But the transition is worked out in a practical warning (2:1-4) to the readers, which not only explains the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind:

1 We must therefore (διὰ τοῦτο, in view of this pre-eminent authority of the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away. 2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (ἐγένετο βέβαιος, proved valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (ἔνδικον= adequate, not arbitrary) punishment in every case,3 how shall we (ἡμεῖς, emphatic) escape the penalty1 for neglecting (ἀμελήσαντες, if we ignore: Matthew 22:5) a salvation which (ἥτις, inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miraculous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (αὐτοῦ emphatic as in Romans 3:25).

Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of τε (M P) in v. 4, with the variant παραρρυῶμεν (Bc Dc) for παραρυῶμεν,2 the only textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of ὑπό for διά in v. 3 by some cursives (69, 623, 1066, 1845), due either to the following ὑπό, or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of ὁ κύριος. But διά here as in διʼ ἀγγέλων, meaning “by,” is used to preserve the idea that in λαλεῖν the subject is God (1:1). The order of words (v. 1) δεῖ περισσοτερῶς προσέχειν ἡμᾶς has been spoiled in א vg (περισσοτερῶς δεῖ) and K L P (ἡμᾶς προσέχειν).

As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, ἐπεὶ δὲ συχνοὺς ὁρῶ ταῖς ὑπὸ δυσμενείας ὑπὸ τινων εἰρημέναις προσέχοντας βλασφημίαις καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὴν Ἀρχαιολογίαν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ γεγραμμένοις ἀπιστοῦντας κτλ.; Strabo, ii. I. 7, τοῖς μὲν ἀπιστεῖν … ἐκείνῃ δὲ προσέχειν), προσέχειν (sc. τὸν νοῦν) is the opposite of ἀπιστεῖν: to “attend” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is implied even in Acts 8:6 and 16:14 (προσέχειν τοῖς λαλουμένοις ὑπὸ Παύλου) where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message. Περισσοτέρως is almost in its elative sense of “with extreme care”; “all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13:19. Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the gospel than to the Law. Ἡμᾶς = we Christians (ἡμῖν, 1:1), you and I, as in v. 3. The τὰ ἀκουσθέντα (in τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι) is the revelation of the εὐαγγέλιον (a term never used by our author), i.e. what ὁ θεὸς ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, 1:1, and this is further defined (in vv. 3, 4) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys to the writer and his readers (εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη). In the Ep. Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (τὸ γὰρ καλῶς ζῇν ἐν τῷ τὰ νόμιμα συντηρεῖν εἶναι· τοῦτο δὲ ἐπιτελεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς ἀκροάσεως πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως), and the evangelists of v. 4 include οἴτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (13:7); but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, μή ποτε παραρυῶμεν (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally, “be carried past” and so lose) the σωτηρία which we have heard. Παραρέω in this sense goes back to Proverbs 3:21 υἱέ, μὴ παραρυῇς, τήρησον δὲ ἐμὴν βουλὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν (see Clem. Paed. III. xi. 58, διὸ καὶ συστέλλειν χρὴ τὰς γυναῖκας κοσμίως καὶ περισφίγγειν αἰδοῖ σώφρονι, μὴ παραρρυῶσι τῆς ἀληθείας); indeed the writer may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested.

The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply an equivalent for “going wrong,” like “labi” in Latin (cp. Cicero, De Officiis, i. 6, “labi autem, errare … malum et turpe ducimus”). Anyhow προσέχειν must not be taken in a nautical sense ( = moor), in order to round off the “drift away” of παραρέω, a term which carries a sombre significance here ( = παραπίπτειν, 6:8); μήποτε παραρυῶμεν, τουτέστι μὴ ἀπολώμεθα, μὴ ἐκπέσωμεν (Chrysostom).

In vv. 2f. we have a characteristic (e.g. 10:28-31) argument a minori ad maius; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly punished—a legislation enacted by means of angels—how much more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a (great, τηλικαύτη) σωτηρία as that originally proclaimed by the Lord himself! The τηλικαύτη is defined as (a) “directly inaugurated by the Κύριος himself,” and (b) transmitted to us unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endowment; it is as if the writer said, “Do not imagine that the revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position; the full power of God’s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which we owe our faith.”

The reference in λόγος is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife.

Λόγος is used, not νόμος, in keeping with the emphasis upon the divine λαλεῖν in the context, and, instead of νόμος Μωσέως (10:28), ὁ διʼ ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος is chosen for argumentative reasons. Here as in Galatians 3:19 and Acts 7:38, Acts 7:53 (ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων) the function of angels in the revelation of the Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such as is overheard in Paul’s reference. The writer and his readers shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις διʼ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθόντων)1 repeats this tradition, but it went back to the LXX which altered Deuteronomy 33:2 into a definite proof of angelic co-operation (ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετʼ αὐτοῦ) and brought this out in Psalm 68:18. Rabbinic tradition elaborated the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like Philo (de vita Mosis, 2:3), that the Mosaic legislation was βέβαια, ἀσάλευτα, valid and supreme as long as the world endured.

Παράβασις καὶ παρακοή form one idea (see on 1:1); as παρακοή (which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, εἰ ἐπὶ παρακοῇ λόγων κρίσις γίνεται, and the use of the verb in Matthew 18:17 ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν κτλ., or in LXX of Isaiah 65:12 ἐλάλησε καὶ παρηκούσατε), it represents the negative aspect, παράβασις the positive. Μισθαποδοσία is a sonorous synonym (rare in this sombre sense of κόλασις) for μισθός or for the classical μισθοδοσία. Some of the facts which the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3:17 and 10:28. The Law proved no dead letter in the history of God’s people; it enforced pains and penalties for disobedience.

In v. 3 ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα is a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g. Philo in Quaest. in Exodus 12:2 (ὅταν οἱ τῶν σπαρτῶν καρποὶ τελειωθῶσιν, οἱ τῶν δένδρων γενέσεως ἀρχὴν λαμβάνουσιν), and de vita Mosis, 1:14 (τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ γενέσθαι λάβον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ). The writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, τὰ Ῥωμαίων πράγματα οὐκ ἂν ἐνταῦθα προύβη δυνάμεως, μὴ θείαν τινὰ ἀρχὴν λαβόντα καὶ μηδὲν μέγα μήδε παράδοξον ἔχουσαν. The modern mind wonders how the writer could assume that the σωτηρία, as he conceives it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was unconscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his personality and career, in which God’s saving purpose came to full expression. οἱ ἀκούσαντες means those who heard Jesus himself, the αὐτόπται of Luke 1:1-4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to Mark’s gospel: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς … ἐξαπέστειλεν διʼ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας). If the Sinaitic Law ἐγένετο βέβαιος, the Christian revelation was also confirmed or guaranteed to us—εἰς ἡμᾶς (1 P 1:25 τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς: Acts 2:22 Ἰησοῦν … ἄνδρα ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς) ἐβεβαιώθη. It reached us, accurate and trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men1 who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and inspired them in their mission. Συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν means “assent” in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and “corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a (συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ βίος ἅπας), as usual, but is here a sonorous religious term for συμμαρτυρεῖν (Romans 8:16). “Coniunctio σύν … hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin).

σημ., τερ., δυν. in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Acts 2:22; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Corinthians 12:12. Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any verbal injunction (ἅτε δὴ τοῦ θεοῦ τρανοτέραις χρησμῶν ἀποδείξεσι ταῖς διά σημείων καὶ τεράτων τὸ βούλημα δεδηλωκότος, vit, Mos. i. 16).

As “God” (θεοῦ) is the subject of the clause, αὐτοῦ (for which D actually reads θεοῦ) refers to him, and πνεύματος ἁγίου is the genitive of the object after μερισμοῖς (cp. 6:4). What is distributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take αὐτοῦ with πνεύματος and make the latter the genitive of the subject, would tally with Paul’s description of the Spirit διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἐκάστῳ καθὼ βούλεται (1 Corinthians 12:11), but would fail to explain what was distributed and would naturally require τῷ μερισμῷ. A fair parallel lies in Galatians 3:5 ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, where δυνάμεις also means “miraculous powers” or “mighty deeds” (a Hellenistic sense, differing from that of the LXX = “forces”). In κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν, as perhaps even in 7:18 (cp. Blass, 284, 3; Abbott’s Johannine Grammar, 2558), the possessive αὐτός is emphatic. θέλησιν is read by אca R for δέησιν in Psalm 21:3 (cp. Ezekiel 28:23 μὴ θελήσει θελήσω). It is not merely a vulgarism for θέλημα. “Θέλημα n’est pas θέλησις, volonté; θέλημα désigne le vouloir concentré sur un moment, sur un acte, l’ordre, le commandment” (Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171 n.). The writer is fond of such forms (e.g. ἀθέτησις, ἄθλησις, αἴνεσις, μετάθεσις, πρόσχυσις). Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (Disputatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their gifts as they pleased— αἱ θεαὶ δὲ τὰς ἑαυτῶν δωρεὰς οἷς τε ἂν ἐθέλωσι.

The vital significance of the Son as the ἀρχηγός of this “salvation”1 by means of his sufferings on earth, is now developed (vv. 5-18). This unique element in the Son has been already hinted (1:3), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of Christ’s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis between the Son and angels (v. 5); presently it passes beyond this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis (v. 16). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5-9 are the prelude to vv. 10-18. The idea underlying the whole passage is this: λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου meant much more than λαλεῖσθαι διʼ ἀγγέλων, for the Christian revelation of σωτηρία had involved a tragic and painful experience for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal experience on earth ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. But this sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men; and it taught him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, pp. 413 f., on 2:1-5, and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on 2:6-18).

5 For the world to come, of which I (ἡμεῖς of authorship) am speaking, was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the present world). 6 One writer, as we know, has affirmed,

“What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

or the son of man, that thou carest for him?

7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels,

crowning him with glory and honour,

8 putting all things under his feet.”

Now by1 “putting all things under him”2 the writer meant to leave nothing out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see ”all things controlled” by man; 9 what we do see is Jesus “who was put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death, and who has been “crowned with glory and honour,” that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.

Οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλοις (γάρ, as in Greek idiom, opening a new question; almost equivalent to “now”: οὐ γάρ = non certe, Valckenaer) ὑπέταξε (i.e. ὁ θεός, as C vg add)—the writer is already thinking of ὑπέταξας in the quotation which he is about to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to μέλλοντα ἀγαθά (9:11, 10:1) and ἡ μέλλουσα πόλις (13:14), we see that τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν means the new order of things in which the σωτηρία of 1:14, 2:2, 3 is to be realized (see 9:28), and from which already influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4) imply this higher, future order of things (cp. 6:4, 5; especially δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος), from which rays stream down into the present. How the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. But the author had already urged that this service of angels was rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit Christians (1:14). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his argument differently and used, for example, the belief that Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world (1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3).

Philo (de opificio, 29, οὐ παρʼ ὅσον ὕστατον γέγονεν ἂνθρωπος, διὰ τὴν τάξιν ἠλάττωται) argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in relation to angels, as here.

The quotation (vv. 6-8a) from the 8th psalm runs:

τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνήσκῃ1 αὐτοῦ,

ἢ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν