.

An oath for confirmation] "This observation teaches us," says Dr. Macknight, "that both promissory oaths concerning things lawful and in our power, and oaths for the confirmation of things doubtful, when required by proper authority, and taken religiously, are allowable under the Gospel."

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

16. For men, etc. It is an argument from the less to the greater; if credit is given to man, who is by nature false, when he swears, and for this reason, because he confirms what he says by God’s name, how much more credit is due to God, who is eternal truth, when he swears by himself?

Now he mentions several things to commend this declaration; and first he says that men swear by the greater; by which he means that they who are wanting in due authority borrow it from another. He adds that there is so much reverence in an oath that it suffices for confirmation, and puts an end to all disputes where the testimonies of men and other proofs are wanting. Then is not he a sufficient witness for himself whom all appeal to as a witness? Is he not to obtain credit for what he says, who, by his authority, removes all doubts among others? If God’s name, pronounced by man’s tongue, possesses so much superiority, how much more weight ought it to have, when God himself swears by his own name? Thus much as to the main point.

But here in passing, two things are to be noticed, — that we are to swear by God’s name when necessity requires, and that Christians are allowed to make an oath, because it is a lawful remedy for removing contentions. God in express words bids us to swear by his name; if other names are blended with it, the oath is profaned. For this there are especially three reasons: when there is no way of bringing the truth to light, it is not right, for the sake of verifying it, to have recourse to any but to God, who is himself eternal truth; and then, since he alone knows the heart, his own office is taken from him, when in things hidden, of which men can form no opinion, we appeal to any other judge; and thirdly, because in swearing we not only appeal to him as a witness, but also call upon him as an avenger of perjury in case we speak falsely. It is no wonder, then, that he is so greatly displeased with those who swear by another name, for his own honor is thus disparaged. And that there are different forms often used in Scripture, makes nothing against this truth; for they did not swear by heaven or earth, as though they ascribed any divine power to them, or attributed to them the least portion of divinity, but by this indirect protestation, so to speak, they had a regard to the one true God. There are indeed various kinds of protestations; but the chief one is, when we refer to God as a judge and directly appeal to his judgment-seat; another is, when we name things especially dear to us as our life, or our head, or anything of this kind; and the third is, when we call creatures as witnesses before God. But in all these ways we swear properly by no other than by God. hence they betray their impiety no less than their ignorance, who contend that it is lawful to connect dead saints with God so as to attribute to them the right of punishing.

Further, this passage teaches us, as it has been said, that an oath may be lawfully used by Christians; and this ought to be particularly observed, on account of fanatical men who are disposed to abrogate the practice of solemn swearing which God has prescribed in his Law. For certainly the Apostle speaks here of the custom of swearing as of a holy practice, and approved by God. Moreover, he does not say of it as having been formerly in use, but as of a thing still practiced. Let it then be employed as a help to find out the truth when other proofs are wanting.

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.

(16) And an oath for confirmation.—Rather, and of every dispute in their case the oath is an end (is final) to settle the matter.

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

16. men verily swear by the greater] Gen_21:23; Gen_24:3; Gen_26:30-31. The passage is important as shewing the lawfulness of Christian oaths (see our Article xxxix).

strife] Rather, “for an oath is to them an end of all gainsaying” (or “controversy” as to facts) “with a view to confirmation.” It is meant that when men swear in confirmation of a disputed point their word is believed. There is an exactly similar passage in Philo, De sacr. Abel. et Cain (Opp. i. 181).

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.

Wherein God, willing,.... Or "wherefore", as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it; that is, whereas an oath is used among men to confirm anything that might be doubted; therefore God, in condescension to the weakness of men, made use of one; being very desirous and determined,

more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel; by which is meant, not the Gospel nor the ordinances of it, though these are sometimes called the counsel of God; but the decree of God, concerning the salvation of his people by Jesus Christ, which is immutable; as appears from the unchangeableness of his nature, the sovereignty of his will, the unsearchableness of his wisdom, the omnipotence of his arm, and the unconditionality of the thing decreed, and from that and the purpose of it being in Christ: and the immutability of this, God was willing to show "more abundantly" than in other purposes, though all God's purposes are unchangeable; or than had been shown to the Old Testament saints; and more than was necessary, had it not been for man's weakness: even to "the heirs of promise"; not any earthly temporal promise, but the promise of grace and glory; the promise of eternal life; the heirs of which are not only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or God's elect among the Jews, but all that are Christ's; who are justified by his righteousness, believe in him, and are the children of God; for as many as are such are heirs of eternal glory, and of the promise of it: and that the unchangeableness of God's purpose in saving them by Christ might be manifest to them, and be out of all doubt, he "confirmed it by an oath"; his counsel and purpose; he not only determined in his mind that he would save them, and promised it in his covenant; but he also, to confirm it the more to the persons concerned in it, if possible, annexed his oath to it; or "he interposed or acted the part of a Mediator by an oath"; which some refer to Christ's mediation between God and Abraham, when he swore unto him, as before observed; but rather it expresses the interposition of the oath between God's purpose and promise, and man's weakness: God did as it were bind himself by his oath, or lay himself under obligation, or become a surety, for the fulfilment of his purpose and promise; which shows the super-abounding grace of God, the weakness of man, and what reason the heirs of promise have to believe.

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

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

Ver. 16. Swear by the greater] So do not they that swear by sundry creatures and qualities, God can hardly spare such, Jer 5:7. That passage, "As thy soul liveth," is not an oath, but an asseveration, or obtestation only, conjoined with the oath.

An end of all strife] The end of an oath is to help the truth in necessity, and to clear men’s innocency, Exo 22:11.

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.

For men verily swear by the greater - That is, they appeal to God. They never swear by one who is inferior to themselves. The object of the apostle in this declaration is to show that as far as this could be done it had been by God. He could not indeed swear by one greater than himself, but he could make his promise as certain as an oath taken by people was when they solemnly appealed to him. He could appeal to his own existence and veracity, which was at any time the most solemn form of an oath, and thus put the mind to rest in regard to the hope of heaven.

And an oath for confirmation - An oath taken to confirm or establish anything.

Is to them an end of all strife - That is, when two parties are at variance, or have a cause at issue, an oath binds them to adhere to the terms of agreement concluded on, or contracting parties bind themselves by a solemn oath to adhere to the conditions of an agreement, and this puts an end to all strife. They rest satisfied when a solemn oath has been taken, and they feel assured that the agreement will be complied with. Or it may refer to cases where a man was accused of wrong before a court, and where he took a solemn oath that the thing had not been done, and his oath was admitted to be sufficient to put an end to the controversy. The general meaning is clear, that in disputes between man and man, an appeal was made to an oath, and that was allowed to settle it. The connection here is, that as far as the case would admit of, the same thing was done by God. His oath by himself made his promise firm.

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

For men verily swear by the greater: for here is only narrative, introducing the amplification of the argument drawn from God’s promise and oath, for the quickening those and all believers to make out after the full assurance of hope, the promise and oath of God concerning them as well as Abraham. That since men’s oaths procure credit, and put an end to doubts, strife, and contradiction amongst them; much more should God’s oath put an end to doubts and gainsayings of creatures, and make them to give faith to him: men are not inventors and authors of this ordinance of swearing, but subject to God’s precept requiring this from them, and in this special part of God’s worship instituted by him, they ought to swear justly and according to his will; and swear they must by God only, who knows the intentions and secrets of the heart, and who is absolutely greater than all; the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and sovereign Lord of all persons, who knows false swearers, and inflicts on them not only temporal but eternal punishments. The swearing by any other, God rebukes, Deu 6:13; Jer 4:2.

And an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife: and in this special part of God’s worship, God is called in as a co-witness of the truth of what is sworn, and as a judge and avenger of it, if it be otherwise: and so the oath becomes a confirmation of faith and confidence of men one in another, and of love accompanying the same; so that if strife, doubt, suspicion, or jealousy arise among them about either words or deeds, which are not known to those who doubt, and cannot be cleared by sense or reason, or any other way but by a testimony of some person who knows them, which being insufficient of itself, he calls in God by an oath as co-witness, with whom it is supposed he would not break his interest, nor invocate him against himself, by declaring what is false: on this all strife and contradiction is to be decided among men, and to cease, and so the controversy to be determined.

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

16. An oath—Greek, the oath; that is, the (institution of the) oath. The oath is a divine institution, the colloquial abuse of which is forbidden by Christ as profanity. So far is this from abolishing the true oath, which is an end of all strife, the Lord’s purpose was to forbid its colloquial desecration in order to secure its solemn sanctity. So Philo says, “By an oath doubtful things are decided, infirm things are confirmed, and the untrusted receive trust.” The ancient proverb is, “The man is the surety of the oath, not the oath of the man.” So Philo says, “Men, when mistrusted, have recourse to the oath to gain credence for themselves; but God, when simply speaking, is worthy of belief, so that his word is no way different from an oath.” And a sublime passage in the Talmud (quoted by Delitzsch) says, “Moses spoke before the Holy One: (blessed be He:) Lord of the world, hadst thou sworn to them by heaven and earth, I should have thought that as heaven and earth pass away, so, also, thine oath would pass away; but thou hast sworn to them by Thy great Name. It is so, then, that as Thy great Name liveth and endureth forever, Thine oath endureth forever also.”

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

Vers. 16-20. For men swear by the greater: and of every dispute of theirs (literally, to them), the oath is final (literally, an end) for confirmation (eiv bebaiwsin being connected with perav , not, as in the A.V, with orkov). Here begins the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the Divine oath, already cursorily touched on in ver. 13. God thus, for full assurance, condescends to the form of confirmation most binding among men when they promise to each other. They appeal to one greater than themselves to intervene between them. He, having no one greater than himself to appeal to, appeals (so to speak) to his own immutability, and thus may be said to intervene with an oath (emesiteusen orkw ever. 17), the verb being neuter, with the sense of "mediate" or "intervene," not, as in A.V, "confirmed it". The reason is not that the Divine promise is not in itself enough, but that God, willing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, is pleased to grant them this additional confirmation; that by two immutable things (first the promise, in itself sufficient; and secondly the oath, for more abundant assurance), in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong consolation (paraklhhsin , bearing elsewhere this sense, and also that of exhortation, as in Heb_12:5 Heb_13:22; which latter sense is understood here by most commentators as uniting best the drift of the passage with the general notion of encouragement) who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. The course of thought has now passed again from Abraham to Christians, the transition having been prepared for by the general expression, toiv klhronomoiv thv epaggeliav in ver. 17. Indeed, the oath to him was an assurance to us also, we being the final inheritors of the promised blessing. Then finally, in the two concluding verses, the subject to be treated in Hebrews 7. is again beautifully led up to by a natural sequence of thought: Which (so. hope) we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a Forerunner Jesus entered for us, become a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Our hope (elpiv), regarded in ver. 18 objectively, assumes here a subjective sense: it is our anchor east upwards beyond the heavens through which our Forerunner has passed, (cf. Heb_4:14, dieleluyota touv) and, in virtue of the promise and the oath, fixed there secure and firm. "That which is within the veil" katapetasmatov , the word invariably denoting the veil in the temple, is the heavenly holy of holies, of which the earthly was symbolical, as is fully set forth in Hebrews 8. This first mention of the veil is an instance of the manner in which, throughout this Epistle, ideas to be afterwards expanded are often intimated by way of preparation beforehand. Instructive in this chapter is the view presented of Divine purpose in relation to human will. The Divine purpose may have been evinced by supplies of grace so abundant as to remove all doubt of the possibility of success; yet through the human will there may be failure: the very Divine oath may have ensured fulfillment of the promise; yet, as to Abraham, so to individual Christians, faith and patience are the conditions of fulfillment. It is evident that the Divine purpose and the Divine promise are all along referred to, not to dishearten any for fear that they may not be included in them, not to encourage remissness in any on the ground of certainty of attainment, not so as to suggest any idea of arbitrary selection irrespective of desert, but simply to incite to perseverance on the ground of assurance of success, if the human conditions are fulfilled. And this is the practical application of the doctrine of predestination found also elsewhere in St. Paul"s Epistles. (cf. Rom_8:28-39) Predestination and free-will may be to human reason theoretically irreconcilable, though reason, as well as theology, may compel us to acknowledge both. The problem may properly be left unsolved, as among the many deep things of God. But it is of importance to observe how the doctrine of-predestination is practically applied in Scripture as bearing upon human conduct.

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

Men generally swear by him who is infinitely greater than themselves, and an oath for confirmation, to confirm what is promised or asserted, usually puts an end to all contradiction. This shows that an oath taken in a religious manner is lawful even under the gospel: otherwise the apostle would never have mentioned it with so much honour, as a proper means to confirm the truth

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

These words contain a reason, why God, in gracious condescension to man’s infirmity, is pleased to confirm his promise with an oath; it is to determine a controversy, and put an end to a strife depending between God and the falled creatures: And this is the general reason for an oath amongst men, it is to put hounds and limits to the contentions and contradictions of men; to make and end of all strife between them, which otherwise would be perpetuated, and to bring them to a mutual acquiscency; An oath for confirmation is as end of all strife.

Learn hence, 1. That there is, as we are in a state of nature, a strife and difference between God and us.

2. That the promises of the gospel are gracious proposals of the only way and means for the ending of that strife.

3. That the oath of God interposed for the confirmation of these promises, is every way sufficient on God’s part, to put a period to this strife, and to establish a firm peace with us through the blood of Christ. Men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is an end of strife.

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

16. For men verily swear by the greater. When men make a solemn oath in order to settle a fact or covenant beyond controversy they usually swear in the name of God. God, however, could swear by no one greater than himself.

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.

to the heirs of the promise

The people to whom God has made promises are spoken of as if they were to inherit property and wealth from a family member. AT: "to those who would receive what he promised" (See: Metaphor)

the unchangeable quality of his purpose

"that his purpose would never change" or "that he would always do what he said he would do"

by two unchangeable things

This means God's promise and God's oath. Neither of these can ever change.

with which it is impossible for God to lie

This double negative can mean that God will tell the truth about this situation. AT: "about which God always tells the truth" (See: Double Negatives)

we, who have fled for refuge

Believers, who trust in God for him to protect them, are spoken of as if they were running to a safe place. AT: "we, who have trusted him" (See: Metaphor)

will have a strong encouragement to hold firmly to the hope set before us

Trust in God is spoken of as if encouragement were an object that could be presented to a person and that person could hold on to it. AT: "will continue to trust in God just has he encouraged us to do" (See: Metaphor)

set before us

This can be stated in active form. AT: "that God has placed before us" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

oath

confirm

heir

courage

confidence

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

16–20. TO WHICH THEY ARE EXHORTED TO HOLD FAST

16. ἄνθρωποι γάρ. Some MSS. read μὲν γάρ. But there is no subsequent δέ, and it is better to omit μέν. Winer, p. 719.

κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος. “By a greater.” The article is distributive, as also in ὁ ὅρκος. Gen 21:23; Gen 24:3; Gen 26:30-31. The passage is important as shewing the lawfulness of Christian oaths (see our Article 39).

καὶ πάσης κ.τ.λ. “And an oath is to them an end of all gainsaying” (or “controversy” as to facts) “with a view to confirmation.” It is meant that when men swear in confirmation of a disputed point their word is believed. There is an exactly similar passage in Philo, De sacr. Abel et Cain (Opp. I. 181).

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.

16-20.] Security of this promise, as being part of God’s great promise, which He has fulfilled in Christ. These verses are transitional, and lead us to the consideration of the Melchisedek-priesthood of our Lord in the next chapter.

16. For [indeed] (see var. readd. This μέν solitarium or ellipticum is common with γάρ, in the sense of the German zwar or freilich, and our ‘of a truth,’ ‘verily:’ so Eurip. Med. 698, ξυγγνωστὰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν σε λυπεῖσθαι, γύναι: Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 1, εἰσελθὼν μὲν γάρ ποτε πρὸς Παῤῥάσιον. See the elliptic μέν well discussed in Hartung, Partikellehre ii. 411 ff.) men (emphatic) swear (Bleek observes that it is a mistake to call the form ὀμνύουσιν Hellenistic (ὀλλύασιν, ὀμνύασιν, Ἀττικῶς· ὀλλύουσιν, ὀμνύουσιν, Ἑλληνικῶς. Moeris), for we have it in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 16 (πανταχοῦ ὀμνύουσι τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον) and Demosth. p. 622. 22) by the greater (one) (τοῦ μείζονος is undoubtedly masculine: it could not be predicated of any thing neuter, that it was greater than the men who swear. And by the expression here, generally taken, must be meant God Himself: that greater One, who is above all men. And so Primas., Grot., Bengel, al.), and an (the in the case supposed: the art. is generic: cf. Mat 13:3, ὁ σπείρων: Joh 12:24, ὁ κόκκος) oath is to them an end (see reff. and more examples in Bleek) of all gainsaying (E. V. with very many others, “strife,” which is a legitimate meaning of ἀντιλογία (cf. Exo 18:16: Deu 19:17; Deu 21:5:2Ki 15:4: Pro 18:18: Xen. Hell. vi. 3. 20, εἰρήνην τῶν ἄλλων πεποιημένων, πρὸς δὲ Θηβαίους μόνους ἀντιλογίας οὔσης), but not borne out here by the context, seeing that there is no allusion to any instance in which God and men were at strife. And besides, in the only places where ἀντιλογία occurs in the N. T. (see reff.) it has the meaning ‘gainsaying:’ e. g. ch. 7:7, χωρὶς πάσης ἀντιλογίας, without possibility of gainsaying. So that it is best to take this meaning here, and understand that an oath puts an end to all gainsaying by confirming the matter one way, in which all parties consent), for confirmation (the E. V. with Beza, Erasm., al., ungrammatically joins these words with ὁ ὅρκος,—“an oath for confirmation.” It is obvious to every one, that they can only be joined, and that closely, with πέρας. The only reason why in the translation I have separated them from it, is for fear of introducing, in English, the ambiguity, ‘for confirmation of all gainsaying.’ Calvin’s remark on this verse is pertinent: “Præterea hic locus docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legitimum. Quod observandum est contra homines fanaticos qui regulam sancte jurandi, quam Deus lege sua præscripsit, libenter abrogarent. Nam Apostolus certe hic de ratione jurandi tanquam de re pia et Deo probata disserit. Porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat”).

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

And an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife [και πασης αυτοις αντιλογιαςπερας εις βεβαιων ο ορκος] . FOR "an oath," rend. "the oath" : generic. Const. for confirmation with end. "The oath is final for confirmation." Perav is the outermost point; the point beyond which one cannot go. With this exception always in N. T. in the plural, of the ends of the earth. See Mt 12:42; Rom 10:18. So often in LXX jAntilogia, strictly contradiction, only in Hebrews and Jude 1:11, on which see note.

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

16. ἄνθρωποι ydp...] For men, being mon, as mon, not of ἄνθρ. (o. ix. 27)}—-swear by the greater...Here the main thought is the fuct of the outh. The character of the oath (κατὰ τ. μ.) follows from the nature of man. There can be no doubt from the context that τοῦ μείζονος is masculino (Vulg. per majorem sui), and not, as it might be (Matt. xii. 6 μεῖζον) neuter.

For the use of ἄνθρωποι, marking the nature and not the class, see John v. 41 compared with 2 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. iii. 8. .

Compare Philo, de sacr. Ab. οἱ Cain ὃ 28 (i. 181 M.) τοῦ πιστευθῆναι χάριν ἀπιστούμενοι καταφεύγουσιν ἐφ᾽ ὅρκον ἄνθρωποι. Οἷο. de Offic. iii. 31, III.

πάσης... «ἀντιλ. πέρας εἷς Be.) Vulg. omnis controversia@a eorum βηΐς ad confirmationem. The oath has two results, nogative and positive: it finally stops all contradiction; and it establishes that which it attests. It is on the one side an end to all gainsaying in the relation of man to man (αὐτοῖς

⸗ ς περισσότερον βουλόμενος ὁ

By an appeal to ἃ higher authority it stays the human denial of the statement which it affirms: ἐκ τούτου λύεται πάσης ἀντιλογίας dudioBifrnoss(Chrys.). And on the other side it issues iv confirmation. The oath which silences contradiction confirms that in favour of which it is taken (βεβαίωσις, Phil. i.7; Wied. vi. 19). For the sense of The sense of ‘controversy’ (Ex. xviii. 16; LXxx.) is too vague. Tho issue raised is simple and direct. (Comp. Prov. xviii. 18.)

Compare Philo, de Somn. i. ὃ 2, ra ἐνδοιαζόμενα τῶν πραγμάτων ὅρκῳ διακρίνεται καὶ τὰ ἀβέβαια βεβαιοῦται καὶ τὰ ἄπιστα πίστιν λαμβάνει.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.