Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 5:1
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things [pertaining] to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
1. For every high priest taken from among men ] Rather, “being taken,” or “chosen as he is” (comp. Exo 28:1). The writer now enters on his proof that in order to fit Him for the functions of a High Priest for men it was necessary that Christ should become Man. He has already called attention to the subject in a marked manner in Heb 2:7, Heb 3:1, Heb 4:14-15.
is ordained for men ] “Is appointed on men’s behalf.”
in things pertaining to God ] Heb 2:17. It is his part to act as man’s representative in the performance of the duties of worship and sacrifice.
both gifts and sacrifices ] We have the same phrase in Heb 8:3, Heb 9:9. In O. T. usage no distinction is maintained between “gifts” and “sacrifices,” for in Gen 4:4, Lev 1:2-3, “gifts” is used for animal sacrifices; and in Gen 4:3; Gen 4:5, “sacrifices” is used (as in Heb 11:4) for bloodless gifts. When, however, the words are used together the distinction between them is that which holds in classical Greek, where “sacrifices” is never used except to mean “slain beasts.” The word “offer” is generally applied to expiatory sacrifices, and though “gifts” in the strict sense e.g. “freewill offerings” and “meat offerings” were not expiatory, yet the “gift” of incense offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement had some expiatory significance.
for sins ] To make atonement for sins (Heb 2:17).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For every high priest – That is, among the Jews, for the remarks relate to the Jewish system. The Jews had one high priest who was regarded as the successor of Aaron. The word high priest means chief priest; that is, a priest of higher rank and office than others. By the original regulation the Jewish high priest was to be of the family of Aaron Exo 29:9, though in later times the office was frequently conferred on others. In the time of the Romans it had become venal, and the Mosaic regulation was disregarded; 2 Macc. 4:7; Josephus, Ant. xv. 3. 1. It was no longer held for life, so that there were several persons at one time to whom was given the title of high priest. The high priest was at the head of religious affairs, and was the ordinary judge of all that pertained to religion, and even of the general justice of the Hebrew commonwealth; Deu 17:8-12; Deu 19:17; Deu 21:5; Deu 27:9-10.
He only had the privilege of entering the most holy place once a year, on the great day of atonement, to make expiation for the sins of the people; Lev. 16. He was to be the son of one who had married a virgin, and was to be free from any corporeal defect; Lev 21:13. The dress of the high priest was much more costly and magnificent than that of the inferior order of priests; Exo 39:1-7. He wore a mantle or robe – me iyl – of blue, with the borders embroidered with pomegranates in purple and scarlet; an ephod – ephowd – made of cotton, with crimson, purple, and blue, and ornamented with gold worn over the robe or mantle, without sleeves, and divided below the arm-pits into two parts or halves, of which one was in front covering the breast, and the other behind covering the back. In the ephod was a breastplate of curious workmanship, and on the head a mitre. The breastplate was a piece of broidered work about ten inches square, and was made double, so as to answer the purpose of a pouch or bag. It was adorned with twelve precious stones, each one having the name of one of the tribes of Israel. The two upper corners of the breastplate were fastened to the ephod, and the two lower to the girdle.
Taken from among men – There maybe an allusion here to the fact that the great High Priest of the Christian dispensation had a higher than human origin, and was selected from a rank far above people. Or it may be that the meaning is, that every high priest on earth – including all under the old dispensation and the great high priest of the new – is ordained with reference to the welfare of people, and to bring some valuable offering forman to God.
Is ordained for men – Is set apart or consecrated for the welfare of people. The Jewish high priest was set apart to his office with great solemnity; see Exo. 29:
In things pertaining to God – In religious matters, or with reference to the worship and service of God. He was not to be a civil ruler, nor a teacher of science, nor a military leader, but his business was to superintend the affairs of religion.
That he may offer both gifts – That is, thank-offerings, or oblations which would be the expressions of gratitude. Many such offerings were made by the Jews under the laws of Moses, and the high priest was the medium by whom they were to be presented to God.
And sacrifices for sin – Bloody offerings; offerings made of slain beasts. The blood of expiation was sprinkled by him on the mercyseat, and he was the appointed medium by which such sacrifices were to be presented to God; see the notes at Heb 9:6-10. We may remark here:
(1)That the proper office of a priest is to present a sacrifice for sin.
(2)It is improper to give the name priest to a minister of the gospel. The reason is, that he offers no sacrifice; he sprinkles no blood. He is appointed to preach the word, and to lead the devotions of the church, but not to offer sacrifice. Accordingly the New Testament preserves entire consistency on this point, for the name priest is never once given to the apostles, or to any other minister of the gospel.
Among the Papists there is consistency – though gross and dangerous error – in the use of the word priest. They believe that the minister of religion offers up the real body and blood of our Lord; that the bread and wine are changed by the words of consecration into the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus (Decrees of the Council of Trent), and that this is really offered by him as a sacrifice. Accordingly they elevate the host; that is, lift up, or offer the sacrifice and, require all to bow before it and worship, and with this view they are consistent in retaining the word priest. But why should this name be applied to a Protestant minister, who believes that all this is blasphemy, and who claims to have no sacrifice to offer when he comes to minister before God? The great sacrifice; the one sufficient atonement, has been offered – and the ministers of the gospel are appointed to proclaim that truth to men, not to offer sacrifices for sin.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Heb 5:1-3
Every high priest taken from among men
The high priesthood of Christ
I.
CHRISTS PARTICIPATION OF OUR NATURE, AS NECESSARY TO HIM FOR DISCHARGING OF THE OFFICE OF A HIGH PRIEST ON OUR BEHALF, IS A GREAT GROUND OF CONSOLATION UNTO BELIEVERS, A MANIFEST EVIDENCE THAT HE IS, AND WILL BE, TENDER AND COMPASSIONATE TOWARDS THEM.
II. IT WAS THE ENTRANCE OF SIN THAT MADE THE OFFICE OF THE PRIESTHOOD NECESSARY.
III. IT WAS OF INFINITE GRACE THAT SUCH AN APPOINTMENT WAS MADE. Without it all holy intercourse between God and man must have ceased. For neither
1. Were the persons of sinners meet to approach unto God; nor
2. Was any service which they could perform, or were instructed how to perform, suited unto the great end which man was now to look after; namely, peace with God. For the persons of all men being defiled, and obnoxious unto the curse of the law, how should they appear in the presence of the righteous and holy God (Isa 33:14; Mic 6:8).
IV. THE PRIEST IS DESCRIBED BY THE ESPECIAL DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY, OR EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; WHICH IS HIS OFFERING. BOTH GIFTS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN.
V. WHERE THERE IS NO PROPER PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE THERE IS NO PROPER PRIEST. Every priest is to offer sacrifices for sin; that is, to make atonement.
VI. JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE. For He alone could offer a sacrifice for our sins to make atonement.
VII. IT WAS A GREAT PRIVILEGE WHICH THE CHURCH ENJOYED OF OLD, IN THE REPRESENTATION WHICH IT HAD BY GODS APPOINTMENT, OF THE PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. IN THEIR OWN TYPICAL PRIESTS AND SACRIFICES.
VIII. MUCH MORE GLORIOUS IS OUR PRIVILEGE UNDER THE GOSPEL SINCE OUR LORD JESUS HATH TAKEN UPON HIM, AND ACTUALLY DISCHARGED THIS PART OF HIS OFFICE, IN OFFERING AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND COMPLETE SACRIFICE FOR SIN. Here is the foundation laid of all our peace and happiness.
IX. WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH GOD ON THE ACCOUNT OF SIN, THAT IT MAY BE EXPIATED AND PARDONED, AND THAT THE PEOPLE OF GOD WHO HAVE SINNED MAY BE ACCEPTED WITH HIM AND BLESSED, IS ALL ACTUALLY DONE FOR THEM BY JESUS CHRIST THEIR HIGH PRIEST, IN THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN WHICH HE OFFERED ON THEIR BEHALF. (John, Owen, D. D.)
Compassion on the ignorant
Divine compassion
There was no person in the Hebrew economy that was so revered as their high priest. He became more corrupt in the political times preceding Christ; but the name high priest, as interpreted by the whole history of the Hebrew people, was one that was not only reverenced, but loved. He was ordained, it is said, to have compassion; he was their highest ideal of purity; he stood in the grandeur of a supposed inspiration; he represented God, or, still better, he represented the people to God; he was their advocate; he stood in their place officially, and in every way helped to bring men up without any oppression; he was a minister of mercy to them; and you could not have struck a bell that would roll through the air with such melodious sound as by saying that Jesus Christ stood as a high priest to the people, and that compassion was the great attribute of Jesus; that He not only represented the people in their wants, but that He was a forthcomer of the very God Himself, and represented God to mankind as far as men obscured by the flesh are capable of understanding God. You cannot measure the infinite wisdom, and you cannot measure the eternal glow and glory of love, and you cannot in the infirmities of human life in all its relationships have any satisfying representation of the richness and infinite element of the Divine nature. So, in searching for some emblem the apostle strikes through to the centre, and says that Jesus Christ is a High Priest to represent–what? On the one side to represent the infirmities of men. He is clothed with them Himself; He is touched with a feeling of our infirmities; lie knows the height, and depth, and length and breadth of human experience and human need, and He is gone up to stand before God, our High Priest there; and not only to represent the wants of mankind, but in doing that He represents to us what is the interior character of God Himself, and what is the economy of the Divine love. In the earlier periods of the worlds history God was revealed in those aspects that would be most powerful to restrain animalism. The revelation of Gods motive power was toward the part that the man could understand; it was a physical manifestation of God as a God that governs the material world, which has certain fixed laws that cannot be broken without penalty immediate or remote; and so He was represented in the earlier periods of the world as the all-compelling Governor of the world. Pain in this world and suffering are Gods merciful ministers to keep men in the road. So, says God, I will by no means count it a matter of indifference whether a man lives right or wrong. He shall live right or he shall suffer, because I am a God of mercy and love. So the Old Testament had a sublime conception of God, but when you come down to the prophets, when lust immeasurable threatened to overwhelm society, when the great curse of idolatry was licentiousness, then God says: I will not relax one particle of My eternal law; I will wait till the crooked grows straight, till the inferior is exalted, I will have compassion on men; when they are transgressing their own nature and My moral law and all things pure and holy, I will still have patience, that I may bring them back again. There is the ideal of the Old Testament. But, coming down to a later period, when men were brutal they needed a little thunder, and the prophets gave it to them. They developed the regent character of God. I abhor wickedness and My fury shall burn to the lowest hell, I will not tolerate it; I have not built the world for this: wicked men and devils shall not desecrate it; I will put forth a hand of strength, and I will clothe Myself in garments of blood! I will walk forth so that the land shall tremble in My indignation; wickedness shall not prevail; purity in manhood and Divine excellence shall prevail. And so the thunder of Gods justice and the threatenings of Gods law were sounded out continually because men were on so low a plane that they needed just that development of the Divine nature. But that has given a disproportionate idea of Gods character. Men have been taught that He is the implacable thunderer. Another reason is that it is easier for us to thunder than it is to love. But it was not until the sun rose at the Advent that there came a morning outburst that gave us sight, not of the administration of Gods government among men, but of the heart of God Himself in Jesus Christ. There we see the inside of God; and what was that? If Calvary does not teach it, if His walk among the poor and needy does not teach it, if all the acts of mercy do not inspire you with the knowledge, if you need it shaped into a doctrine, then hear it here. He represents that the inner nature of God, as represented by Jesus Christ acting in place of the high priest, was one that could have compassion on the ignorant and on those that are out of the way–all error, all stumbling, all sin, all violation of the ideal of duty. The infinite bounty of Divine love is not savage nor partial, it is universal, it is intense beyond description. What is infinite? That beyond which the thought of man cannot go; that that has, to our thought, no boundary, extent beyond ending. What is infinite compassion? That that would wrap this globe round and round a thousand times, like the folds of a garment round the body, with Divine thoughtfulness, Divine mercy, Divine love. What is infinite love? What is a mothers love? The purest and tenderest thing that is known on earth is the overhanging heart of a mother upon the cradle that has in it that little nothing which we call a babe, that can give nothing back, that receives everything arid returns nothing. Yet the love of the mother is but one drop of the ocean as compared with the love of the great Father of mankind–infinite, infinite! (H. W. Beecher.)
Compassion on the ignorant
I. COMPASSION AND FORBEARANCE ARE TWO THINGS WHICH ANY MAN WHO WOULD DO GOOD TO HIS FELLOW-MEN OUGHT TO POSSESS TO A VERY LARGE DEGREE.
1. You will have plenty of use for all the compassion and all the tenderness that you can possibly command, for this will help to draw around you those who are ignorant and out of the way. Love is the queen bee, and where she is you will rind the centre of the hive.
2. By this same spell you will hold those whom you gather, for men will not long remain with an unloving leader, even little children in our classes will not long listen to an unsympathetic teacher. The earth is held together by the force of attraction, and to the men upon it that same power is exercised by love and compassion.
3. Compassion in your heart will be greatly useful in moving sinners to care for themselves. Mr. Knill at one time was distributing tracts at Chester, and went out where there was a company of soldiers. Many received the tracts, but one man tore the little book in pieces before the good mans eyes; and on another occasion the same individual said to the soldiers, Now make a ring round him. The men stood round the preacher, and then the wicked fellow cursed him in such a frightful manner that Mr. Knill burst into tears to hear such awful sounds. The sight of Knills tears broke the heart of the blasphemer: nothing else could have touched him, but he could not bear to see a strong man who was at least his equal, and, probably, his superior, weeping over him. Years after he came forward to own that the tender emotion displayed by Mr. Knill had touched his inmost soul, and led him to repentance.
4. You want great compassion to insure your own perseverance, for if you do not love the children of your class, if you do not love the people whom you try to benefit as you go from house to house, if you have no compassion on the dying sinners around you, you will soon give up your mission, or go about it in a merely formal manner.
5. Compassion of heart can alone teach you how to speak to others.
6. Now, there are many reasons why we should have a great deal of compassion and forbearance. Think what patience God had with you, all those years before your conversion, and multitudes of times since; and if He has had patience with your, should not you have patience with your fellow sinner even to the end? There is one reflection which may help you. Remember that these poor souls who sin as they do should be looked upon by you as persons who are deranged, for sin is madness. And do recollect this–if you do not have compassion you cannot do them good. If you become weary of them, and speak sharply, you cannot bless them; and, perhaps, if you are not the means of blessing them, nobody else may be. Ah, is it your own husband? Wife, win him. Do not drive him from bad to worse by scolding. Sister, is it your brother? Woo him and win him to Christ. Do not vex him by becoming acid and sour.
II. COMPASSION AND FORBEARANCE PRE-EMINENTLY DWELL IN JESUS CHRIST.
1. He has compassion on the ignorant. Very many persons are wilfully ignorant of Christ. Is not this enough to move the Lord to anger? And yet His patience continues. Come to Him just as you are and confess your wilful blindness, and He will put it away, and enable you to understand the things which make for your peace. Stone are ignorant, however, because they have been cast where they could not well know; they were born in an ungodly family, or, what is much the same, among those who have only a mere formal religion. They do not know the truth, but they can scarcely be blamed for it. Well, Christ is able to teach you. Come and sit at His feet, for He will have compassion on your ignorance.
2. He will have compassion upon those that are out of the way. Who are these people? Some are out of the way because they never were in it and never knew it. Many are in a very emphatic sense out-of-the-way sinners.. They have gone to such extravagances that they are out of the way of common morality, and quite startle their careless comrades. Well, my Lord Jesus will have compassion on you out-of-the-way sinners. However far you have gone, only turn to Him, for pardon is freely published. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
The human sympathies of Christianity
Every religion professes to reveal to us the supernatural; every philosophy professes to teach u, moral duty; but Christianity alone has, together with these, approached man with tender and helpful sympathy. Even Judaism did not. Assuredly infidelity does not; it may be very philosophical, it may inculcate a very pretentious morality, but it has no tenderness and sympathy; it has nothing like the Christian ideas of human brotherhood, and Divine Fatherhood. And yet, is not this precisely what we need? Not stern injunctions to be good, but sympathy and help in trying to be good. What is it, think you, that makes your destitute neighbour, who lives in a garret, and dines upon a crust, and shivers in the cold, and writhes in his pain, talk calmly of his condition, uttering no word of complaint, looking rather at the alleviations of his sorrow, than at his sorrow itself; speaking of mercies even where you can hardly discover them. Is it religious cant, think you? If it be, this cant is a very wonderful thing. It can do what nothing else save Christianity can do: it can make a suffering and poverty-stricken man patient through long weary years. What is it, again, that enables the tradesman when misfortune comes upon him, or the husband, when the mother of his children is smitten down, and his house is darkened, to kneel down before God with a breaking heart, and to rise up calm and comforted; what is it, but this very Christianity teaching him, not only that his sins are forgiven, but that God, even while he lives on earth, is his Heavenly Father; watching over his life, and appointing every experience of it, solely intent upon doing him the greatest possible good? Let us look a little, then, at these human sympathies of Christ and Christianity. You will see from the chapter that the apostle is speaking of the necessary qualifications of a high priest; and he says that one of these is, that he should be full of human sympathies–Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way. And these requisites, he goes on to say, are very eminently found in Christ. Here, then, we encounter the great mystery of godliness, the great fundamental fact of Christianity, upon which all its cardinal doctrines rest, that God was manifest in the flesh; that He was essentially Divine, became also properly human–the Emmanuel, God with us. I call this the most wonderful, the most practical, and the most powerful thought that the world has ever conceived. Why did He become Incarnate? The general answer is–that by compassing Himself with infirmity He might have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way. Let me show you this in three things. We are ignorant of Gods righteousness, and out of the way through our guilt. We are ignorant of Gods holiness, and out of the way through our sinfulness. We are ignorant of Gods happiness, and out of the way through our misery. And to have compassion on us in each of these respects, Christ became incarnate–compassed Himself with infirmities; for our pardon, for our purity, and for our peace. And these are our three great human necessities.
1. First, the apostle tells that He became incarnate to procure our pardon. He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death–that He might be capable, that is, of suffering death. A wonderful thought that–the express purpose for which the Divine Son took our nature was that He might die for us! Herein is love. In this the love of God is manifested. Other persons come into the world to live; Jesus Christ came into the world to die. In the very midst of His transfiguration glory He spake of the decease which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem. In the very midst of His resurrection triumph, He told His disciples that thus it was written, and thus it behoved Him to suffer. And so perfectly were they filled with the idea of His death, that they described themselves as preachers, not of Christs teaching, although He spake as never man spake not of Christs life, although He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners–but of Christs death: We preach Christ crucified. And why this strange and exclusive theme of preaching? Platos disciples preach his doctrine–Moses followers preached his laws. Why do Christian preachers preach only Christs death?–glory in a cross? Why, just because we are ignorant and cut of the way, and this Cross precisely meets our first great need as transgressors; it is Christs first great proof of redeeming compassion, the first great reason for which He compassed Himself with human infirmity that He might have compassion upon our guilt. It was not merely that He humbled Himself, but that He humbled Himself m this manner, did for us by taking our nature what He could not have done in any other way, and laid down His life for us.
2. And then Christ, as our merciful High Priest, has compassion upon us in our impurity, and takes upon Him our nature that He may set us an example of holiness. Here is a second great reason for His being compassed with infirmities–a man like ourselves. He shows us how pure and perfect, and obedient, and patient human life may be. He learned obedience by the things that He suffered. He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. He did not permit either temptation or suffering to sway Him in His obedience: He would fast in the wilderness rather than sin, He would endure the bitter anguish of Gethsemane rather than oppose His Fathers will. And having such experience of duty and temptation and suffering, He learned how arduous human virtue is–how much grace and strength it requires. Do you not see, then, how great and precious a purpose of His incarnation this is, to set us a perfect human example? He does not enjoin holiness merely, or describe it in a book–He embodies it in His life; He comes into our sinful world and homes, not as a holy God, but a holy Man; so that if we would be holy, we have only to consider Him, to walk even as He walked, to follow His steps. We learn duty from His obedience; love from His tenderness. We clasp His hand, we walk by His side, we witness His life, the beautiful and perfect exhibition in Him of the moral possibilities of a sanctified manhood.
3. He can have compassion upon us in our sorrows. And for this again He was compassed with infirmities. It is not without deep significance that He is called the Man of sorrows, and said to be acquainted with grief, as if grief were His familiar acquaintance. Emphatically is He the Man Christ Jesus, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; both He that sanctifieth and they that are satisfied are all of one, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. In all His earthly experience of duty, and temptation and sorrow He is never less, He is never more than a proper Man, A Brother born for the day of adversity. Oh! how wonderful this is, and yet how precious, that He the Creator of the ends of the earth, who fainteth not neither is weary, should incarnate Himself in the weakness of a little child and in the woes of a sorrowful man! And yet this is precisely what we needed; it is an assurance that comes home to our deepest hearts. Do you not often feel the unspeakable worth of a friend who understands your trials and difficulties and sorrows, who can lovingly enter into all your experiences, and give you counsel and sympathy? Then must it not be infinitely more precious to go to One, who, while on the human side of His nature He can thus be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because in all points tempted as we are, is also on the Divine side Almighty to help, and loving to pity? (H. Allon, D. D.)
Our compassionate High Priest
Often, when we are trying to do good to others, we get more good ourselves. When I was here one day this week, seeing friends who came to join the church, there came among the rest a very diffident, tenderhearted woman, who said many sweet things to me about her Lord, though she did not think that they were any good, I know. She was afraid that I should not have patience with her and her poor talk; but she said one thing which I specially remember: I have to-day put four things together, from which I have derived a great deal of comfort, she told me. And what are they, my sister? I asked. Well, she said, they are those four classes–the unthankful and the evil, the ignorant and those that are out of the way. Jesus is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil, and He can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, and I think that I can get in through those four descriptions. Though I am a great sinner, I believe that He will be kind to me, and have compassion upon me. I stored that up; for I thought that one of these days I might want it myself; I tell it to you, for if you do not want it now, you may need it one of these days; you may yet have to think that you have been unthankful and evil, ignorant and out of the way, and it will give you comfort to remember that our Lord Jesus is kind to the unthankful and to the evil, and that He can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way.
I. THE SORT OF SINNERS FOR WHOM OUR HIGH PRIEST IS CONCERNED.
1. The people who claim Christs aid are generally those who have a very low opinion of themselves. The proud and self-satisfied cannot know His love; but the poor and distressed may ever find in Him comfort and joy, because of His nature, and by means of His intercession.
2. As with the high priest of old, amongst those who come to our High Priest are many whose fear and distress arise from ignorance.
(1) There is a universal ignorance. As compared with the light of God, we are in the dim twilight. He that seeth best only seeth men as trees walking.
(2) But, in addition to the ignorance that is universal, there is also a comparative ignorance on the part of some; and because of this the compassion of Christ flows forth to them. There are, first, the recent converts–young people whose years are few, and who probably think that they know more than they do; but who, if they are wise, will recognise that their senses have not been fully exercised to discern between good and evil. Others there are who are ignorant because of their little opportunity of getting instruction. Upon these our great High Priest has compassion, and often with their slight knowledge they show more of the fruits of the Spirit than some of us produce even with our inure abundant light. There are many that are of a very feeble mind. They could never explain how they were saved; but they are saved.
(3) There is also a sinful ignorance. Now comes another description of the sort of sinners for whom our High Priest is concerned. There are many whose fears arise from being out of the way. The Lord can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way. I remember that, when I felt myself to be a very great sinner, these words were very, very much blessed to me. I read them, and on them that are out of the way; and I knew that I was an out-of-the-way sinner. I was then, and I am afraid that I am now, somewhat like a lot out of the catalogue, an odd person who must go by himself. Very well; our High Priest can have compassion on those that are odd, and on those that are out of the way, on those who do not seem to be in the common run of people, but who must be dealt with individually, and by themselves. He can have compassion upon such.
But now let us look at the more exact meaning of the text.
(1) To be out of the way is, in the case of all men, their natural state.
(2) In addition to that, men have gone out of their way by their own personal folly. We had enough original sin; but we have added to that another kind of originality in evil.
(3) Some are out of the way because of their seduction from the way by others. False teachers have taught them, and they have taken up with the error brought before them by a stronger mind than their own. In some cases persons of evil life have had a fascination over them.
(4) Many are out of the way because of their backslidings after grace has come to them.
(5) Others are out of the way because of their consciousness of special sin. Come to this compassionate High Priest, and trust your ease in His hands; they were pierced because of your sin.
II. THE SORT OF HIGH PRIEST WITH WHOM SINNERS HAVE TO DEAL.
1. He is One who can bear with ignorance, forgetfulness, and provocation.
2. He is One who can feel for grief, because He has felt the same.
3. He is One who lays Himself out tenderly to help such as come to Him.
4. He is One who never repelled a single person.
III. Now, I want to speak to those of you who are the people of God. I want to remind you that there may be a blessing even in your weakness; and that this may be the more clearly seen we will look, in the third place, at the SORT OF INFIRMITY WHICH MAY BE SANCTIFIED AND MADE USEFUL. The high priest of old was compassed with infirmities, and this was part of his qualification. Yes, says one, but he was compassed with sinful infirmities; but our Lord Jesus had no sin. That is quite true, but remember that this does not make Christ less tender, but more so. Anything that is sinful hardens; and inasmuch as He was without sin, He was without the hardening influence that sin would bring to bear upon a man. He was all the more tender when compassed with infirmities, because sin was excluded from the list. We will not, then, reckon sin in any form as an infirmity likely to be turned to a great use, even though the grace of God abounds over the sin; but let me speak to some of you who wish to do good, and set forth some of the things which were sore to bear at the time, and yet have been rich in blessing since.
1. First think of our struggles in finding mercy. If you have not had a certain experience, you cannot so well help others who have; but if you were compassed with infirmity at your first coming to Christ, you may use that in helping others to come to Him.
2. Again, our grievous temptations may be infirmities which shall be largely used in our service. You cannot be unto others a helper unless you have been compassed with infirmities. Therefore accept the temptations which trouble you so much, as a part of your education to make you useful to others.
3. Our sickness may turn out to be in the same category.
4. Our trials, too, may thus be sanctified.
5. Our depressions may also tend to our fruitfulness. A heart bowed down with despair is a dreadful thing. A wounded spirit who can bear? But if you have never had such an experience you will not be worth a pin as a preacher. You cannot help others who are depressed unless you have been down in the depths yourself. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The compassionate High Priest
I. COMPASSION AND FORBEARANCE, WITH MEEKNESS, IN THOSE FROM WHOM WE EXPECT HELP AND RELIEF, IS THE GREAT MOTIVE AND ENCOURAGEMENT UNTO FAITH, AFFIANCE, AND EXPECTATION OF THEM.
II. We live, THE LIFE OF OUR SOULS IS PRINCIPALLY MAINTAINED, UPON THIS COMPASSIONATENESS OF OUR HIGH PRIEST; namely, that He is able to bear with us in our provocations, and to pity us in our weaknesses and distresses. To this purpose is the promise concerning Him (Isa 40:11). There are three things that are apt to give great provocations unto them that are concerned in us.
1. Frequency in offending.
2. Greatness of offences.
3. Instability in promises and engagements.
These are things apt to give provocations, beyond what ordinary moderation and meekness can bear withal; especially where they are accompanied with a disregard of the greatest love and kindness. And all these are found in believers, some in one, and some in another, and some in all.
III. Though every sin hath in it the whole nature of sin, rendering the sinners obnoxious unto the curse of the law; yet as there are several kinds of sins, so THERE ARE SEVERAL DEGREES OF SIN, some being accompanied with a greater guilt than others.
1. There is a distinction of sins with respect unto the persons that commit them. But this distinction ariseth from the event, and not from the nature of the sin itself intended. Regenerate persons will, through the grace of God, certainly use the means of faith and repentance for the obtaining of pardon, which the other will not; and if they are assisted also so to do, even they in like manner shall obtain forgiveness. No man therefore can take a relief against the guilt of sin from his state and condition, which may be an aggravation, and can be no alleviation of it.
2. There are degrees of sin amongst men unregenerate, who live in a course of sin all their days. All do not sin equally, nor shall all be equally punished.
3. In the sins of believers there are different degrees, both in divers, and in the same persons. And although they shall be all pardoned, yet have they different effects; with respect
(1) Unto peace of conscience.
(2) Sense of the love of God.
(3) Growth in grace and holiness.
(4) Usefulness or scandal in the Church or the world.
(5) Temporal afflictions.
(6) A quiet or troublesome departure out of this world; but in all, a reserve is still to be made for the sovereignty of God and His grace.
IV. OUR IGNORANCE IS BOTH OUR CALAMITY, OUR SIN, AND AN OCCASION OF MANY SINS UNTO US.
V. SIN IS A WANDERING FROM THE WAY.
VI. NO SORT OF SINNERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM AN INTEREST IN THE CARE AND LOVE OF OUR COMPASSIONATE HIGH PRIEST, BUT ONLY THOSE WHO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES BY THEIR UNBELIEF.
VII. IT WAS WELL FOR US, AND ENOUGH FOR US, THAT THE LORD CHRIST WAS ENCOMPASSED WITH THE SINLESS INFIRMITIES OF OUR NATURE.
VIII. GOD CAN TEACH A SANCTIFIED USE OF SINFUL INFIRMITIES, AS HE DID IN AND TO THE PRIESTS UNDER THE LAW. (John Owen, D. D.)
Tenderness
Our relation to the things under us is the most certain touchstone of our character. Here we display quite freely what we are. We embody, on a small scale, as it may be, the spirit of fathers or the spirit of despot. We employ our superiority of power, whatever it is, either to bring to a clearer light the signs of Gods counsel in external nature which wait for our interpretation, or to assert ourselves in the impotence of caprice as able to preserve, or to deface, or to destroy that which it., indeed, Gods work. We either use that which is at our disposal arbitrarily for our own pleasure, or we deal with it as representing some fragment of a complicated order of life. We depress our dependents and our subordinates, the weaker men who come within our influence, that we may be isolated in the splendour of a lonely tyranny, or we strive to lift them little by little towards our own level, that in the great day of revelation we may be seen standing by the throne in the midst of many brethren; for, when we speak of the things under us, we must give to the phrase a much larger meaning than we commonly attach to it. It reaches far beyond the men who are under us. The revelation which has been made to us of the Divine plan of creation shows that we are placed in a world over the whole of which we have to exercise dominion, charged, as the true ruler must be charged, with a responsibility towards every part of it. We have from the first a responsibility towards the material fabric of the world, no less than towards the hosts of sentient beings by which this material fabric is peopled. And then, as the ages go forward, our responsibility increases. The feebler races which fall behind in the development of life become subject to the stronger, and the feebler men to those who in any respect have been endowed with the prerogative of command. Thus the sphere of the responsibility of those to whom power is given becomes indefinitely varied, but in each case the position of authority brings with it the burden of noble cares. We all must and do exercise dominion for good or for evil, and we all need the spirit of tenderness that our dominion may he a blessing. Tenderness is for dominion what sympathy is for fellowship. Tenderness pierces through the surface to the heart of things. It is true of tenderness, in every application of the pregnant figure, that it will not break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax. It discerns the element of strength in that which is most frail, and the element of life in that which is darkest. It sees in forms transitory and common Divine gifts to be handled reverently. It sees in simple and subject types of life memories, as it were, the promises of a great plan slowly fulfilled from stage to stage. It sees in the rudest human mind a mirror for reflecting, however imperfectly, the image of a Father in heaven; and, as we trust the varied vision, new thoughts pass into our own souls, and we become conscious of hidden forces about us which are able to still the sorrowful impatience of our eager desires. Tenderness in each direction quickens our spiritual sensibility, and under inspired teaching, nature and creaturely life and even mans failures disclose mysteries of hope. It springs out of our Christian faith. It is the obvious expression of our Christian faith in regard to the things under us. There is, I say, a tenderness towards material things which belongs to the Christian character. And this tenderness, born from the recognition of God in His creatures, shows itself both in use and in contemplation. There is something of touching solemnity in the form of the Jewish thanksgiving over bread and wine, which may go back even to the apostolic age, Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe. The words remind us that the least and commonest comes from Him who sways the whole. He Himself is seen in His gifts, and in that presence there can be no wastefulness, no carelessness, no ungrateful discontent. Even light and food may be dishonoured by reckless indifference; and we may miss, by blind prodigality, the teachings which come through trivial acts to tender souls. It is, perhaps, yet more obvious how tenderness finds a place in the contemplation of material things. To the hard and the impatient there is no sanctity in the purple mountain-side, no beauty born of murmuring sounds, no majesty in the light of setting suns. The silence that is in the starry sky, the sleep that is among the lonely hills, have for them no particular message; but, none the less, sanctity, beauty, majesty, tidings of great truths are there, and the quiet eye can gather the spiritual harvest. Thus we can see how tenderness has its scope and blessing in mute, insensate things; but perhaps it is most called for in our dealings with animals. These lie in our power in a peculiar sense, and-we need to school ourselves that we may fulfil our duty towards them, for we have a duty towards them. They are not only for our service or for our amusement, they are committed by God to our sovereignty, and we owe to them a considerate regard for their rights. Our responsibility in this respect is easily forgotten. We have all felt, I fancy, something of that irrational pleasure in the capricious use of power which Browning has analysed in his portraiture of Caliban. The boy strikes down the butterfly, the man shoots the swallow on the wing, simply because he can and because he chooses. But these wanton acts are not indifferent. They tend to reveal and to mould character. They break the righteous conditions of our sovereignty. The thought has a wide and a pleasant application, for, looking at the question from this light, I do not see bow the pursuit of amusement can justify the slaughter of animals, or how the pursuit of knowledge can justify their torture. Neither amusement nor knowledge is an end for man. Both must be followed in full view of the supreme aim of life, and in remembrance of the abiding character on which each action leaves its mark. But it may be said we shall gain an insight into the hidden causes of disease, and a mastery over them, through the sufferings which we deliberately inflict on the creatures which are within our control. So far as I can ascertain, the expectation has not been justified by facts, nor can I discover the least reasonable ground for supposing that we shall learn any secrets of life which it is good for us to know by the way of calculated cruelty. If the world were the work of an evil power, or if it were the result of a chance interaction of force and matter, it would be at least possible that we might have gained results physically beneficial to ourselves by the unsparing sacrifice of lower lives. But if He who made us made all other creatures also–if they find a place in His providential plan–if His tender mercies reach to them–and this we Christians most certainly believe–then I find it absolutely inconceivable that He should have so arranged the avenues of knowledge that we can attain to truths it is His will that we should master only through the unutterable agonies of beings which trust in us. If we have guarded the spirit of tenderness in our bearing towards the material world and the animal world, we shall be prepared to apply it also towards weaker races and weaker men who are in a greater or less degree brought within our influence. Every one holds a position of superiority as parent or employer, as richer than others in experience or knowledge, as endowed with authority by years or position; and every one knows the daily vexations which come through the thoughtlessness, or ignorance, or indifference, as it seems to us, of those whom we wish to help in the fulfilment of their duty. Every one, again, has suffered from the temptation which bids the stronger assert his will by his strength, and overbear what he thinks to be an unintelligent opposition, and claim deference as an unquestionable right. At such times we are on our trial, and sympathetic tenderness alone will save us from falling; for tenderness will trace back the wayward act to some trait of natural character which gentle discipline can mould to good. It will discern that involuntary ignorance is to be dealt with as a form of intellectual distress. It will win respect before it claims deference for the authority with which it is entrusted. It will, in a word, turn stumbling-blocks into stepping-stones, and find, by them, the way into many hearts. But it is in dealing with the poorest that tenderness will help us most; and when I speak of the poorest, I mean those who are poorest in thought, in feeling, in aspiration even more than those who are poorest in earthly things. The poor man needs relief–the poor in virtue no less than the poor in money. The bankrupt in noble thoughts is set up again only when he sees the good for which he was made, and sees that it is still within his reach. This prospect tenderness can disclose to him–a tenderness which in view of the saddest spectacles of human failure, kindles in the believer a fire of piety, a light of natural affection, and reveals in the brother for whom Christ died the possibility and the hope of service; for tenderness, no less than reverence and sympathy, flows from Christ only as an inexhaustible source. (Bishop Westcott.)
Compassion qualifies for helpful service amongst men
The following beautiful tradition about Moses is handed down to posterity:–He led the flock of his father-in-law. One day while he was contemplating his flock in the desert, he saw a lamb leave the herd, and run further and further away. The tender shepherd not only followed it with his eyes, but went after it. The lamb quickened his step, hopped over hill, sprang over ditches, hastening through valley and plain; the shepherd unweariedly followed its track. At last the lamb stopped by a spring at which it eagerly quenched its thirst. Moses hastened to the spot, looked sadly at the drinking lamb, and said: It was thirst, then, my poor beast, which tormented time, and drove thee from me, and I didnt understand; now thou art faint and weary from the long, hard way, thy powers are exhausted; how then couldst thou return to thy comrades? After the lamb had quenched his thirst and seemed undecided what course to take, Moses lifted it to his shoulder, and bending under the heavy burden, strode back to the flock. Then he heard the voice of God calling to him, sating: Thou hast a tender heart for My creatures, thou art a kind, gentle shepherd to the flocks of man–thou art now called to feed the flocks of God. (Jewish Messenger.)
Our Lords sympathy
Human sympathy, we must remember, may, and in many cases does, from its very fulness become weakness. The sympathy of a mother for a child will too often prevent her from inflicting necessary punishment. The sympathy of the benevolent for the poor and suffering may, without caution, tend to the encouragement of vice. Sympathy is essentially a womans virtue, but the quickness of feeling which overpowers judgment is also a womans infirmity. There is, in fact, no virtue which more powerfully demands law and limitation before it, can safely be yielded to. But the dignity of our blessed Lords sympathy is as remarkable as its depth. He sympathised with the shame of the sinner whom He pardoned, but He never excused the offence. Thy sins are forgiven thee; go, and sin no more, are the words which have touched the human heart, and worked repentance and amendment of life in thousands since the days when they were first spoken; but no one could ever claim them as an encouragement to sin. The dignity of our Lords sympathy was, in fact, shown by His obedience to the law which bade Him exhibit Gods perfection. He never allowed one virtue to interfere with another. Mercy and truth might meet together, righteousness and peace might kiss each other, but the one never entrenched upon the province of the other; if it had there would have been no perfection. And if we, like Christ, would rightly sympathise; if we would in our degree bear the griefs of our fellow-creatures, without any weakness of judgment or absence of due proportion, we must view those sorrows as Christ viewed them, and soothe them in His spirit. To relieve all anguish, to remove all pain, that is not to be our object. If it were, we might well in sorrow close our doors to the suffering, and, shutting out their misery from our view, give ourselves up to our own enjoyment. For sympathy is pain. When we feel with and for another, we must in a measure suffer; and, looking at the sad amount of wretchedness in this fallen world, we may, perhaps, at first sight be pardoned if we deem it better to be without sympathy–neither to require it for ourselves, nor to offer it to others. The loss on the one side may, we may well think, be counterbalanced by the gain on the other.
Compassion on the ignorant
Men who are ignorant should not be met with scorn, nor fault-finding, nor neglect, for they need compassion. We should lay ourselves out t,, bear with such for their good. A disciple who has been taught all that he knows by a gracious Saviour should have compassion on the ignorant. A wanderer who has been restored should have compassion on them that are out of the way. A priest should have compassion on the people with whom he is one flesh and blood, and assuredly our Lord, who is our great High Priest, has abundant compassion upon the ignorant.
I. WHAT IS THIS IGNORANCE? It is moral and spiritual, and deals with eternal things.
1. It is fearfully common among all ranks.
2. It leaves them strangers to themselves.
(1) They know not their own ignorance.
(2) They are unaware of the hearts depravity.
(3) They ale unconscious of the heinousness of their actual sin.
(4) They dream not of their present and eternal danger.
(5) They have not discovered their inability for all that is good.
3. It leaves them unacquainted with the way of salvation.
(1) They choose other ways.
(2) They have a mixed and injurious notion of the one way.
(3) They often question and cavil at this one and only way.
4. It leaves them without the knowledge of Jesus. They know not His person, offices, work, character, ability, readiness to save.
5. It leaves them strangers to the Holy Spirit.
(1) They perceive not His inward strivings.
(2) They are ignorant of regeneration.
(3) They cannot comprehend the truth which He teaches.
(4) They cannot receive His sanctification.
6. It is most ruinous in its consequences.
(1) It keeps men out of Christ.
(2) It does not excuse them when it is wilful, as it usually is.
II. WHAT IS THERE IN THIS IGNORANCE WHICH IS LIABLE TO PROVOKE US, AND THEREFORE DEMANDS COMPASSION?
1. Its folly. Wisdom is worried with the absurdities of ignorance.
2. Its pride. Anger is excited by the vanity of self-conceit.
3. Its prejudice. It will not hear nor learn; and this is vexatious.
4. Its obstinacy. It refuses reason; and this is very exasperating.
5. Its opposition. It contends against plain truth; and this is trying.
6. Its density. It cannot be enlightened; it is profoundly foolish.
7. Its unbelief. Witnesses to Divine truth are denied credence.
8. Its wilfulness. It chooses not to know. It is hard teaching such.
9. Its relapses. It returns to folly, forgets and refuses wisdom, and this is a sore affliction to true love.
III. How OUR LORDS COMPASSION TOWARDS THE IGNORANT IS SHOWN.
1. By offering to teach them.
2. By actually receiving them as disciples.
3. By instructing them little by little, most condescendingly.
4. By teaching them the same things over again, patiently.
5. By never despising them notwithstanding their dulness.
6. By never casting them off through weariness of their stupidity. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Ignorance
It is a sad thing for the blind man who has to read the raised type when the tips of his fingers harden, for then he cannot read the thoughts of men which stand out upon the page; but it is far worse to lose sensibility of soul, for then you cannot peruse the book of human nature, but must remain untaught in the sacred literature of the heart. You have heard of the iron duke, but an iron Christian would be a very terrible person: a heart of flesh is the gift of Divine grace, and one of its sure results is the power to be very pitiful, tender, and full of compassion. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Ignorance is the devils college. (Christmas Evans.)
The sin of ignorance
In that the ignorant are here brought in as an instance of such sinners as were to have sacrifices offered up for their sins, the apostle giveth us to understand, that ignorance is a sin. It is expressly said, That if any soul sin through ignorance, he shall bring a sin-offering Num 15:27-28).
1. Ignorance is a transgression of the law of God, for it is contrary to that knowledge which the law requireth: but every transgression is sin (1Jn 3:4).
2. Ignorance is a defect of that image of God, after which God at first created man; for knowledge was a part of that image (Col 3:10).
3. Ignorance is an especial branch of that natural corruption which seized upon the principal part of man, namely, his understanding.
4. Ignorance is the cause of many other sins (Gal 4:8; 1Ti 1:13). Therefore it must needs be a sin itself.
5. Judgments are denounced against ignorance, as against a sin (Ho 2Th 1:8).
6. Ignorance is a punishment of other sins (Isa 6:10; Joh 12:40). Though ignorance be a sin, yet ignorant persons are here brought in as a fit object of compassion. Christ renders this ground of His praying for the Jews that had a hand in crucifying Him (Luk 23:34). And Peter allegeth it as a ground of His tendering mercy unto them (Act 3:17). Ignorance is a spiritual blindness, so as they see not the dangerous course wherein they walk, and in that respect are the more to be pitied. (W. Gouge.)
Ignorance causes neglect of religion
Its ignorance of the price of pearls that makes the idiot slight them. Its ignorance of the worth of diamonds that makes the fool choose a pebble before them. Its ignorance of the satisfaction learning affords that makes the peasant despise and laugh at it; and we very ordinarily see how men tread and trample on those plants which are the greatest restoratives, because they know not the virtue of them; and the same may justly be affirmed of religion, the reason why men meddle no more with it is–because they are not acquainted with the pleasantness of it. (Anthony Horneck.)
Ministers must remember the ignorant
When I preach I sink myself deep down. I regard neither doctors nor magistrates, of whom are here in this church above forty; but I have an eye to the multitude of young people, children, and servants, of whom are more than two thousand. I preach to those, directing myself to them that have need thereof. Will not the rest hear me? The door stands open unto them; they may begone. (M. Luther.)
Offer for sins
The great sacrifice
I. THE ABSOLUTE HOLINESS AND SPOTLESS INNOCENCE OF THE LORD CHRIST, IN HIS OFFERING OF HIMSELF, HAD A SIGNAL INFLUENCE UNTO THE EFFICACY OF HIS SACRIFICE, AND IS A GREAT ENCOURAGEMENT UNTO OUR FAITH AND CONSOLATION. No other sort of high priest could have done what was to be done for us. Had He had any sin of His own He could never have taken all sin from us. From hence it was that what He did was so acceptable with God, and that what He suffered was justly imputed unto us, seeing there was no cause in Himself why He should suffer at all. And we may see herein
1. Pure unmixed love and grace. He had not the least concern in what He did or suffered herein for Himself. This was the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich, for our sakes He became poor. And will He not pursue the same love unto the end?
2. The efficacy and merit of His oblation, that was animated by the life and quintessence of obedience. There was in it the highest sufferings, and the most absolute innocency, knit together by an act of most inexpressible obedience.
3. The perfection of the example that is set before us (1Pe 2:21-22).
II. WHOSOEVER DEALETH WITH GOD OR MAN ABOUT THE SINS OF OTHERS, SHOULD LOOK WELL IN THE FIRST PLACE UNTO HIS OWN. There are four ways whereby some may act with respect unto the sins of others, and not one of them wherein they can discharge their duty aright, if in the same kind they take not care of themselves in the first place.
1. It is the duty of some to endeavour the conversion of others from a state of sin. How can they press that on others, which they neither know what it is, nor whether it be or not, any otherwise than as blind men know there are colours? By such persons are the souls of men ruined, who undertake the dispensation of the gospel unto them, for their conversion unto God, knowing nothing of it themselves.
2. It is our duty to keep those in whom we are concerned, as much as in us lieth, from sinning, or from actual sin. With what confidence, with what conscience can we endeavour this towards others, if we do not first take the highest care herein of ourselves?
3. To direct and assist others in the obtaining pardon for sin is also the duty of some. And this they may do two ways
(1) By directing them in their application unto God by Jesus Christ for grace and mercy.
(2) By earnest supplications with them and for them. And what will they do, what can they do, in these things sincerely for others, who make not use of them for themselves?
4. To administer consolation under sinning, or surprisals with sin, unto such as God would have to be comforted, is another duty of the like kind.
And how shall this be done by such as were never cast down for sin themselves, nor ever spiritually comforted of God?
III. No DIGNITY OF PERSON OR PLACE, NO DUTY, NO MERIT, CAN DELIVER SINNERS FROM STANDING IN NEED OF A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. THE HIGH PRIEST, BEING A SINNER, WAS TO OFFER HIMSELF.
IV. IT WAS A PART OF THE DARKNESS AND BONDAGE OF THE CHURCH UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT, THAT THEIR HIGH PRIESTS HAD NEED TO OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR OWN SINS. It is a relief to sinners that the word of reconciliation is administered unto them, and the sacrifice of Christ proposed, by men subject unto the like infirmities with themselves. For there is a testimony therein, how that they also may find acceptance with God, seeing He deals with them by those who are sinners also. But these are not the persons who procure the remission, or have made the atonement which they declare. Were it so, who could with any confidence acquiesce therein? But this is the holy way of God. Those who are sinners declare the atonement which was made by Him who had no sin. (John Owen, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER V.
The nature of the high priesthood of Christ; his pre-eminence,
qualifications, and order, 1-10.
Imperfect state of the believing Hebrews, and the necessity of
spiritual improvement, 11-14.
NOTES ON CHAP. V.
Verse 1. For every high priest taken from among men] This seems to refer to Le 21:10, where it is intimated that the high priest shall be taken meachaiv, from his brethren; i.e. he shall be of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron.
Is ordained for men] . Is appointed to preside over the Divine worship in those things which relate to man’s salvation.
That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins] God ever appeared to all his followers in two points of view:
1. As the author and dispenser of all temporal good.
2. As their lawgiver and judge. In reference to this twofold view of the Divine Being, his worship was composed of two different parts:
1. Offerings or gifts.
2. Sacrifices.
1. As the creator and dispenser of all good, he had offerings by which his bounty and providence were acknowledged.
2. As the lawgiver and judge, against whose injunctions offences had been committed, he had sacrifices offered to him to make atonement for sin. The , or gifts, mentioned here by the apostle, included every kind of eucharistical offering.
The , sacrifices, included victims of every sort, or animals whose lives were to be offered in sacrifice, and their blood poured out before God, as an atonement for sins. The high priest was the mediator between God and the people; and it was his office, when the people had brought these gifts and sacrifices, to offer them to God in their behalf. The people could not legitimately offer their own offerings, they must be all brought to the priest, and he alone could present them to God. As we have a high priest over the house of God, to offer all our gifts and his own sacrifice, therefore we may come with boldness to the throne of grace. See above.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For every high priest taken from among men: for is a rational particle, enforcing the truth of what was asserted concerning the gospel High Priest before, that he was the most sensible and tender-hearted of all other, beyond what all his types were, even Aaron himself: how did it therefore behove those Hebrews to cleave to him and his religion, as to desert the Levitical priesthood which he had perfected in himself; he being more excellent for rise, qualities, office, call, than his preceding types, and the permanent truth of them all! For every one of that order in Gods institution, and according to his law, ought to be selected out of the numbers of men for whom he was to minister, and therefore to be a man. He was not to be an angel, nor to minister for them; and being separated from men, is to be put into another and higher rank and order, Exo 28:1, than he was in before: no person was to usurp it, but to be designed to it according to the Divine law settled in that behalf. This was accomplished in Christs person, and he hath not since selected out of men any such order of priests properly so called in the Christian church. His officers being so far from being high priests, that they are not so much as in the enumeration of their titles styled , priests; and as far is it from truth, that there are now as priests, so altars, sacrifices, temples in the Christian church properly so called; since it is expressly against the New Testament, and if so spoken of by the fathers, it must be understood figuratively and metaphorically, or else it is untrue.
Is ordained for men in things pertaining to God; , the designed person, is constituted and set over others for their good, to seek either temporal or spiritual good, as the office is: compare Heb 8:3. By this ordination is power conveyed to this officer, and an obligation laid on him by a charge to exert it about things wherein men are concerned with God: he is a religious officer. is imperfect, as Heb 2:7, for , in things, or , about things. A sinner can undertake to manage nothing towards God immediately, or by himself, but with a mediating priest, who must know Gods mind and perform it; and it was infinite mercy for God to institute such a help to sinners. The common sense of mankind about it since the fall doth evince it; no nation being without a religion, a temple, a place of worship, or a priest.
That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; who may bring home to God, the supreme Lord and King of all, gifts, which were those free-will offerings, as of things inanimate, the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, &c., or of sacrifices, such whereby they were to atone and propitiate God for their sins, they being guilty, and he just; those were necessary to satisfy his justice, remove his wrath, and procure his blessing. What those sacrifices were which would please him, God only could reveal, as who should offer them both for himself and others: and this he did reveal to Adam, Noah, and Abraham, and to Moses fully in his law given him about them on the mount, and of which he hath written in his last four books.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Forsubstantiating Heb4:15.
everythat is, everylegitimate high priest; for instance, the Levitical, as he isaddressing Hebrews, among whom the Levitical priesthood wasestablished as the legitimate one. Whatever, reasons Paul, isexcellent in the Levitical priests, is also in Christ, and besidesexcellencies which are not in the Levitical priests.
taken from among mennotfrom among angels, who could not have a fellow feeling with us men.This qualification Christ has, as being, like the Levitical priest, aman (Heb 2:14; Heb 2:16).Being “from men,” He can be “for (thatis, in behalf of, for the good of) men.”
ordainedGreek,“constituted,” “appointed.”
both giftsto be joinedwith “for sins,” as “sacrifices” is (the “both. . . and” requires this); therefore not the Hebrew,“mincha,” “unbloody offerings,” but animalwhole burnt offerings, spontaneously given. “Sacrifices”are the animal sacrifices due according to the legal ordinance[ESTIUS].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For every high priest taken from among men,…. Every one that was an high priest under the law was a man, and not an angel; and it was proper he should be so, that he might be a priest for men, have compassion on them, and offer for them; and he was among the number of common men, and was taken out from them, and chosen and separated from the rest of men, as Aaron and his sons were from the children of Israel, Ex 28:1. And such an one
is ordained for men; in their room and stead, and for their good; and above them, as the word sometimes signifies; he was exalted unto, and invested with a superior office, to which he was ordained according to the law of a carnal commandment, by anointing with oil, and without an oath.
In things pertaining to God; in things in which God had to do with men; and so he presided over them in the name of God, and declared the will of God unto them, and blessed them; and in things in which men had to do with God; and so he appeared in their name, and represented their persons, and presented their sacrifices to God, as follows:
that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; freewill offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings, sin and trespass offerings, all kind of sacrifice.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Priesthood of Christ. | A. D. 62. |
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
We have here an account of the nature of the priestly office in general, though with an accommodation to the Lord Jesus Christ. We are told,
I. Of what kind of beings the high priest must be. He must be taken from among men; he must be a man, one of ourselves, bone of our bones, flesh of our flesh, and spirit of our spirits, a partaker of our nature, and a standard-bearer among ten thousand. This implies, 1. That man had sinned. 2. That God would not admit sinful man to come to him immediately and alone, without a high priest, who must be taken from among men. 3. That God was pleased to take one from among men, by whom they might approach God in hope, and he might receive them with honour. 4. That every one shall now be welcome to God that comes to him by this his priest.
II. For whom every high priest is ordained: For men in things pertaining to God, for the glory of God and the good of men, that he might come between God and man. So Christ did; and therefore let us never attempt to go to God but through Christ, nor expect any favour from God but through Christ.
III. For what purpose every high priest was ordained: That he might offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.
1. That he might offer gifts or free-will offerings, brought to the high priest, so offered for the glory of God, and as an acknowledgment that our all is of him and from him; we have nothing but what he is pleased to give us, and of his own we offer to him an oblation of acknowledgment. This intimates, (1.) That all we bring to God must be free and not forced; it must be a gift; it must be given and not taken away again. (2.) That all we bring to God must go through the high priest’s hands, as the great agent between God and man.
2. That he might offer sacrifices for sin; that is, the offerings that were appointed to make atonement, that sin might be pardoned and sinners accepted. Thus Christ is constituted a high priest for both these ends. Our good deeds must be presented by Christ, to render ourselves and them acceptable; and our evil deeds must be expiated by the sacrifice of himself, that they may not condemn and destroy us. And now, as we value acceptance with God and pardon, we must apply ourselves by faith to this our great high priest.
IV. How this high priest must be qualified, v. 2.
1. He must be one that can have compassion on two sorts of persons:– (1.) On the ignorant, or those that are guilty of sins of ignorance. He must be one who can find in his heart to pity them, and intercede with God for them, one that is willing to instruct those that are dull of understanding. (2.) On those that are out of the way, out of the way of truth, duty, and happiness; and he must be one who has tenderness enough to lead them back from the by-paths of error, sin, and misery, into the right way: this will require great patience and compassion, even the compassion of a God.
2. He must also be compassed with infirmity; and so be able from himself feelingly to consider our frame, and to sympathize with us. Thus Christ was qualified. He took upon him our sinless infirmities; and this gives us great encouragement to apply ourselves to him under every affliction; for in all the afflictions of his people he is afflicted.
V. How the high priest was to be called of God. He must have both an internal and external call to his office: For no man taketh this honour to himself (v. 4), that is, no man ought to do it, no man can do it legally; if any does it, he must be reckoned a usurper, and treated accordingly. Here observe, 1. The office of the priesthood was a very great honour. To be employed to stand between God and man, one while representing God and his will to men, at another time representing man and his case to God, and dealing between them about matters of the highest importance–entrusted on both sides with the honour of God and the happiness of man–must render the office very honourable. 2. The priesthood is an office and honour that no man ought to take to himself; if he does, he can expect no success in it, nor any reward for it, only from himself. He is an intruder who is not called of God, as was Aaron. Observe, (1.) God is the fountain of all honour, especially true spiritual honour. He is the fountain of true authority, whether he calls any to the priesthood in an extraordinary way, as he did Aaron, or in an ordinary way, as he called his successors. (2.) Those only can expect assistance from God, and acceptance with him, and his presence and blessing on them and their administrations, that are called of God; others may expect a blast instead of a blessing.
VI. How this is brought home and applied to Christ: So Christ glorified not himself, v. 5. Observe here, Though Christ reckoned it his glory to be made a high priest, yet he would not assume that glory to himself. He could truly say, I seek not my own glory, John viii. 50. Considered as God, he was not capable of any additional glory, but as man and Mediator he did not run without being sent; and, if he did not, surely others should be afraid to do it.
VII. The apostle prefers Christ before Aaron, both in the manner of his call and in the holiness of his person. 1. In the manner of his call, in which God said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee (quoted from Ps. ii. 7), referring to his eternal generation as God, his wonderful conception as man, and his perfect qualification as Mediator. Thus God solemnly declared his dear affection to Christ, his authoritative appointment of him to the office of a Mediator, his installment and approbation of him in that office, his acceptance of him, and of all he had done or should do in the discharge of it. Now God never said thus to Aaron. Another expression that God used in the call of Christ we have in Ps. cx. 4, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec, v. 6. God the Father appointed him a priest of a higher order than that of Aaron. The priesthood of Aaron was to be but temporary; the priesthood of Christ was to be perpetual: the priesthood of Aaron was to be successive, descending from the fathers to the children; the priesthood of Christ, after the order of Melchisedec, was to be personal, and the high priest immortal as to his office, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, as it is more largely described in the seventh chapter, and will be opened there. 2. Christ is here preferred to Aaron in the holiness of his person. Other priests were to offer up sacrifices, as for the sins of others, so for themselves, v. 3. But Christ needed not to offer for sins for himself, for he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth, Isa. liii. 9. And such a high priest became us.
VIII. We have an account of Christ’s discharge of this his office, and of the consequences of that discharge, v. 7-9.
1. The discharge of his office of the priesthood (v. 7): Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, c. Here observe, (1.) He took to him flesh, and for some days tabernacled therein he became a mortal man, and reckoned his life by days, herein setting us an example how we should reckon ours. Were we to reckon our lives by days, it would be a means to quicken us to do the work of every day in its day. (2.) Christ, in the days of his flesh, subjected himself to death; he hungered, he was a tempted, bleeding, dying Jesus! He body is now in heaven, but it is a spiritual glorious body. (3.) God the Father was able to save him from death. He could have prevented his dying, but he would not; for then the great design of his wisdom and grace must have been defeated. What would have become of us if God had saved Christ from dying? The Jews reproachfully said, Let him deliver him now, if he will have him, Matt. xxvii. 43. But it was in kindness to us that the Father would not suffer that bitter cup to pass away from him; for then we must have drunk the dregs of it, and been miserable for ever. (4.) Christ, in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications to his Father, as an earnest of his intercession in heaven. A great many instances we have of Christ’s praying. This refers to his prayer in his agony (Mat 26:39; Mat 27:46), and to that before his agony (John xvii.) which he put up for his disciples, and all who should believe on his name. (5.) The prayers and supplications that Christ offered up were joined with strong cries and tears, herein setting us an example not only to pray, but to be fervent and importunate in prayer. How many dry prayers, how few wet ones, do we offer up to God! (6.) Christ was heard in that he feared. How? Why he was answered by present supports in and under his agonies, and in being carried well through death, and delivered from it by a glorious resurrection: He was heard in that he feared. He had an awful sense of the wrath of God, of the weight of sin. His human nature was ready to sink under the heavy load, and would have sunk, had he been quite forsaken in point of help and comfort from God; but he was heard in this, he was supported under the agonies of death. He was carried through death; and there is no real deliverance from death but to be carried well through it. We may have many recoveries from sickness, but we are never saved from death till we are carried well through it. And those that are thus saved from death will be fully delivered at last by a glorious resurrection, of which the resurrection of Christ was the earnest and first-fruits.
2. The consequences of this discharge of his office, Heb 5:8; Heb 5:9, c.
(1.) By these his sufferings he learned obedience, though he was a Son, <i>v. 8. Here observe, [1.] The privilege of Christ: He was a Son; the only-begotten of the Father. One would have thought this might have exempted him from suffering, but it did not. Let none then who are the children of God by adoption expect an absolute freedom from suffering. What Son is he whom the Father chasteneth not? [2.] Christ made improvement by his sufferings. By his passive obedience, he learned active obedience; that is, he practiced that great lesson, and made it appear that he was well and perfectly learned in it; though he never was disobedient, yet he never performed such an act of obedience as when he became obedient to death, even to the death of the cross. Here he has left us an example, that we should learn by all our afflictions a humble obedience to the will of God. We need affliction, to teach us submission.
(2.) By these his sufferings he was made perfect, and became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, v. 9. [1.] Christ by his sufferings was consecrated to his office, consecrated by his own blood. [2.] By his sufferings he consummated that part of his office which was to be performed on earth, making reconciliation for iniquity; and in this sense he is said to be made perfect, a perfect propitiation. [3.] Hereby he has become the author of eternal salvation to men; he has by his sufferings purchased a full deliverance from sin and misery, and a full fruition of holiness and happiness for his people. Of this salvation he has given notice in the gospel; he has made a tender of it in the new covenant, and has sent the Spirit to enable men to accept this salvation. [4.] This salvation is actually bestowed on none but those who obey Christ. It is not sufficient that we have some doctrinal knowledge of Christ, or that we make a profession of faith in him, but we must hearken to his word, and obey him. He is exalted to be a prince to rule us, as well as a Saviour to deliver us; and he will be a Saviour to none but to those whom he is a prince, and who are willing that he should reign over them; the rest he will account his enemies, and treat them accordingly. But to those who obey him, devoting themselves to him, denying themselves, and taking up their cross, and following him, he will be the author, aitios–the grand cause of their salvation, and they shall own him as such for ever.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
In things pertaining to God ( ). Accusative of general reference as in 2:17 (Ro 15:17). The two essential points about any high priest are human sympathy (5:1-3) and divine appointment (5:4). He is taken from men and appointed in behalf of men.
That he may offer ( ). Purpose clause with and present active subjunctive of , “that he keep on offering (from time to time).”
Both gifts ()
and sacrifices ( ). General term () and bloody offerings, but the two together are inclusive of all as in Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9 (1Ki 8:64).
For sins ( ). His own included (7:27) except in the case of Jesus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Every high priest [ ] . Every Levitical high priest. Arciereuv o P.
Taken [] . Rend. being taken, or since he is taken : not who is taken. The point is that the high priest ‘s efficiency for men depends on his being taken from among men.
Is ordained [] . Constituted priest. See on Tit 1:5.
For men [ ] . On behalf of men.
In things pertaining to God [ ] . As respects his relation to God. See on ch. Heb 2:17.
That he may offer [ ] . Prosferein, lit. to bring to (the altar). Comp. Mt 5:23. o P., who, however, has the kindred noun prosfora offering. Very often in LXX; nineteen times in Hebrews, and always, with one exception (ch. 12 7), in the technical sense, as here. Gifts – sacrifices [ – ] . Dwra offerings generally : qusiav bloody sacrifices. The distinction, however, is not constantly observed. Thus, qusiai, of unbloody offerings, Gen 4:3, 5; Lev 2:1; Num 5:15 : dwra, of bloody offerings, Gen 4:4; Lev 1:2, 3, 10.
For sins [ ] . In this the priest ‘s efficiency is especially called out, and he who has not genuine compassion for the sinful cannot do this efficiently. Hence the words which follow.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
OUR HIGH PRIEST The Office of High Priest
1) “For every high priest,” (pas gar archiereus) “Because every (each, all) high priest,” This continues the thought of the previous chapter, Heb 4:15-16, concerning earthly high priests, especially of the Levitical order, Heb 4:14.
2) “Taken from among men,” (eks anthropon lambanomenos) “Who is taken from among the masses of men,” selected, ordained or consecrated for priestly service, taken from among men, fitted to feel human sympathy, Luk 22:28,
3) “Is ordained of men,” (hupes anthropon kathistatai) “Is (exists as) having been appointed of men,” of the will, actions, and choice of men, Heb 8:3. These ordinations are for Divine service of personal relationship between God and men.
4) “In things pertaining to God,” (ta pros ton theon) “With regard to (Things of) God,” services God has appointed or set in order, Heb 2:7; Heb 8:4.
5) “That he may offer,” (hina prosphere) “In order that he (the high priest) may offer,” that he may bear in his official services on behalf of the people, the true sacrifice, as an holy, sinless, High Priest, Heb 9:9.
6) “Both gifts and sacrifices,” (dora te kai thusias)”Both gifts and (as well as) sacrifices,” Heb 10:10-12. Gifts were inanimate things, sacrifices were living animals, Lev 4:3; Lev 9:7; Lev 16:6; Lev 6:14-15.
7) “For sins,” (huper hamartion) “on behalf of sins,” To make atonement for or acknowledgment of sins, Heb 11:4; But Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice and all that he had for man, Gal 1:4; Gal 2:20; Tit 2:14; 1Ti 2:6; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 3:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. For every high priest, etc. He compares Christ with the Levitical priests, and he teaches us what is the likeness and the difference between them; and the object of the whole discourse is, to show what Christ’s office really is, and also to prove that whatever was ordained under the law was ordained on his account. Hence the Apostle passes on at last to show that the ancient priesthood was abolished.
He first says that the priests were taken from among men; secondly, that they did not act a private part but for the whole people; thirdly, that they were not to come empty to appease God, but furnished with sacrifices; fourthly, that they were not to be exempt from human infirmities, that they might more readily succor the distressed; and lastly, that they were not presumptuously to rush into this office, and that then only was the honor legitimate when they were chosen and approved by God. We shall consider briefly each of these points.
We must first, however, expose the ignorance of those who apply these things to our time, as though there was at this day the same need of priests to offer sacrifices; at the same time there is no necessity for a long refutation. For what can be more evident than that the reality found in Christ is compared with its types, which, being prior in time, have now ceased? But this will appear more fully from the context. How extremely ridiculous then are they who seek by this passage to establish and support the sacrifice of the mass! I now return to the words of the Apostle.
Taken from among men, etc. This he says of the priests. It hence follows that it was necessary for Christ to be a real man; for as we are very far from God, we stand in a manner before him in the person of our priest, which could not be, were he not one of us. Hence, that the Son of God has a nature in common with us, does not diminish his dignity, but commends it the more to us; for he is fitted to reconcile us to God, because he is man. Therefore Paul, in order to prove that he is a Mediator, expressly calls him man; for had he been taken from among angels or any other beings, we could not by him be united to God, as he could not react down to us.
For men, etc. This is the second clause; the priest was not privately a minister for himself, but was appointed for the common good of the people. But it is of great consequence to notice this, so that we may know that the salvation of us all is connected with and revolves on the priesthood of Christ. The benefit is expressed in these words, ordains those things which pertain to God. They may, indeed, be explained in two ways, as the verb καθίσταται has a passive as well as an active sense. They who take it passively give this version, “is ordained in those things,” etc.; and thus they would have the preposition in to be understood; I approve more of the other rendering, that the high priest takes care of or ordains the things pertaining to God; for the construction flows better, and the sense is fuller. (84) But still in either way, what the Apostle had in view is the same, namely, that we have no intercourse with God, except there be a priest; for, as we are unholy, what have we to do with holy things? We are in a word alienated from God and his service until a priest interposes and undertakes our cause.
That he may offer both gifts, etc. The third thing he mentions respecting a priest is the offering of gifts. There are however here two things, gifts and sacrifices; the first word includes, as I think, various kinds of sacrifices, and is therefore a general term; but the second denotes especially the sacrifices of expiation. Still the meaning is, that the priest without a sacrifice is no peacemaker between God and man, for without a sacrifice sins are not atoned for, nor is the wrath of God pacified. Hence, whenever reconciliation between God and man takes place, this pledge must ever necessarily precede. Thus we see that angels are by no means capable of obtaining for us God’s favor, because they have no sacrifice. The same must be thought of Prophets and Apostles. Christ alone then is he, who having taken away sins by his own sacrifice, can reconcile God to us.
(84) The former view is what is commonly taken, “is appointed;” and it comports with the subject in hand — the appointment of the priest, as it appears evident from what follows in verses 5 and 6. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CHARACTER-FITNESS FOR HIGH-PRIESTLY WORK
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
THE writer now fixes attention on the high-priesthood, shows what are its characteristic and essential features, and makes comparisons with, and in part contrasts with, the high-priesthood of Christ. His points are:
1. The priest was appointed for men; on behalf of, to superintend and direct the concerns which men have with God.
2. The priest, by reason of his own personal experiences of human infirmity, must be able to sympathise.
3. The priest could only be constituted such by Divine appointment. In showing that Christ is an abiding and all-sufficient High Priest and Saviour, the writer is led to speak of deep and difficult things, involving a very full and spiritual knowledge of the sacred word. He therefore stops in his argument to reprove the slowness and dulness of the spiritual understanding of those to whom he writes.
Heb. 5:1. Taken from among men.Or, since he is taken. There is no suggestion that Christ was not so taken. The expression simply means, inasmuch as taken from men. To this condition the eternal Word conformed by becoming incarnate. For men.On mens behalf; for the benefit of men (). Not meaning instead of. Things. : mens religious concerns; such of them at least as deal with ceremonial relations, worship, and sacrifice. Gifts and sacrifices. , thank-offerings, and sin- and trespass-offerings, the latter differing from the former in involving the life of a victim. In classical Greek the word sacrifices is only used to mean slain beasts. In Old Testament usage the term gifts included both unbloody and bloody offerings. All forms of offering had to be presented by the priest. So all forms of spiritual gift and sacrifice have to be presented by Christ as the great High Priest.
Heb. 5:2. Have compassion.. The classical usage of this word is thus explained: The Stoics said man should be , not subject to passions. The Platonists said man should be , moderate in affections, and not . The use of the verb is peculiar to the New Testament. The leading idea of the word is to be moderate in our feelings and passions; here wisely restrained in dealing with those who err through ignorance. The word is found both in Philo and Josephus. Margin, reasonably bear with; R.V. bear gently with. Ignorant out of the way.R.V. ignorant and erring. Those whose burdens are sins of frailty, and those whose burdens are sins of wilfulness. Both classes seek and need the sympathy of the high priest. Himself also.A frail man. Fellow-experience is the condition of all true help given to others. Those who have not themselves erred are proverbially harsh: here means moral infirmity, not the natural frailty of the physical system.
Heb. 5:3. Reason hereof.By reason of his own moral infirmity, which involves his own sin. Reference may be intended to the particular ceremonies of the Day of Atonement. (In Heb. 7:26-28 the difference in this respect between the old high priest and Christ is presented.) He ought.He is bound not merely as a legal duty, but as a moral necessity.
Heb. 5:4. Unto himself.The jealousy with which the high-priesthood was kept in the God-appointed family of Aaron is a remarkable feature of the old economy. Farrar quotes the following sentence from one of the Jewish Midrashim: Moses says to Korah, If Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excused for murmuring against him; but God gave it to him. See Numbers 16-18. R.V. gives the verse precisely, And no man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, as was Aaron.
Heb. 5:5. Glorified.Did not claim honour for Himself (Joh. 8:54; Rom. 11:13). Begotten Thee.As applied to an office, this means exalted.
Heb. 5:7.This and the two following verses illustrate Heb. 5:2 in reference to Christ. I. have shown you that a priest must have experience and fellow-feeling; our great High Priest has. Days of His flesh.As distinguished from His present day of glory. The special scene in the mind of the writer appears to be the agony in Gethsemane. That scene should be read in the light of this text. There can be no question about Christs having an actual experience of mans inward soul-troubles. The difficulty of the verse is connected with the sentence, and was heard in that He feared, ; R.V. having been heard for His godly fear; because of His reverential awe. The words may mean, because of His fear; or, on account of His fear; or, in respect of that which He feared. Stuart prefers, was delivered from that which He feared.
Heb. 5:8. Learned He.Or, He was subjected, though so exalted a personage, to learn experimentally, what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings.
Heb. 5:9. Made perfect.In the sense of being adequately fitted for His work, and entirely competent to undertake it. Eternal salvation.In the sense of being a continuous, abiding, perpetual, ever-working power to save and sanctify. The word eternal in the New Testament is often used as equivalent to spiritual. And the spiritual is necessarily the permanent.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 5:1-10
Qualifications of Priesthood.The subject which mainly occupies the attention of this writer is introduced in Heb. 4:14-16, which should properly begin chap. 5. The references to the Divine nature of Christ in chap. 1, and to the human nature of Christ in chap. 2, were introductory to the full consideration of the relation in which this Divine-human person stood to men, and of the office which He held in order to accomplish mans full redemption. He was writing to Jews, who were not only familiar with the priestly system, but were hindered by their interest in its formality from apprehending its spiritual fulfilment in Christ. As the writer had both compared and contrasted Moses and Christ, giving all honour to Moses that was due to him, but giving the greater honour to Christ, so now he both compares and contrasts the older formal high priest and the new spiritual High Priest, giving honour to the old, while showing that, having fruitened in the new, it may be allowed to pass away. In the passage Heb. 4:14-16 what is involved in the humanity and sinless experience in a sinful world of the new High Priest is stated in a general way. In the passage now before us the qualifications of the new High Priest are given more in detail, and with the qualifications of the Jewish priests in mind. The comparison of the Aaronical priesthood, as to dignity, duties, office, and utility, with that of Christ, and of their functions with His, makes up the body of the epistle, extending to Heb. 10:18. Stuart gives the comparisons of the passage now before us thus:
1. Every priest is appointed on behalf of men, in order that he may superintend and direct the concerns which men have with God, and may present their oblations and sacrifices before Him.
2. Every priest being himself compassed with infirmity, is prepared by his own experience to sympathise with others in like condition; and because of his own sins and imperfections, it becomes his duty to offer expiatory sacrifices for himself as well as for them.
3. No priest appoints himself to the sacred office; his appointment is by Divine direction. But the comparison may be somewhat more fully elaborated.
I. A necessary qualification of priesthood is a Divine call.No man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, as was Aaron. This is an appeal to the sentiment of the stricter Jews, who regarded with extreme jealousy the exclusive rights of the Aaronic priesthood. It alone was the appointment of God. It was an easy thing for an objector to distress the Jewish Christians by urging on their attention that Christ could have no claims to the high-priesthood, seeing that He belonged to the tribe of Judah, not to the tribe of Levi, and not in any sense to the Aaronic family. The answer is as simple as it is satisfactory. True, God appointed Aaron. True, no one can alter the appointment but He who made it. But God is not imprisoned in His own appointments. He can alter them if He wills so to do. His fresh appointments are as valid as His earlier ones. He has superseded the Aaronic priesthood. He has called Jesus to a permanent spiritual priesthood; and this the Scriptures plainly testify. Two passages are given, and these, according to Jewish principles of interpretation, would be regarded as fully satisfactory evidence. We should pay more heed to the evidence of the Incarnation, and of the Divine voice of attestation at our Lords baptism and transfiguration.
II. A necessary qualification of priesthood is gracious character.The high priest ought always to have been the ideal good man of his generationwho can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. Our almost exclusive attention to the sacrificial side of priestly work has prevented our giving due heed to the priestly example and moral influence. A side-light is thrown upon it by the narrative of Hannahs visit to the tabernacle. The high priest Eli noticed her, and felt it to be a part of his duty to reprove what seemed to be a fault in her. There can be no doubt that the high priests were the moral and religious advisers of the people. It was not only that the people inquired of God through the high priest, who had the oracle, they also sought advice from him in the difficulties and perplexities of their commonplace, everyday effort to live the godly life. It was absolutely essential therefore that he should have
(1) a gracious natural disposition;
(2) a wisely trained and cultured character; and
(3) the discipline of personal experience of the sorrows of human life. Grant this, and it may easily be shown that the Lord Jesus, as the spiritual High Priest, altogether surpasses any previous priest in this threefold qualification. In Him there was unusual natural power of sympathy; complete, all-round culture of character; and very full discipline through experience of suffering. Having been made perfect, He became unto all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation. Christs character is power.
III. A necessary qualification of priesthood is the discipline of experience.Mention has been made of this in its relation to character; now we see it in relation to official duties. A man must know life, as it can only be known, by passing through its varied experiences, if he is to advise, convict, aid, or comfort his fellows. The tone on a mans work is strangely changed when he has come through suffering. The older priests lived a family life through a great part of the year, and so shared common human experiences. If the veil were lifted from the first thirty years of our Lords life, we should probably be surprised to see how severe was the discipline of experience that He passed through. Two things are prominent in this passage:
1. Our Lords experience of prayer (Heb. 5:7).
2. Our Lords experience of suffering (Heb. 5:8).
IV. A necessary qualification of priesthood is a Divinely appointed order.Named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. A man called of God is not to be regarded as an independent man, who may carry out his priesthood in his own ways. He belongs to some order. But God has more than one order. All we have to be anxious about is, that the man should be in one of Gods orders. He has temporary orders, such as that of Levi; and He has permanent orders, like that of Melchizedek. He has hereditary orders, and orders of personal Divine call. This subject is treated more fully in a later chapter of the epistle.
In application show that the qualifications of priesthood are the qualifications of all who engage in the sacred ministry, and indeed of all who are endeavouring to serve others in the name of Christ.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Heb. 5:1-10. Fitness of the High Priest.The general idea of this passage has been thus given: For as every human high priest shares the nature of those on behalf of whom he appears before God, and thus can be compassionate towards them; and, moreover, can only receive his appointment from God; so Christ is God-appointed. He has learned His obedience through sufferings, and, thus made perfect, is declared by God High Priest for ever.
The Essence of Christianity.Christianity is obedience to a Person, a Master, a Lord. Submission to Christ characterises the first act and the whole action of the spiritual life. Hence the necessary connection between faith and obedience. Whatever may have been the moral character previously, this is the uniform mark of those who are heirs of salvation, that they obey Christ with a direct conscious intention.
Heb. 5:2. The Compassion of a Priest.Farrar gives the following note, which is both suggestive and illustrative: The word means properly to show moderate emotions. All men are liable to emotions and passions (). The Stoics held that these should be absolutely crushed, and that apathy () was the only fit condition for a philosopher. The Peripatetics, on the other hand,the school of Aristotleheld that the philosopher should not aim at apathy, because no man can be absolutely passionless without doing extreme violence to nature; but that he should acquire metriopathythat is, a spirit of moderated emotion and self-control. The word is found both in Philo and Josephus. In common usage it meant moderate compassion, since the Stoics held pity to be not only a weakness but a vice. The Stoic would have utterly disqualified any one for true priesthood. Our Lord yielded to human emotions, such as pity, sorrow, and just anger; and that He did so and could do so, yet without sin, is expressly recorded for our instruction.
Heb. 5:7. The Divine-human Model of Prayer.R.V. And having been heard for His godly fear. There can be no doubt that the writer had chiefly in mind the scene of Gethsemane. But while the agonising prayer of our Divine Lord on that occasion is a model of some kinds of Christian prayer, it cannot be taken as a model of all kinds. It was a model of the prayer by the aid of which man brings his will into full accord with the Divine will; and so it was a prayer of preparation for doing high-priestly service. And this seems to be indicated by the form of the sentence given in the Revised Version. Gods recognition rested on the character of the suppliant, as shown in His supreme anxiety concerning Gods will, and in His readiness to undergo suffering in order to carry out, and so to glorify, the Divine will. Having been heard for His godly fear. That is the one feature of the scene of Gethsemane on which the writer fixes for his present purpose; and it is precisely to his point. He is dealing with the importance of character in a high priest, and with the sublime way in which the character of Jesus gave Him high-priestly power. A mans intercession can be no mere perfunctory, official duty. It is the power of the man; it is the acceptablenessthe representative acceptablenessof personal and gracious character. Gethsemane teaches us that a man must be in right mind-moods, and right heart-moods, if his prayer is to be heard and answered. And while this is true of mans prayers for personal blessings, it is even more true of his intercessions. It is not merely a submissive mood that he must cherish. The Divine-human Model in Gethsemane has a more searching appeal to us than that. It is a submission which is seen to involve personal suffering and sacrifice. That alone reveals such a character, such a godly fear, as will ensure an intercessors prayers being heard. The character and quality of prayer is often dwelt on. We may ask amiss. But the character and right mood of him who prays is not so often commended to our attention. And just that is the gist of the example of intercessory prayer of our Divine-human Lord. He was what ensured the answer to His plea.
Heb. 5:8-9. Learning the Obedience of Sonship.An abstract relationship is of little interest apart from the fulfilment of those duties that are involved in the relationship. It is a comparatively unimportant thing that Christ stood in relation to God as a Son. It is a most important thing, a most powerful, effective, persuasive thing, that He showed and proved His Sonship in a life of obedience, which was fully tested by suffering.
I. This absolute fact about ChristHe is the Son.Though He were a Son. That appears to be a fact of extreme plainness and simplicity; and yet the fiercest theological battles have raged around it. Is the Son-relation of Christ to God a relation that involves equality with God or subordination to Him? Must we think of His Sonship as an eternal relation which He sustained towards the Father before all worlds? or is it only the mode of His revelation to men, the aspect under which His mediatorship is presented, the relation demanded by the exigencies of human redemption? Such grave questions interest theologians, but if we could settle them we should not be satisfied. The Divine voice said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. We turn to the Man who was thus addressed; we watch His life; we observe His spirit and conduct, in order to find out the charms that lay in His Sonship. There is no term of relationship which can surpass in interest that of sons. God takes to represent Himself the highest, tenderest, and most affecting relationship into which His creatures can come. We do not read aright the story of Christs life on the earth, save as we discern, in it all, the exhibition and illustration of His Sonship, the obedience of the child, the devotion of the Son. This is the fact concerning Christ, He is a Son. But this fact must not stand alone. The Sonship must come out to view; it must be shown, tested, proved.
II. The trial, or proof, of His Sonship.Learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. If this trial is to be of interest to us, and morally effective on us, it must be made in this our earthly sphere, and under our human conditions. If He be only the eternal Son, then there may have been expressions and testings of that Sonship in the heavenly places; but we could not apprehend those forms of testing, and we could feel but little impulse from their revelation to us. The whole fascination gathers round Christ, because He alone shows us perfect, Divine Sonship, lived out in human scenes, and under human conditions. Each relationship in which men stand has some one thing which is its essential feature and characteristic. The essential of kingship is the spirit of judgment; of fatherhood, loving authority; of motherhood, sacrificing affection; of sisterhood, thoughtfulness for others; and of sonship, obedience. We have no right to the name of son save as we obey. We take the life of the Lord Jesus, and search it, seeking for signs of that which we know to be the very essence of sonship, and we receive surprising impressions of the perfectness and Divine beauty of His obedience. He spoke the Fathers words; He did the Fathers works; He showed the Fathers spirit; He fulfilled the Fathers mission; He glorified the Fathers name. Watching that life of earnest, cheerful, hearty, loving obedience, who of us does not say, We know now what sonship to God means, we feel now its transcendent charm and beauty? But the obedience of sonship is no mere series of acts. It is that series of acts only as they are instinct with the spirit of obedience, done in the freeness of the will, under the impulse of the affection of the heart. A life full of obedient acts will never make or glorify a sonship, any more than a wealth of apples, tied on, can make a fruitful tree. They must be the utterances of the souls life in God. And the great charm of our Saviours life is thisHis acts suffice to open and reveal to us a loving, devoted, obedient soul. But was that Sonship never tested or tried? Was it easy for Jesus to be good? Did He never know trial or temptation? Did His ship sail over the ocean of life all in fair weather? Did never one black cloud skirt the horizon for Him? Did never one storm-wind raise the tossing waves? If we had to say that Jesus knew no testings, then almost all the glory of Christ would, for us, fade away. His nearness, His brotherhood, would be gone. But suffering, tried, and tempted as He was, He is infinitely attractive to suffering, tried, and tempted men. How is it that suffering, here on earth, becomes such a testing and proving of obedience? In thissuffering provides a scene in which a conflict can be carried on between self-will and Gods will. Every scene of suffering in our life is really thisGod providing a battle-ground in which the son in us may win a victory over the self. All suffering-times are represented in Gethsemane. Suffering of any kind is never pleasing to self. We shrink from it, resist it, mourn over it. Natural inclination never helps us to bear it. But the question is put to the son, Can you bear this as duty? Can you master your own feeling, and bear it as your Fathers will? The perfect Son, and all who catch His Spirit, answer Yes, and are obedient even unto death.
III. The proved, tested Sonship of Jesus becomes a mighty moral power on human hearts.
1. There is nothing touches our hopefulness like it.
2. We soon get bewildered and agitated, wanting guidance as to what shall constitute the spirit and life of a son. Then we look to Christ, and see what sonship means; practically and plainly we discern how it works out in common life, how it acts even under the test of suffering.
3. It glorifies service, submission, obedience, ministry. Christ changes the very ground of our estimate of moral qualities; sets that first which was last, and that last which was first. The world-despised virtues of meekness, patience, dependence, submission, and obedience are lifted into the first place in our esteem; we see them to be the elements of a true and noble sonship; and the world-praised qualities of valour, and courage, and energy, and wisdom, and genius go for evermore into a second place; they are only the elements of a true and noble manhood.
4. And the proved Sonship, shown in obedience, tested in suffering, is a secret of our Lords saving powerHis power to deliver men from their sins, their sin, and their self: His own beautiful Sonship touching, quickening theirs; finding them out in their wandering, prodigal misery, and wakening in their lost souls the cry of the child, I will arise, and go to my Father. Shown to be obedient, even through suffering, He, being made perfect, becomes the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him.
Heb. 5:9. Eternal Salvation.It is not possible to limit the meaning of the word eternal to the time figure that is in it, and then intelligently apply the word to the various things to which the Scripture writers apply it. Putting their references and associations before us, we cannot but be impressed by the necessity for finding some less limited connotation for the term. It will increasingly come to us that we use the term spiritual very much as Scripture writers used eternal. They spoke of heaven and the heavenly, and we understand them to mean the other, unseen, spiritual world. We know they did not mean a place, a local habitation. In the same way they spoke of eternal things, and we know that they meant otherwise things, immaterial things, spiritual things, things related to the real life of the souls that we are. Thus we find the following associations of the word eternal (there are more if we take the answering word everlasting): Eternal God, eternal excellency, eternal condemnation, eternal sin (R.V.), eternal power, eternal weight, eternal house, eternal purpose, eternal King, eternal glory, eternal salvation, eternal judgment, eternal redemption, eternal Spirit, eternal inheritance, eternal fire, eternal life. In many cases it is absolutely necessary to put some special meaning to the term, if the time limitation is in any way to be preserved. Take two illustrative cases. Sin is an act, and in its very nature temporary. To say eternal sin must be made to mean a continuous and unchanging bad mood of man, a continuous state of sinfulness. But our Lord was speaking of an act, the act of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and that is a spiritual sin, a sin of our spirit, against the great Spirit. So with eternal judgment. The word may be applied to the consequences of judgment, but the judgment as an act is temporary. So eternal salvation is not persistently continuous salvation. What Christ gained power to give us was soul salvation, spiritual salvation: that is continuous by its very nature.
Christ Perfect.The Greek word translated perfect was used among the heathen in a specific sense: for instance, one thoroughly initiated into the arcana or other mysteries was called a perfect man. The meaning was not morally or personally perfect, but thoroughly acquainted with all the facts and mysteries of the caste or service. Now Christ was made perfect by being made thoroughly acquainted with human nature in every point, even to its lowest depths, which needed thirty-three years of the Son of God to fathom it.Dr. Cumming.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 5
Heb. 5:1. Sacrifice.Amidst the various elements of worship which were to be carried on in and around the tabernacle, the most conspicuous was, so far as we can judge, peculiarly fitted to the mind of an Arabian tribe. We may indulge in philosophical or theological speculations concerning the institution of sacrifice, but historically (and this is the only point of view in which we are now to consider it) we cannot overlook its adaptations to the peculiar period of the Israelites existence in which we find it first described at length. Some of the forms are identical with those of Egypt and of India. But it is remarkable that the institution (taken in its most general aspect), after having perished everywhere else among the worshippers of one God, still lingers among that portion of the Semitic nations which more than any other represents the conditions of Israel at Sinai. Extinct almost entirely in the Jewish race itself, it is still an important part of the worship of the Bedouin Arabs. In the desert of Sinai itself sacrifice is almost the only form which Bedouin religion takes, at the chief sanctuary of the peninsula, the tomb of Sheykh Saleh, and on the summit of Serbal. When Burckhardt wished to penetrate into the then inaccessible fastness of Petra, the pretext which afforded him the greatest security was that of professing a desire to sacrifice a goat at the tomb of Aaron.Dean Stanley.
Heb. 5:9. Learning Obedience.An American writer tells a story of the veteran General Sumner at the battle of Antietam. His son, young Captain Sumner, a youth of twenty-one, was on his staff. The old man calmly stood amidst a storm of shot and shell, and turned to send him through a doubly raging fire upon a mission of duty. He might never see his boy again, but his country claimed his life; and, as he looked upon his young brow, he grasped his hand, encircled him in his arms, and fondly kissed him. Good-bye, Sammy! Good-bye, father! And the youth, mounting his horse, rode gaily on the message. He returned unharmed, and again his hand was grasped with a cordial, How dye do, Sammy? answered by a grasp of equal affection.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B.
The office of the priesthood. Heb. 5:1-4.
Text
Heb. 5:1-4
Heb. 5:1 For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Heb. 5:2 who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity; Heb. 5:3 and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Heb. 5:4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
Paraphrase
Heb. 5:1 Now, to show that Christ is a real High Priest, I will describe the designation, the duties, and the qualifications of an high priest. Every high priest taken from among men is appointed, by persons having a right to confer the office, to perform for men the things pertaining to the public worship of God, and especially that he may offer both free-will offerings and sacrifices for sins.
Heb. 5:2 He must be able to have a right measure of compassion on the ignorant, and those who err through ignorance, because he himself also is clothed with infirmity; so that he will officiate for them with the greater kindness and assiduity.
Heb. 5:3 And because he himself is a sinner, he must, as for the people, so also for himself, offer sacrifices for sins, (Lev. 16:6.)
Heb. 5:4 Now, to apply these things to the Christ, I observe, first, that as in the gospel church no one can take this honourable office to himself but he who is thereto called of God, as Aaron was in the Jewish church;
Comment
For every high priest, being taken from among men
Gods high priests were men:
a.
The first indication that Aaron and his sons were to care for the tabernacle is found in Exo. 28:1.
b.
Their first distinct separation to the office of the priesthood is recorded, in Exodus 28.
c.
After this, the legal head of the house of Aaron became high priest. Usually the eldest son succeeded in office.
The task was theoretically for life.
is appointed for men
God does not do things because of Himself, but because of men:
a.
Mar. 2:27 : Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
b.
Joh. 3:16 : God so loved the world.
The world is Gods object of love, not Himself.
in things pertaining to God
Aaron and his sons were not appointed to secular things, but unto God:
a.
They were to minister to holy things.
b.
Their responsibility was not cultivation of the soil, commerce, etc., but to minister in holy things.
that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins
What is the difference between gifts and sacrifices?
a.
Gifts usually appear first. See Heb. 8:3 and Heb. 9:9.
1.
Milligan says gifts and sacrifices are used interchangeably as in Gen. 4:3-5.
2.
Milligan says gifts refer to bloodless sacrifices, and offerings to those that require the life of the sacrifice.
3.
Mathew Henry says gifts refers to free-will offering.
4.
Newell says gifts appear first because the chief and normal business of a priest was to receive the gifts and direct the worship.
b.
Sacrifices for sins generally is understood to be the blood offerings:
1.
All the sins and iniquities of Israel were confessed by the priest on the great day of Atonement, and during the year all sacrifices were under his direction.
2.
The priest goes to God on mans behalf; the prophet comes from God representing God to men.
who can bear gently
The prophet can cry out against the sins of a people, Repent or be destroyed.
a.
The priest is to be sympathetic, and to aid in the forgiving of sins.
b.
The word bear gently means have compassion.
1.
The priest had to decide whether a sacrifice for sin could be given legally. Lev. 10:8-11; Deu. 12:8-13; Deu. 24:8; Deu. 33:10; Mal. 2:7.
2.
A bitter judge could be just.
with the ignorant and erring
The ignorantsee Lev. 5:17-19.
a.
If a man sinned through ignorance or in error, or in an occasion where temptation might obscure for a time the guilt, a sacrifice could be given, sin be forgiven. Num. 15:22-29.
b.
If it was the sin of the high hand, in the spirit of haughty insolence, there could be no sacrifice. He could be put to death at the testimony of two or three witnesses. Num. 15:30-31; Deu. 17:6.
The erringthose deceived by passions. See Lev. 6:1-7.
a.
This was hard to judge, and the high priest hearing gently could sometimes bring a person to repentance.
b.
Calvin feels that the word, erring, does not refer to the sinners.
for that he himself is compassed with infirmity
The high priest was in a condition of temptation:
a.
Paul could understand the Jew having infirmity, for he was one of the best Jews.
Rom. 9:2-3 : I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
b.
Infirmity was a physical condition, meaning frailty, feebleness, distress of the soul, 2Co. 12:5-10.
And by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins
Consider the Old Testament priest:
a.
To offer for himself as well as for the sins of others. Lev. 4:3-12 : Lev. 4:3, If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering.
b.
Occasion of sacrifice for self:
1.
He offered sacrifices for special sins. Lev. 4:3-12. On special occasions.
2.
He, in the regular daily, weekly, monthly, yearly sacrifice, recognized his own sin.
3.
On the day of Atonement he was required to go into the most holy place and there make an offering for his own sins first and then for the people. cf. Heb. 9:7; Heb. 9:12; Heb. 9:25.
Compare the priest with Jesus. He need not offer sacrifices for His sins:
Isa. 53:9 : For He had done no violence, neither was there and deceit in His mouth.
Pilate, in Mat. 27:24, could find no sin in Christs life. cf. Heb. 4:14.
and no man taketh the honor to himself
No priest can be self-appointed. It is a task appointed by God:
a.
Where do priests get their appointments today? Not from God.
1.
Some have been tried in the past and have suffered: Num. 16:10-11 : When Korah sought the position of priest, the earth swallowed all of them up who were faithful to Korah.
2.
Jud. 1:11 speaks of the gainsaying of Korah.
3.
Uzziah meddled with an office and became a leper. 2Ch. 26:18.
4.
Saul. 1Sa. 13:8-10.
b.
A thousand priests can do no good, if not appointed, and it is a sin of which we must have no part.
Read the warning for those who follow false priests. Rev. 18:4.
but when he is called of God even as was Aaron
See Exo. 24:1 and Exodus 28 for his appointment.
See Num. 16:8 for the sons of Levi being made priests.
Study Questions
695.
Describe the high priest taken from among men.
696.
When was the priestly system started?
697.
What family was selected to serve?
698.
When did the family first serve?
699.
What is significant in the statement, appointed for men?
700.
Does God do things for Himself or for men?
701.
Was the high priests job secular or religious according to this verse?
702.
What is meant by offer both gifts and sacrifices?
703.
Is there a difference?
704.
Is this expression a common one? Cf. Heb. 8:3; Heb. 9:9.
705.
Would sacrifices refer to the blood portion of worship?
706.
What is the actual difference between the work of the prophet and priest?
707.
What is significant in the expression, bear gently?
708.
With what or whom was he to bear gentlythe sacrifice or the sacrificer?
709.
Did the prophet bear gently?
710.
In what way did he have opportunity either to judge harshly or bear gently? Cf. Lev. 10:8-11; Deu. 12:8-13; Deu. 24:8; Deu. 33:10; Mal. 2:7.
711.
Who would be ignorant worshippers? Cf. Lev. 5:17-19.
712.
Were they necessarily interested in being forgiven?
713.
How could one sin ignorantly? Cf. Num. 15:22-29.
714.
Were the ignorant and erring two different groups? Cf. Lev. 6:1-7.
715.
How did the high-handed sinner fare?
716.
Was there a sacrifice for him?
717.
What could be done with him? Cf. Num. 15:30-31; Deu. 17:6.
718.
In what way was the priest like the worshippers?
719.
Can you name instances when priests fell in their infirmities?
720.
What was the priest bound to do for the people? For himself? Cf, Lev. 4:3-12.
721.
Did the high priest have sacrifices for special sins? Cf. Lev. 4:3-12.
722.
Which sacrifice came first, the one for himself or for the people? Heb. 9:7; Heb. 9:12; Heb. 9:25.
723.
Did Jesus need to make sacrifice for Himself?
724.
How did a priest secure his position?
725.
Could he usurp the privilege?
726.
Did any men ever try? Num. 16:10-11; Jud. 1:11.
727.
How did Uzziah meddle with the office of priest. 2Ch. 26:18.
728.
Did Saul dare to act as a priest? 1Sa. 13:8-10.
729.
What is the danger of following a false priest? Cf. Rev. 18:4.
730.
Whom did God call to be priest besides Aaron? Cf. Num. 16:8.
731.
Would calling and appointing carry the same idea?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Taken.Rather, being taken, since he is taken, from among men.
Gifts and sacrifices.The former is in itself perfectly general; but when thus contrasted with sacrifices it denotes the unbloody offerings of the Law. On the Day of Atonement (which, as we shall see, is almost always in the writers thoughts as he refers to the functions of the high priest) the offerings would consist of the incense and of the meat-offerings connected with the burnt-sacrifices for the day. On that day all offerings, as well as all sacrifices, had relation to sins.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 5
AT HOME WITH MAN AND GOD ( Heb 5:1-10 ) 5:1-10 Every high priest who is chosen from among men is appointed on men’s behalf to deal with the things which concern God. His task is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, in that he himself is able to feel gently to the ignorant and to the wandering because he himself wears the garment of human weakness. By reason of this very weakness it is incumbent upon him, just as he makes sacrifice for the people, so to make sacrifice for sins on his own behalf also. No one takes this honourable position to himself, but he is called by God to it, just as Aaron was. So it was not Christ who gave himself the glory of becoming high priest; but it was God who said to him: “You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.” Just so he says also in another passage: “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.” In the days when he lived this human life of ours he offered prayers and entreaties to him who was able to bring him safely through death with strong crying and with tears. And when he had been heard because of his reverence, although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the sufferings through which he passed. When he had been made fully fit for his appointed task, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, for he had been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Now Hebrews comes to work out the doctrine which is its special contribution to Christian thought–the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. This passage sets out three essential qualifications of the priest in any age and in any generation.
(i) A priest is appointed on men’s behalf to deal with the things concerning God. A. J. Gossip used to tell his students that when he was ordained to the ministry he felt as if the people were saying to him: “We are for ever involved in the dust and the heat of the day; we have to spend our time getting and spending; we have to serve at the counter, to toil at the desk, to make the wheels of industry go round. We want you to be set apart so that you can go in to the secret place of God and come back every Sunday with a word from him to us.” The priest is the link between God and man.
In Israel the priest had one special function, to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people. Sin disturbs the relationship which should exist between man and God and puts up a barrier between them. The sacrifice is meant to restore that relationship and remove that barrier.
But we must note that the Jew was always quite clear, when thinking at his highest, that the sins for which sacrifice could atone were sins of ignorance. The deliberate sin did not find its atonement in sacrifice. The writer to the Hebrews himself says: “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” ( Heb 10:26). This is a conviction that emerges again and again in the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament. Again and again they begin: “If any one sins unwittingly in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done…” ( Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13). Num 15:22-31 is a key passage. There the requisite sacrifices are laid down “if you err unwittingly.” But at the end it is laid down: “That person who does anything with a high hand…reviles the Lord…shall be utterly cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him.” Deu 17:12 lays it down: “The man who acts presumptuously…that man shall die.”
The sin of ignorance is pardonable; the sin of presumption is not. Nevertheless we must note that by the sin of ignorance the Jews meant more than simply lack of knowledge. They included the sins committed when a man was swept away in a moment of impulse or anger or passion or mastered by some overmastering temptation and the sins followed by repentance. By the sin of presumption they meant the cold, calculated sin for which a man was not in the least sorry, the open-eyed disobedience of God.
So, then, the priest existed to open the way for the sinner back to God–so long as he wanted to come back.
(ii) The priest must be one with men. He must have gone through men’s experiences and his sympathy must be with them. At this point the writer to the Hebrews stops to point out–he will later show that this is one of the ways in which Jesus Christ is superior to any earthly priest–that the earthly priest is so one with men that he is under the necessity of offering sacrifice for his own sin before he offers it for the sins of others. The priest must be bound up with men in the bundle of life. In connection with this he used a wonderful word–metriopathein ( G3356) . We have translated it “to feel gently”; but it is really untranslatable.
The Greeks defined a virtue as the mean between two extremes. On either hand there was an extreme into which a man might fall; in between there was the right way. So the Greeks defined metriopatheia (the corresponding noun) as the mean between extravagant grief and utter indifference. It was feeling about men in the right way. W. M. Macgregor defined it as “the mid-course between explosions of anger and lazy indulgence.” Plutarch spoke of that patience which was the child of metriopatheia. He spoke of it as that sympathetic feeling which enabled a man to raise up and to save, to spare and to hear. Another Greek blames a man for having no metriopatheia and for therefore refusing to be reconciled with someone who had differed from him. It is a wonderful word. It means the ability to bear with people without getting irritated; it means the ability not to lose one’s temper with people when they are foolish and will not learn and do the same thing over and over again. It describes the attitude to others which does not issue in anger at their fault and which does not condone it, but which to the end of the day spends itself in a gentle yet powerful sympathy which by its very patience directs a man back to the right way. No man can ever deal with his fellow-men unless he has this strong and patient, God-given metriopatheia.
(iii) The third essential of a priest is this–no man appoints himself to the priesthood; his appointment is of God. The priesthood is not an office which a man takes; it is a privilege and a glory to which he is called. The ministry of God among men is neither a job nor a career but a calling. A man ought to be able to look back and say, not, “I chose this work,” but rather, “God chose me and gave me this work to do.”
The writer to the Hebrews goes on to show how Jesus Christ fulfils the great conditions of the priesthood.
(i) He takes the last one first. Jesus did not choose his task; God chose him for it. At the Baptism there came to Jesus the voice which said: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” ( Psa 2:7).
(ii) Jesus has gone through the bitterest experiences of men and understands manhood in all its strength and weakness. The writer to the Hebrews has four great thoughts about him.
(a) He remembers Jesus in Gethsemane. That is what he is thinking of when he speaks of Jesus’ prayers and entreaties, his tears and his cry. The word he uses for cry (krauge, G2906) is very significant. It is a cry which a man does not choose to utter but is wrung from him in the stress of some tremendous tension or searing pain. So, then, the writer to the Hebrews says that there is no agony of the human spirit through which Jesus has not come. The rabbis had a saying: “There are three kinds of prayers, each loftier than the preceding–prayer, crying and tears. Prayer is made in silence; crying with raised voice; but tears overcome all things.” Jesus knew even the desperate prayer of tears.
(b) Jesus learned from all his experiences because he met them all with reverence. The Greek phrase for “He learned from what he suffered” is a linguistic jingle–emathen ( G3129) aph’ ( G575) hon ( G3739) epathen ( G3958) . And this is a thought which keeps recurring in the Greek thinkers. They are always connecting mathein ( G3129) , to learn, and pathein ( G3958) , to suffer. Aeschylus, the earliest of the great Greek dramatists, had as a kind of continual text: “Learning comes from suffering” (pathei mathos). He calls suffering a kind of savage grace from the gods. Herodotus declared that his sufferings were acharista mathemata, ungracious ways of learning. A modern poet says of the poets:
“We learned in suffering what we teach in song.”
God speaks to men in many experiences of life, and not least in those which try their hearts and souls. But we can hear his voice only when we accept in reverence what comes to us. If we accept it with resentment, the rebellious cries of our own heart make us deaf to the voice of God.
(c) By means of the experiences through which he passed, the King James Version says that Jesus was made perfect (teleioun, G5048) . Teleioun is the verb of the adjective teleios ( G5046) . Teleios can quite correctly be translated “perfect” so long as we remember what the Greek meant by that perfection. To him a thing was teleios ( G5046) if it perfectly carried out the purpose for which it was designed. When he used the word he was not thinking in terms of abstract and metaphysical perfection; he was thinking in terms of function. What the writer to the Hebrews is saying is that all the experiences of suffering through which Jesus passed perfectly fitted him to become the Saviour of men.
(d) The salvation which Jesus brought is an eternal salvation. It is something which keeps a man safe both in time and in eternity. With Christ a man is safe for ever. There are no circumstances that can pluck him from Christ’s hand.
THE REFUSAL TO GROW UP ( Heb 5:11-14 ) 5:11-14 The story which has been laid upon me to tell you about this matter is a long story, difficult to tell and difficult to grasp, for your ears have become dull. For, indeed, at a stage when you ought to be teachers because of the length of time that has passed since you first heard the gospel, you still need someone to tell you the simple elements of the very beginning of the message of God. You have sunk into a state when you need milk and not solid food; for when anyone is at the stage of participating in milk feeding, he does not really know what Christian righteousness is, for he is only a child. For solid food is for those who have reached maturity, those who, through the development of the right kind of habit, have reached a stage when their perceptions are trained to distinguish between good and evil.
Here the writer to the Hebrews deals with the difficulties which confront him in attempting to get across an adequate conception of Christianity to his hearers.
He is confronted with two difficulties. First, the full orb of the Christian faith is by no means an easy thing to grasp nor can it be teamed in a day. Second, the hearing of his hearers is dull. The word he uses (nothros, G3576) is full of meaning. It means slow-moving in mind, torpid in understanding, dull of hearing, witlessly forgetful. It can be used of the numbed limbs of an animal which is ill. It can be used of a person who has the imperceptive nature of a stone. Now this has something to say to everyone whose business it is to preach and to teach; in fact, it has something to say to everyone whose business it is to think and that means that it has something to say to everyone who is a real person. It often happens that we dodge teaching something because it is difficult; we defend ourselves by saying that our hearers would never grasp it. It is one of the tragedies of the Church that there is so little attempt to teach new knowledge and new thought. It is true that such teaching is difficult. It is true that often it means meeting the lethargy of the lazy mind and the embattled prejudice of the shut mind. But the task remains. The writer to the Hebrews did not shirk to bring his message, even if it was difficult and the minds of his hearers were slow. He regarded it as his supreme responsibility to pass on the truth he knew.
His complaint is that his hearers have been Christians for many years and are still babes no nearer maturity. The contrast between the immature Christian and the child, between milk and solid food, often occurs in the New Testament ( 1Pe 2:2; 1Co 2:6; 1Co 3:2; 1Co 14:20; Eph 4:13 ff.). Hebrews says that by now they should be teachers. It is not necessary to take that literally. To say that a man was able to teach was the Greek way of saying that he had a mature grasp of a subject. The writer says that they still need someone to teach them the simple elements (stoicheia, G4747) of Christianity. This word has a variety of meanings. In grammar it means the letters of the alphabet, the A B C; in physics it means the four basic elements of which the world is composed; in geometry it means the elements of proof like the point and the straight line; in philosophy it means the first elementary principles with which the students begin. It is the sorrow of the writer to the Hebrews that after many years of Christianity his people have never got past the rudiments; they are like children who do not know the difference between right and wrong.
Here he is face to face with a problem which haunts the Church in every generation, that of the Christian who refuses to grow up.
(i) The Christian can refuse to grow up in knowledge. He can be guilty of what someone called “the culpable incapacity resulting from the neglect of opportunity.” There are people who keep on saying that what was good enough for their fathers is good enough for them. There are Christians in whose faith there has been no development for thirty or forty or fifty or sixty years. There are Christians who have deliberately refused to try to understand the advances that Biblical scholarship and theological thought have made. They are grown men and women and yet insist on remaining content with the religious development of a child.
They are like a surgeon who refuses to use the new techniques of surgery, refuses to use the new anesthetics, refuses to use any new equipment and says: “What was good enough for Lister is good enough for me.” They are like a physician who refuses to use any of the new drugs and says: “What I learned as a student fifty years ago is good enough for me.” In religious things it is still worse. God is infinite; the riches of Christ are unsearchable; and to the end of the day we should be moving forward.
(ii) There are people who have never grown up in behaviour. It may be forgivable in a child to sulk or to be liable to fits of temper, but there are many adults who are just as childish in their behaviour.
A case of arrested development is always a pathetic thing; and the world is full of people whose religious development has been arrested. They stopped learning years ago and their conduct is that of a child. It is true that Jesus said the greatest thing in the world is the childlike spirit; but there is a tremendous difference between the childlike and the childish spirit. Peter Pan makes a charming play on the stage; but the man who will not grow up makes a tragedy in real life. Let us have a care lest we are still in the religion of childhood when we should have reached the faith of maturity.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
2. Real qualities of high priesthood exhibited in Christ, Heb 5:1-10.
1. For St. Paul had introduced Jesus as high priest in Heb 4:14-16; he now proceeds to show what the qualities of a high priest are, (Heb 5:1-4,) and that those qualities belong pre-eminently to Christ, Heb 5:5-10.
Every high priest In regard to the Jewish high priest consult our note, Mat 26:3. The meaning is, that being taken from men, he acts for men; a man stands for men in sacerdotal duties toward God.
Gifts and sacrifices Strictly, gifts would be any presentation made to God, and sacrifices would be slain animals, but the two ideas fused into each other in practice.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.’
The nature of the high priesthood is defined. The high priest is taken from among men. He is one of the run of men. He is appointed to act for men. Yet his position is exalted in that he is appointed to act for them in relation to God and in things pertaining to God. He is the earthly mediator between man and God. He acted from men to God in the sphere of offering gifts and sacrifices for sins, as very much a man approaching God seeking mercy. ‘Gifts and sacrifices for sins’ covers the whole range of Old Testament offerings (compare Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9). He did also, however, also receive God’s word to man by the use of Urim and Thummim. But this is never taken up in this letter.
‘Things pertaining to God.’ That which pertains to true relationship with God. ‘Ta pros ton theon.’ Literally ‘the (things) towards God.’ Pros ton theon is found in Joh 1:1 where ‘the Word was with God’, that is, face to face with God in personal relationship and fellowship. Thus the High Priest acted in ‘that which is towards God’ in order to maintain man’s relationship with God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Characteristics of the Earthly High Priesthood ( Heb 5:1-4 ).
The earthly High Priest,
1) Is taken from among men (Heb 5:1).
2) Is appointed for men for the offering of gifts and sacrifices (Heb 5:1).
3) Can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, because like them he is weak and sinful, and so has to offer sacrifices for sins first for himself and then for his people (Heb 5:2-3).
4) Has the honour given to him by God. (Heb 5:4).
So, to summarise, he is taken from among men, he is an earthly priest, both weak and sinful, he is appointed by God, on men’s behalf, and it is for the offering of gifts and sacrifices, which are for both himself and the people. As one from among them, although specially chosen, he acts for men before God in an earthly sanctuary.
But in contrast Jesus Christ is shown as having come from Heaven (Heb 1:3), as having humbled Himself but as not being sinful (Heb 2:9-18), was totally faithful (Heb 2:17 to Heb 3:6) and while being appointed by God for the offering of a once-for-all sacrifice, did not have to offer it for Himself, but did it only for the people (Heb 7:26-27), finalising the procedure in Heaven (Heb 4:14 compare Heb 1:3; Heb 9:24; Heb 10:12). It is clear therefore that He is of a superior, heavenly priesthood, so that returning to submission to an earthly priesthood can only be seen as blasphemous.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The High Priest Must Be a Man – The first point in proving Jesus Christ is qualified to become our Great High Priest is that a high priest for men must come from among men so that the priest can sympathize with men (Heb 5:1-3). Jesus qualifies because He partook of flesh and blood (Heb 2:14; Heb 2:17; Heb 4:15).
Heb 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;”
Heb 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
Heb 4:15, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Heb 5:1
Heb 5:1 “is ordained for men” Comments – These men are appointed priests “in behalf of men.” The high priest made atonement for the sins of men.
Heb 5:1 “in things pertaining to God” Comments – Theirs is a divine work, dedicated to spiritual matters.
Heb 5:1 “that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices” Comments – “ g ifts” – Wuest says the Greek word is a reference to “gifts in general.” [212] Thayer says it is generally used for the Hebrew word ( ) in the LXX. Holladay says this Hebrew word refers to offerings and gifts in the most general sense. The Greek word is also used for ( ) and ( ).
[212] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, c1973, 1977), 96.
“sacrifices” – Wuest says the Greek word is a reference to “blood sacrifices.” [213] Thayer says it means, “a sacrifice, a victim,” and its Hebrew equivalent is ( ) and ( ). Holladay says that ( ) refers to “a (communion) sacrifice” of an animal.
[213] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies From the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, c1973, 1977), 96.
The phrase “gifts and sacrifices” serves to summarize all categories of offerings under the Mosaic Law, describing those who brought thanksgiving offerings and those who came to atone for their sins.
Heb 5:2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
Heb 5:2
“for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity” Comments – Man’s human spirit is “encompassed” about with a mortal, physical body. The human aspect of the divine priesthood is essential in order to serve with compassion. Jesus Christ qualifies in this aspect because of His humanity, as noted in Heb 4:15.
Heb 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
Heb 5:3
Heb 5:3 “he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins” – Comments – Since a Levite priest was a man, he had to deal with sin in his life, also. (Note Lev 4:3; Lev 9:7; Lev 16:6).
Lev 4:3, “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.”
Lev 9:7, “And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.”
Lev 16:6, “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Second Doctrinal Discourse: The Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Understanding His Office for Us) In Heb 5:1-10 contains a doctrinal discourse with a brief introduction to the office of Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest since it is by His priesthood that we have access to God’s throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). This passage briefly states that Jesus meets the two requirements of being High Priest, which are the necessity to be a man (Heb 5:1-3), and the need to be called of God (Heb 5:4-10).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The High Priest Must Be a Man Heb 5:1-3
2. The High Priest Must Be Ordained by God Heb 5:4-10
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Justification: Jesus Christ is the High Priest of Our Confession In Heb 4:14 to Heb 5:14 we find the third literary section. This passage contains the second exhortation in the epistle of Hebrews, exhorting us to hold fast to our confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ by coming boldly to God’s throne in order to find grace and mercy to persevere; for the Jesus Christ our Great High Priest maintains our position of justification before God. Those who reject the Gospel will receive damnation, as stated in the conclusion of the previous section (Heb 4:12-13), but those who accept it will find access to God’s throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). The author will then briefly mention the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as our Great High Priest (Heb 5:1-10) and conclude this section with a rebuke for their lack of spiritual growth (Heb 5:11-14).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. 2nd Exhortation: Hold Fast Confession of Faith in Christ Heb 4:14-16
2. 2 nd Doctrinal Discourse: The Priesthood of Jesus Heb 5:1-10
1. The High Priest Must Be a Man Heb 5:1-3
2. The High Priest Must Be Ordained by God Heb 5:4-10
3. Conclusion: Warning for Failure to Grow in Maturity Heb 5:11-14
The Theme of the Believer’s Perseverance in the Faith – Heb 4:14 to Heb 5:14 exhorts us to maintain the confession of our faith in Jesus Christ. However, this passage of Scripture regarding our faith in Jesus is described from the perspective of our need to persevere in the faith in order to obtain this redemption. Thus, the theme of the believer’s perseverance in the faith is emphasized. In contrast, the lengthy discourse in the epistle of Romans, which emphasizes Church doctrine, discusses our secure position of justification through faith in Jesus Christ once we believe the message of the Gospel. However, in Heb 3:7 to Heb 4:11 we are told that our justification is dependent upon our willingness to persevere in faith and not turn back in rebellion, as did the children of Israel in the wilderness.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Authority of Christ, Our High Priest.
Christ competent to be our High Priest:
v. 1. For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
v. 2. who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
v. 3. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
v. 4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. The last paragraph of chapter 4 serves as an introduction to a long discourse on Christ’s office as our High Priest. As Christ was infinitely superior in person and office to the angels and to Moses, so also He is exalted far above Aaron and all the high priests of the Old Testament. It was necessary that this subject be treated at length because the Jewish Christians were still placing far too great an emphasis upon the Old Testament cult and worship, believing that such external forms were necessary for the proper attitude toward God. But wherever such an idea takes hold upon a community or a church-body, there is always danger that the doctrine of faith and salvation be relegated to the background, if not abrogated altogether. That Christ was competent, first of all, for the office of our High Priest is shown from the fact that He possessed the qualifications for the office. Of the first qualification the sacred writer states: For every high priest selected from men is appointed for men in things that concern God, that he may offer gifts as well as sacrifices for sins. The high priests of the Old Testament were taken or selected from men, from among their brethren, Lev 21:10, of the tribe of Lev. and of the family of Aaron. The man selected was then inducted into his office, being ordained or appointed to have charge of those matters of worship which related to man’s salvation. His office was in behalf of men, the people of his nation, in things relating to God; in other words, the fact that the high priest was a mediator between God and man was especially and primarily emphasized. In performing the work of his office, the high priest offered both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Both the offerings made without bloodshed and those which required the shedding of blood were made for the purpose of expiating the sins of the people; for this was the chief object of the high priest’s ministry.
It was significant that the high priest was selected from among his brethren, for this fact enabled him to be in hearty sympathy with all the people at all times: Able to deal gently with the ignorant and erring ones, since he himself is beset with weakness, and for this reason he is obliged, just as for the people, so also for himself to make offerings for sins. Since the high priest, as a sinful human being, was subject to the same weaknesses as the other people, since he knew how easily and quickly, under circumstances, a person may fall into sin, yield to some temptation, therefore he would be in a condition at all times to moderate his feeling, to control his righteous anger over the commission of sins, to deal with indulgence, gentleness, and moderation with the shortcomings of others, especially if it was evident from the outset that these were done from ignorance, by some lapse from the path of rectitude. For sins that were committed in a spirit of haughty violence and insolent defiance of the Law of God, the offender was summarily dealt with, being cut off from the congregation of the Lord. But for sins performed in error, without malice and meanness, expiation by sacrifice could be made. The high priest, then, being conscious of his own weakness and shortcomings, would not only be able to deal gently with offenders against the Law of God, but he would also be under the obligation of bringing sacrifices for his own sins, Lev 16:6, a fact which would naturally tend to keep him meek and humble in his office. Thus the first qualification of the high priest was that he, in the consciousness of his own weakness and sinfulness, might adopt the proper attitude of gentleness in his dealings with the other members of the congregation.
The second qualification of the high priest of the Old Testament was: And no one takes to himself this honorable office, but only when called by God, just as also Aaron was. Aaron was expressly and distinctly appointed and ordained by God as the first high priest of the Jewish people, Exo 28:1-43. At the same time the Lord fixed the succession of this foremost office. The high priest thus did not assume his office to gratify his own ambition, but by the call of God, for the purpose of serving Him and restoring men to the proper fellowship with Him. See Num 3:10; chap. 16-18. The same attitude toward the holy office should be observed at all times, and may even be expected of preachers in the New Testament: the divine call should regulate a man’s acceptance of a position in the Church, not personal choice and sordid ambition, aided by various shady schemes. That was the second qualification of the Old Testament high priest, that he held the honorable office by a call from God. Note: The Romish Church has attempted to use this paragraph to defend its doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. But it is evident from the entire passage that the sacred writer is speaking of the Levitical priesthood only in so far as it was a type of the priesthood of Christ.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.
The purpose of the first part of this chapter (Heb 5:1-10) is to corroborate the position arrived at in the conclusion of Heb 4:1-16., viz. that we have in Christ a true High Priest sufficient for all our needs. This is done by analyzing the conception of a high priest, and observing that Christ in all respects fulfils it. And thus the full exposition of Christ’s heavenly priesthood above that of Aaron is prepared for. But this full exposition is still not entered on till after an exhortation (beginning at Heb 5:11), longer and more earnest than any former one, called for by the slowness of the Hebrew Christians to apprehend the doctrine. It is at length taken up and carried out in Heb 7:1-28.
The intention of Heb 7:1-10 being as above explained, it is a mistake to suppose any contrast intended here between the Aaronic priesthood and that of Christ; e.g. to take Heb 7:1-3 as meaning, Human high priests can sympathize in virtue of their own infirmity,otherwise Christ; or, Human high priests have need of atonement for themselves,not so Christ. The main drift, on the contrary, is that all recognized essentials of high priesthood are found in Christ. These essentials are that, the high priest’s office being to mediate between man and God,
(1) he should be of the same nature, and sympathetic with those in whose behalf he mediates; and
(2) that his credentials should be Divine, i.e. that God himself should have appointed him to his office.
Heb 5:1
For every high priest, from among men being taken, for men is constituted in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Here is not (as the rendering of the A.V. might suggest) a limitation of the subject of the sentence, confining it to merely human high priests; it belongs to the predicate, expressing what is true of every high priest. The phrase expresses both the necessary humanity of the high priest, and also his being set apart for his peculiar office . The order, and consequent force, of the words in the Greek is retained in the translation given above. (For the expression, , cf. Heb 2:17; Rom 15:17) The purpose for which the high priest is constituted in this relation is “that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins“a comprehensive designation of sacerdotal functions, the essential idea, expressed by , being atonement (cf. Heb 2:17, ). The difference between the words and is that the former, denoting properly any offering regarded as a gift, is especially applied in the LXX. to the minchah (“meat offering”); the latter (from ) denotes properly “a bloody sacrifice,” and is generally so applied. The distinction, however, is not invariably observed, being used in this Epistle (Heb 11:4) for Abel’s sacrifice and (Heb 8:4) for all kinds of offerings, while in the LXX. denotes (Gen 4:3) Cain’s unbloody offering and (Le Heb 2:1) the minchah. But here, as also in Heb 8:3 and Heb 9:9, where both are named ( ), we may conclude a distinctive reference to be intended to the unbloody and bloody offerings of the Law (cf. Psa 40:6, “Sacrifice and offering ( , LXX) thou didst not desire;” Dan 9:27, : and also Jer 17:26. To both (depending, not on , but on ) applies, For, though blood-shedding (Heb 9:22) was essential for atonement, the unbloody minchah formed part of the ceremony of expiation, and this notably on the Day of Atonement, so specially referred to afterwards in the Epistle (see Num 29:7-11).
Heb 5:2
Who can have compassion on the ignorant and erring; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. It is not easy to find a satisfactory English equivalent for , translated as above in the A.V; by Alford, “be compassionate towards;” in the margin of the A.V., “reasonably bear with;” by the recent Revisers, “bear gently with;” by Bengel, “moderate affici.” The compound had its origin, doubtless, in the peripatetic school, denoting the right mean between passionateness and Stoic apathy, being the application of Aristotle’s to the sphere of the passions. Thus Diog. Laert. says of Aristotle, . In this sense Philo uses to express Abraham’s sober grief after the death of Sarah (2.37) and Jacob’s patience under his afflictions (2.45). The verb, followed, as here, by a dative of persons, may be taken, therefore, to denote moderation of feeling towards the persons indicated, such moderation being especially opposed in the ease before us, where the persons are the ignorant and erring, to excess of severe or indignant feeling. Moderation, indeed, in this regard seems to have been the idea generally attached to the compound. Josephus also speaks of the emperors Vespasian and Titus as in their attitude towards the Jews after long hostility (‘Ant.,’ 12.3 2). This, then, being the meaning of , it is obvious how the capacity of it is essential to the idea of a high priest as being one who is resorted to as a mediator by a people laden with infirmities, to represent them and to plead for them. It is not of necessity implied that every high priest was personally : it is the ideal of his office that is spoken of. And, in the ease of human high priests, this ideal was fulfilled by their being themselves human, encompassed themselves with the infirmity of those for whom they mediated. Christ also, so far, evidently fulfils the condition. For, though he is afterwards distinguished (Heb 7:28) from priests having themselves infirmity, yet he had, in his human nature, experienced what it was: “He was crucified “ (2Co 13:4); “Himself took our infirmities (), and bare our sicknesses” (Mat 8:17; Isa 53:4); the agony in the garden (whatever its mysterious import, of which more below)expressed personal experience of human . Alford denies that , in the sense supposed by him to be here intended, can be attributed to Christ, and hence that can apply to him (but see above on Heb 4:15, and below on Heb 4:3, Heb 4:7).
Heb 5:3
And by reason hereof he ought (or, is bound, ), as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. This obligation is evident in the ease of the high priests of the Law. Consequently, their sin offering for themselves, in the first place, was a prominent part of the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, which the writer may be supposed to have especially in view (Lev 16:1-34). But can we suppose any corresponding necessity in the case of Christ? The argument does not absolutely require that we should, since the obligation of the Levitical high priest may be adduced only in proof of his own experience of . Christ, though under no such obligation, might still fulfill the requisites of a high priest, expressed in the case of sinful high priests by the obligation to offer for themselves; and we may (as Ebrard says) leave it to the writer to show hew he does fulfill them. Whether, however, there was in Christ’s own experience anything corresponding to the high priest’s offering for himself will be considered under Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8.
Heb 5:4
And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but being called of God (the of Textus Receptus before “he that is called,” as in A.V.has very slight authority), even as was Aaron. This verse expresses the second essential of a high priest, Divine appointment, for assurance of the efficacy of his mediation. Of course Aaron’s successors derived their Divine commission from his original one (cf. Num 21:26; Num 26:10-14).
Heb 5:5, Heb 5:6
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a High Priest. Here begins the proof that Christ fulfils the two requirements, that mentioned second in the previous statement being taken first in the proofchiastically, as is usual in this Epistle. The expression, , rather than , may have reference to the glory wherewith Christ is crowned in his exalted position as Priest-King (cf. Heb 2:9). But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. These two texts (Psa 2:7; Psa 110:4) must be taken together for the proof required. The first (commented on under Heb 1:5) shows the Loire’s appointment of Christ to his kingly office as Son; the second shows that this kingly office carries with it, also by Divine appointment, an eternal priesthood. Christ’s entry into this kingly priesthood is best conceived as inaugurated by his resurrection, after accomplishment of human obedience, whereby he fitted himself for priesthood. Before this he was the destined High Priest, but not the “perfected” High Priest, “ever living to make intercession for us.“ It is not during his life on earth, but after his exaltation, that he is spoken of as the High Priest of mankind. In his sufferings and death he was consecrated to his eternal office. This appears from Heb 5:9, Heb 5:10, and also from Psa 110:1-7., quoted in this verse, where the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and the exaltation to the right hand of God are regarded together. See also what was said under Heb 1:5, of the application to Christ of the other text quoted, “This day have I begotten thee.” The Messianic reference and general drift of Psa 110:1-7. has been considered under Heb 1:13. It was there seen to be more than a typical prophecy, David having in it a distinct view of One far greater than himselfof the Son to come, whom he calls his LORD. But even had it, like other Messianic psalms, a primary reference to some theocratic king, the remarkable import of Heb 1:4 would in itself point beyond one. For, though David organized and controlled the priesthood and the services of the sanctuary, though both he and Solomon took a prominent part in solemn acts of worship, yet neither they nor any other king assumed the priestly office, which, in its essential functions, was scrupulously confined to the sons of Aaron. The judgment on Uzziah (2Ch 26:16-22) is a notable evidence of the importance attached to this principle. Yet the verse before us assigns a true priesthood to the future King. For Melchizedek, as he appears in Genesis, is evidently a true priest, though prior to the Aaronic priesthood, uniting in himself, according to the system of the patriarchal age, the royalty and the priesthood of his race: as a true priest, he blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him. But of him, historically and symbolically regarded, the consideration must be reserved for Heb 7:1-28., where the subject is taken up. Enough here to observe that in Psa 110:1-7. a true and everlasting priesthood is assigned to the SON in union with his exalted royalty at the LORD‘s right hand, and this by Divine appointment, by the “voice“ or “oracle“ of the Load (Psa 110:1), confirmed by the LORD‘s oath (Psa 110:4).
Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up (rather, when he offered up) prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Here (according to the view taken above of the chiastic structure of the passage) we have the account of how Christ fulfilled the human requirements of a High Priest, referred to in Heb 5:2, Heb 5:3. This main intention of Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8 must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of them. Christ is in them regarded, not as executing his priestly office, but as being prepared and consecrated for it. His eternal priesthood is conceived as entered on after the human experience which is the subject of these verses (cf. (Heb 5:9), and what was said under Heb 5:5). With regard to the participial aorists, , it is a misapprehension of their proper force to regard them as denoting a time previous to that of in Heb 5:8; as if the meaning werehaving in Gethsemane “offered,” etc., and “been heard,” he afterwards “learnt obedience” on the cross. All they express is that in offering, etc., and being heard, he learned obedience. The idea of subsequent time does not come in till Heb 5:9; “and being perfected,” after thus learning obedience, “he became,” etc. Thus the only question with regard to time in Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8 is whether they have reference to the agony in the garden only, or both to the agony and the cress. That they refer mainly, if not exclusively, to the agony is evident from the expressions used, corresponding so closely with the Gospel history. The view presented is, as in the Gospels, of some intense inward struggle, outwardly manifested, and expressing itself in repeated prayers (observe the plural, ) aloud for deliverance. It is true that the Gospels, as we have them now, do not mention tears; but these too are quite in keeping with the bloody sweat specified by St. Luke, and Epiphanius states that the original copies of Luk 22:43, Luk 22:44 contained the verb . Some interpreters would identify the of Luk 22:7 with the “loud voice ( )” from the cross. But there is nothing to suggest this; the “strong crying and tears” evidently denote the manner of the “prayers and supplications;” and the thrice-repeated prayer in the garden recorded by the evangelists may be well conceived to have been thus loudly uttered, so as to be heard by the three disciples, a stone’s cast distant, before sleep overcame them. “In cruce clamasse dicitur; lachrymasse non dicitur. Utrum horum respicit locum Gethsemane” (Bengel). What, then, as seen in the light of these verses, was the meaning of the “prayer and supplications” in the garden of Gethsemane? The expression, , corresponding with of Mar 14:36, confirms the view that the “cup” which he prayed might pass from him, was the death before him, and that the purport of his prayer was, not to be raised from death after undergoing it, but to be saved from undergoing it. Such is the ordinary meaning of in reference to one still alive (cf. Psa 33:19; Jas 5:20). It does not indeed positively follow that, because he prayed to One who was able in this sense to save him, his prayer was that he might be in this sense saved. It is, however, the natural inference. But, if so, two difficulties present themselves.
(1) How was such a prayer consistent with his distinct knowledge that death must be undergone, and his late strong rebuke to Peter for venturing to dissuade him from it?
(2) How can he be said to have been heard (), since he was not saved from death in the sense intended? To the first of these questions the answer is that the prayer expressed, not the deliberate desire of his Divine will, but only the inevitable shrinking of the human will from such an ordeal as was before him. As man, he experienced this shrinking to the full, and as man he craved deliverance, though with entire submission to the will of the Father. His human will did not oppose itself to the Divine will: it conformed itself in the end entirely to it; but this according to the necessary conditions of humanity, through the power of prayer. Had it not been so with him, his participation in human nature would have been incomplete; he would not have been such as to be “touched with a feeling of our infirmities, being in all things tempted like as we are;” nor would he have stood forth for ever as the great Example to mankind. St. John, who so deeply enters into and interprets the mind of Christ, records an utterance before the agony which anticipates its meaning (Joh 12:1-50): “The hour is come” (verse 23); and then (verse 27), “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [cf. ]; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Name.” The “hour” was that of the drinking of the cup. “Father, save me from this hour” was the human craving of the agony; but still, “Father, glorify thy Name” was the essence of the prayer; and perfect submission to the Divine will was the outcome of it, after this troubling of his human soul. The mystery surrounding the whole subject of the Divine and human in Christ remains still. What was said with regard to it about the temptation in the wilderness (Heb 4:15) is applicable also here. If it be further asked how it was that Christ, in his humanity, so shrank from the “cup” before him, seeing that mere men have been found to face death calmly in its most appalling forms, the answer may be found in the consideration of what this cup implied. It was more than physical death, more than physical pain, more than any sorrow that falls to the lot of man. Such expressions as (Mat 26:37, Mat 26:38); (Mar 14:33); (Luk 22:44); the bloody sweat, and the cry of “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”convey in themselves the impression of a mysterious ordeal, beyond what we can fathom, undergone by the atoning Savior in that “hour” of the “power of darkness.” Of the second difficulty mentioned above, as to how Christ was “heard,” not having been saved “from death” in the apparent sense of his prayer, the solution may be that the prayer, conditioned as it was by , was most truly answered by the angel sent to strengthen him, and the power thenceforth given him to “endure the cross, despising the shame.” “Mortem ex qua Pater cum liberare posset, ne moreretur, tamen subiit, voluntati Patris obediens: ab horrore plane liberatus est per exauditionem Exauditus est, non ut ne biberet calicem, sed ut jam sine ullo horrore biberet: unde etiam per angelum corroboratus est” (Bengel). The example to us thus becomes the more apparent. For we, too, praying legitimately for release from excessive trial, may have our prayer best answered by grace given to endure the trial, and by “a happy issue” out of it; as was the case with Christ. For his bitter passion was made the path to eternal glory; and thus in the Resurrection too his prayer was answered. The exact meaning of is not easy to determine. It is taken by a large proportion of commentators to mean “deliverance from his fear;” being supposed to be a constructio praegnans in the sense of “heard so as to be delivered,” and to denote the dread experienced in Gethsemane. So the old Italian Versions, and Ambrose, “exauditus a metu;” so Bengel, “ab horrore liberatus per exauditlonem.” This interpretation is upheld by Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, Hofmann, Ebrard, and many others; some of whom, less tenably (as Calvin, Hammond, Jackson), understand as meaning, not the fear felt, but the thing feted: “ab eo quod timebat” (Calvin). The objections to this view are
(1) the doubtfulness of the constructio praegnans (the instances adduced , Psa 118:5; , Heb 10:22are not parallel); and
(2) the sense assigned to , since and its derivatives, when used to express fear, denote usually, not a shrinking, but a wary or cautious fear, and commonly carry with them (in this Epistle and St. Luke especially) the idea of piety. Thus in Heb 11:7, of Noah, : Heb 12:28, : and in Luk 2:25; Act 2:5; Act 8:2; Act 22:12, is synonymous with . The rendering hence preferred by many, having the authority of Chrysostom, and among moderns of Lunemann, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, is that of the Vulgate, “exauditus pro sua reverentia.” So Vigilius, “propter timorem;” the A.V.,” heard in that he feared,” or, as in the margin, “heard for his piety;” and in the recent revision, “for his godly fear;” which is the A.V.’s rendering of in Heb 12:28. The objection to the use of to express the cause of his being heard is met by reference to the frequent usage of St. Luke, whose language most resembles that of our Epistle. Thus: (Luk 19:3); (Luk 24:41 and Act 12:14); (Act 20:9); (Act 22:11). The phrase, thus understood, brings out the more markedly the thoroughly human conditions to which Christ was subjected. It was not in right of his sonship that he was heard. He won his hearing by his human piety; though he was SON, and as such knew that his Father heard him always (Joh 11:42), he learnt humanly his lesson of obedience. In the expression, , Son is surely meant in the peculiar sense in which it has all along been applied to Christ, expressing mere than that his relation to God was that of any son to a father, and thus we perceive the full force of . It is true that it was not till after the Resurrection that he attained his exalted position as SON (see under Heb 1:5 and Heb 5:5); but still he was all along the Son, in virtue of his origin as well as of his destiny. Cf. (Heb 1:9). does not indeed, in itself, express that he was the Second Person of the Trinity (this application of the word being nowhere found in the Epistle); but it implies that, even in his state of humiliation, he was more than man; for there would be nothing very extraordinary, so as to justify , in the case of an ordinary son learning obedience to his father through suffering. Recurring now to the question raised under verse 3, whether the high priest’s obligation to offer in the first place for himself had any counterpart in the case of Christ, we may perceive such a counterpart in the agony, as above regarded. For, although for himself Christ needed no atonement, yet the “prayers and supplications” were offered in his own behalf, being due to his own entire participation in the conditions of humanity; the whole “agony and bloody sweat” were part of his own preparation and consecration for executing the office of a High Priest for others, and, like the Aaronic priest’s offering for himself, they were the sign and evidence of his being one . Thus ( being all along understood) they answered truly to the preparatory part of Aaron’s original consecration (Le 8:14-9:15), or to the high priest’s own offering, before his offering for the people and entering behind the veil, on the Day of Atonement (Le Luk 14:6). It may be (though not necessarily so) that the word in verse 7, corresponding with in verse 3, is intended to suggest this analogy.
Heb 5:9, Heb 5:10
And being made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the Author of eternal salvation; called (or rather so addressed) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Here (translated “being made perfect”) refers to the time of his resurrection, when the sufferings were over and the atonement complete (cf. Luk 13:32, ). The word may be used in its general sense of perfected, i.e. “being made perfectly that which he was intended to become” (Delitzsch). In such sense St. Paul uses the word of himself, (Php 3:12). Or the specific sense of priestly consecration may be here, as well as in Heb 2:10 and Heb 7:28, intended. In Heb 7:28 the A.V. renders by “consecrated for evermore.” And this view is supported by passages in the LXX., where the word is used with special reference to the consecration of the high priest. Cf. (Exo 29:22); , , (Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27, 31); (verses 29, 33, 35); (verse 34) (Le 8:22, 29); (Heb 7:26); (Heb 7:28); , (verse 33); also Le 21:10, where the high priest is described as . See also Gesenius on the Hebrew word . Hence, and in view of the drift of the passage before us, Jackson very decidedly regards in Heb 7:9 as a verbum solenne, denoting specifically Christ’s consecration to his eternal office of High Priest. So also Hammond and Whitby. Being thus perfected, or consecrated, he became, for ever afterwards, the Author, not of mere ceremonial cleansing or temporary remission of guilt, but of eternal salvation; potentially to all mankind (cf. , Heb 2:9), and effectively to “all them that obey him;” being addressed, in tiffs his consummated position (the reference being to Psa 110:1-7) as “High Priest for ever,” etc. Here again we perceive that it is not till after the Resurrection that the prophetic ideal of the SON at God’s right hand, and of the eternal High Priest, are regarded as fully realized. If it be objected that his high priesthood must have begun before the Resurrection for his death upon the cross to be a true atonement, it may be replied that his one oblation of himself upon the cross at once consummated his consecration and effected the atonement. Doubtless, as a true High Priest on earth, he thus “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Heb 10:12); all that is meant above is that it was not till after the Resurrection that he entered on his eternal office of mediation in virtue of that one accomplished sacrifice.
Verses 5:11-7:1
This is the long admonitory digression (see under Heb 7:1) felt by the writer to be necessary before his exposition of . He is entering on a new theme, higher and less level to the comprehension of his readers than any that has gone before. Even so far, we have seen how their Jewish prejudices had evoked admonitions, frequently interposed in the course of the argument. Much more so now, when it is to be shown how the priesthood of Christ not only fulfils the idea of, but also supersedes, that of the sons of Aaron, being of a different order from theirs. The region of thought to be entered now, being that of “the mystery of Christ,” transcends more than any that has been so far entered the ordinary conceptions of traditional Judaism. Hence the writer’s shrinking from entering all at once on the subject for fear of not being even understood; hence his earnest warnings to his readers as to the necessity of advancing to the state of full-grown Christians who can discern spiritual things.
Heb 6:11-20
INTERPOSED EXHORTATION.
Heb 5:11
Of whom (the most obvious antecedent being Melchizedek, but with regard to his typical significance, as referred to in Psa 110:1-7) we have many things to say (the subject itself admits a lengthy exposition) and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become (not, as in A.V., “ye are”) dull of hearing. Their dullness is the reason of the being . It was not that the subject was in itself inexplicable, or that the writer was incompetent to explain it; his difficulty was in adapting the interpretation to the capacity of his readers: “Non scribentis, sed vestro vitio” (Bengel). It seems from (“ye are become”), in this and the following verse, that the Hebrew Christians had even retrograded in spiritual perception. This is easily conceivable. As, through the teaching of St. Paul especially, the tie between Christianity and Judaism became more and more broken, there was likely to be a certain reaction among the Hebrew Christians, who, having gone to a certain extent with the tide of thought, became conscious how far it was carrying them. They would be inclined to cling the more fondly to their old associations from the fear of losing them altogether. Such retrogressions have been observable in other times of upheaval of old ideas.
Heb 5:12
For when, by reason of the time (i.e. the time that has elapsed since your conversion), ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that some one teach you (or, that one teach you which be) the first principles (literally, the elements of the beginning) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, anti not of solid food. in this verse seems best taken in union with , rather than with ; the phrase, , meaning “the initiatory elements”the A, B, C of Christian teaching. The word (“oracles”), is used elsewhere for the revelations of the Old Testament, as Act 7:38; Rom 3:2. Here its meaning can hardly be taken as confined to them, since the first principles of the gospel are being spoken of. Still, a word that includes them in its meaning may be purposely used by way of intimating that the elements intended are those of Judaism as well as Christianity, or of the latter only in its first emergence out of Judaism. And accordingly, Heb 6:1, Heb 6:2, where they are enumerated, are (as will be seen) so worded as to imply no more than this; nor are the first principles there mentioned beyond what an enlightened Jew might be expected to understand readily. Be it observed that the Hebrew Church need not be supposed to have actually lost sight of these first principles, so as to require a new indoctrination into them. There may be a vein of delicate irony in what is said, after the manner of St. Paul. All that is of necessity implied is that there had been such a failure in seeing what these principles led to as to suggest the necessity of their being learnt anew. The writer does not, in fact, as he goes on, require them to be learnt anew; for he bids his readers leave them behind, as though already known, and proceed from them to perfection, though still with some misgiving as to their capability for doing so. The figure of milk for babes and solid food for full-grown men, to illustrate the teaching suitable for neophytes and for advanced Christians, is found also in 1Co 3:1, 1Co 3:2; and that of in 1Co 14:20; Gal 4:19; Eph 4:14. This correspondence, though no proof of the Pauline authorship, is among the evidences of the Pauline character of the Epistle.
Heb 5:13
For every one that partaketh of milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. Reason for saying that they are such as have need of milk; for milk is the nourishment of infants, and he that is an infant in respect of spiritual growth is : not of necessity unacquainted with it altogether, but still not versed in it; he is but a tyro. “Word of righteousness” may be taken as a general term to denote what we might call religious lore; referring here especially to the gospel, which is eminently the revelation of the “righteousness of God” (Rom 1:17; cf. 2Co 3:9, : and 2Co 11:15, ); but not excluding a more general conception. There is no need to suppose an exclusive reference to the more perfect doctrine in opposition to the elements, since, of the whole subject of religious knowledge, the may be said to be in the sense of being without the matured skill that experience gives. Hence, too, we are certainly not justified in finding in the phrase a specific allusion to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith only, which is not suggested by the context or by what follows. Still less may we (with Delitzsch) so ignore the notable significance of as to reduce the expression to a synonym for “rightly framed, that is sound and orthodox discourse.”
Heb 5:14
But solid food is for them that are of full age (, equivalent to “perfect;” but in the sense of maturity of age or growth, in contrast with ; as in 1Co 14:20; of. 1Co 2:6; Eph 4:13; Php 3:15), those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. Here the comparison is carried out with peculiar aptness. in the illustration are the organs of sense. In the infant the digestive organs, in the first place, exercised in the beginning on milk, acquire through that exercise the power of assimilating more solid and more complex food, while at the same time its sensitive organs generally, also through exercise, become consciously discriminative of “good and evil” (cf. Isa 7:15, Isa 7:16, where “to know to refuse the evil and choose the good” denotes, as if proverbially, the age after early childhood). So, in the spiritual sphere, the mental faculties, exercised at first on simple truths, should acquire by practice the power of apprehending and distinguishing’ between higher and more recondite ones. It was because the Hebrew Christians had failed thus to bring out their faculties that they were open to the charge of being still in a state of infancy.
HOMILETICS
Heb 5:1-10
Style high priesthood of Christ.
In these verses the author proceeds with his discussion of the priestly character and work of the Lord Jesus, as typified by the Aaronical priesthood.
I. WHAT A HIGH PRIEST IS. The office is a most honorable one; it is referred to in Heb 5:4 as “the honor.” This will appear from a consideration of the high priest’s functions and qualifications.
1. His functions. The most important of these are indicated in Heb 5:1.
(1) He acts for other men in things respecting their relations to God. The root-idea of the office is that, while access to God is denied to sinners on the ground of nature, he has been pleased to grant it in connection with special arrangements of grace.
(2) He offers sacrifices, both free-will offerings and sin offerings. As men are guilty, this is indispensable; and thus in common speech the terms “priest” and “sacrifice” are correlatives. There can ha no priest without a sacrifice.
2. His qualifications.
(1) He must be human (Heb 5:1)a partaker of the nature that is to he redeemed.
(2) He must be humane (Heb 5:2)capable of considerate sympathy with the people for whom he mediates. How sadly opposite in character to this have the world’s priests almost always been! How dark are the thoughts suggested by the word “priestcraft”! Priests have been arrogant, cruel, tyrants over conscience, enemies of progress, patrons of ignorance and error. But the typical priest is a man of culture and refinement, who has abjured the motto, “Odi profanum vulgus et arceo,” and who, realizing his own frailty, “can bear gently with the ignorant and erring.”
(3) He must have a sacrifice (Heb 5:3)”somewhat to offer.” Without a sin offering priestly mediation would be impotent, and the holy and just God would remain inaccessible.
(4) He must be appointed by God. (Heb 5:4) It is for God to decide whether he will allow himself to be approached at all on behalf of the guilty, and it belongs to him also to select the person whose mediation will be acceptable to him.
II. THE REALITY OF CHRIST‘S HIGH PRIESTHOOD. The apostle goes on to showbut arranging his thoughts for the most part in the reverse orderthat the Lord Jesus possesses all the needful qualifications for the high priesthood, and that he actually discharges its duties (Heb 5:5-10).
1. He has the qualifications of a high priest.
(1) He was appointed by God. (Heb 5:5, Heb 5:6) The reference to Psa 2:1-12. suggests his perfect fitness for the office, and the quotation from Psa 110:1-7. is a proof of his ordination by the irrevocable oath of God.
(2) He is a man. (Psa 110:7, 8) Although God said to him, “My Son,” he had taken “the form of a servant,” and “in the days of his flesh” bad” learned obedience.”
(3) He is able to sympathize. (Psa 110:7, 8) He passed through a course of the deepest affliction and the most dreadful temptation, that he might acquire the necessary experience for his work. He “suffered,” not only at Nazareth and Capernaum, and during the whole period of his public ministry, but especially by means of the unparalleled agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha.
(4) He offered himself as a sacrifice. (Psa 110:7, 8) By his “obedience” Jesus effected complete reconciliation for sin. His trembling agony in the garden and the woe which he bore upon the tree are inexplicable on the principle that he was only a martyr, or on any other principle than that in some mysterious way he was thus bearing the wrath of God against sin.
2. He discharges the duties of a high priest. (Verse 9) The Savior’s acquisition of all the qualifications “made him perfect,” i.e. officially all-accomplished as the Priest of mankind. He has procured for us everlasting salvation, and he bestows it upon all who obey him by faith. He has expiated sin. He has rendered God propitious. He gives his people access. He prays to God for them. In short, he performs all the duties of a high priest, and his priesthood has superseded every other.
III. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN CHRIST‘S PRIESTHOOD AND THE AARONICAL.
1. Being personally holy, Jesus needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself (Psa 110:3).
2. He is both Priest and Victim (Psa 110:7, 8).
3. His priesthood really procures salvation (verse 9), and not merely typically.
4. It is of a higher order than Aaron’s, and was more fully represented by that of Melchizedek (verse 10); for it is
(1) intransferable and everlasting;
(2) a royal priesthood, Christ being King as well as Priest.
LESSONS.
1. We, being guilty and sinful, can have intercourse with God only through Christ as our Priest.
2. We ought to cherish absolute confidence in his priestly power and sympathy.
3. Christian ministers are not “called of God” to be priests (Psa 110:4), and must beware of importing sacerdotal conceptions into the idea which they entertain of their office; yet every pastor should, like the model high priest of ancient times, “bear gently with the ignorant and erring.”
Heb 5:11-14
A sharp reproof for ignorance.
The apostle, having used the expression,” after the order of Melchizedek,“ remembers that his readers will not be likely to understand it without careful explanation. So he pauses in his argument to chide them for their backwardness in religious knowledge.
I. THE TRUTHS OF REVELATION ARE PROFOUND AND FAR–REACHING. The story of God’s love in redemption may, no doubt, be called with propriety “the simple gospel;” but, while it is so, it exhibits at the same time “the manifold wisdom of God.” The Bible is not merely a book; it is a literature. It does not simply contain a message of mercy; it is the record of a long and gradually developing process of redeeming grace. It may be studied profoundly from many different standpoints, as e.g. those of history, of dogmatic theology, of morals, of ecclesiology, etc. The Bible deals, too, with all the deepest and most wonderful of themes, such as the human soul, the problem of sin, God, eternity, and immortality. So there is spiritual food in Holy Scripture, at once for the shallowest and the profoundest minds. Revelation supplies not only “milk” for “babes in Christ,” i.e. the alphabet and rudiments of religious knowledge, but “solid food” for “full-grown men,” i.e. materials for the more recondite study of Christianity as a great and harmonious system of Divine truth.
II. CHRISTIANS DIFFER IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE. They differ because:
1. Some are “babes.” Believers who are young in years, and those of maturer age who have newly come to the knowledge of the truth, require to be fed with the “milk” or simplest elements of religious instruction.
2. Some are “full-grown men,“ who can relish and digest the “solid food” of the Word. An advanced Christian who is a diligent student of Scripture will acquire so firm a grasp of truth as to become qualified to act the part of a “teacher” in the Church (verse 12). His proficiency in knowledge will sharpen his spiritual perceptions, so that he will learn readily to distinguish between “good and evil” in doctrine (verse 14).
3. Some are invalids. The apostle chides his Hebrew readers for having become such, as the result of their disregard of the laws of spiritual health. It was now many years since they had first believed, and by this time they should have been adults in Christian knowledgequick of apprehension in relation to the higher reaches of truth. So far, however, from being able to assimilate the “solid food” of the Word, they had degenerated into spiritual weaklings and invalids. They heard the gospel indolently (verse 11). The “solid food” which they had once enjoyed now occasioned them the miseries of dyspepsia. They could digest nothing but gospel “milk.” In our own time, too, there are many such invalids. What multitudes attend church through the years, and yet never get beyond the attainments of the sabbath school! How many otherwise intelligent men are quite ignorant of the organic structure of the Bible! How many betray an utter want of living interest in the doctrines and truths of the New Testament!
III. REASONS WHY THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF MANY CHRISTIANS IS SO DEFECTIVE. The Hebrews were “dull of hearing” because they had got divided in heart between Christianity and Judaism, and because they were beset with temptations to apostatize from a faith which had involved them in much trial. Now, our temptations are substantially similar. Our hearts are prone to try to serve both God and mammon; and we are tempted to avoid very intimate acquaintance with a religion faithfulness to which demands from us very serious sacrifices. In addition to these fundamental reasons others may be indicated, as follows:
1. The want of earnest Bible study. The hurry of the age acts on the side of spiritual ignorance. Other studies and pursuits are clamorous in their claims; those e.g. of business, politics, literature, philosophy, science, art. Thus many Christians do not read the Bible systematically, or with sufficient intellectual effort. The larger part of the Old Testament is, to their minds, a kind of desert of Sahara. Perhaps they interest themselves only in isolated texts, apart from the scope of the passage in which these occur.
2. Neglect of parental instruction. Every parent is bound to sow the seeds of Divine truth in the minds and hearts of his children. Where this duty becomes generally neglected the rising generation can only continue one of spiritual infants.
3. Irregularity in attendance upon God’s house. (Heb 10:25) Church-going is not religion, but as it is a divinely appointed ordinance, a man need not expect to grow in grace and in Christian knowledge without it.
4. Unedifying preaching. The consecutive exposition of Scripture from the pulpit, when wisely and skillfully done, trains a people into “experience of the Word of righteousness.” The congregation which receives no instruction of this kind may be expected to become “dull of hearing.”
5. Misconception of what adequate religious knowledge is. Many good people judge that, having apprehended and embraced “the simple gospel,” they have finished their spiritual education. They love a few pet texts which express “the rudiments of the first principles” (verse 12), and are content to leave the rest of the Bible alone. They count it a virtue to relish only “evangelistic preaching,” and seem even proud of occupying always only the first form in the school of Christ. But the fruit of their neglect of the truth in its higher and deeper and broader aspects becomes apparent in the imperfection of their Christian character, and in their lack of progress towards perfection.
IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH,
1. Reverence to God requires it. He has not given any portion of his Word in vain. Intelligent Christians dishonor him when they do not “press on unto perfection” as students of the Bible in every department of its glorious design and drift and method.
2. Duty to our own souls requires it. If we would not become spiritual dwarfs, but “full-grown men,” we must “search the Scriptures.” If we would be truly happy and. prosperous, we must “meditate on God’s law day and night.”
3. Usefulness to others requires it. Believers who have become established in knowledge and grace are expected to serve the Lord Jesus as “teachers” (verse 12). A Christian, too, should be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh him a reason concerning the hope that is in him.”
HOMILIES BY W. JONES
Heb 5:2
An essential qualification for successful ministry.
“Who can have compassion on the ignorant,” etc. According to our reading of the New Testament, the Christian ministry is not a priesthood except in the sense that, being Christians, ministers belong to that “holy priesthood,” that “royal priesthood,” of which every true Christian is g member. Yet there were certain qualifications of the Aaronic priesthood which are indispensable to the usefulness of the Christian ministry. One of these is mentioned in our text; its nature will appear as we proceed. The text suggests
I. THAT SINS DIFFER IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR GUILT. In this respect several things have to be taken into account.
1. There are differences in the sins themselves. The wickedness of sins of presumption is far greater than that of sins of ignorance (cf. Num 15:27-31). Sins of rebellion are far removed from sins of error. The persons mentioned in our text are not those who have sinned “with a high hand,” but “the ignorant and erring”those who have sinned by reason of moral “infirmity,” or who have wandered from the way of truth and duty because of their own spiritual negligence. Such sinners are by no means guiltless, but they are much less guilty than some others.
2. There are differences in the conditions and circumstances in which sins are committed. The force of the solicitation to sin, the strength of inherited tendency to certain forms of moral evil, the quality of the moral atmosphere surrounding the sinner,these greatly differ amongst men; and this and other considerations -must be carefully weighed before the guilt of any sin can be fairly estimated. “Two persons may commit the same identical crime, yet the guilt may be inconceivably greater in the one case than the ether. The one may have had no instruction, no benefit from parental culture, no faithful admonitions, no holy example to direct and regulate, no warning to restrain, no encouragement to animate in the path. The other may have been surrounded by all the helps and inducements to right considerationto holy fear, to correct conductand therefore his sin is marked with a far higher degree of aggravation than the sin of the other; and thus, in the sight of God, the judge on the bench often may be far more guilty than the criminal at the bar.”
II. THE WISE AND GOOD MINISTER TO SOULS WILL PRACTICALLY RECOGNIZE THESE DIFFERENCES IN THE GUILT OF SINS. Only the Omniscient can perfectly discriminate in this respect, yet the text indicates a discrimination and consideration which every one who would minister helpfully to souls will endeavor to exercise.
1. He will not harshly condemn sinners. He is . On the one hand, he is not unfeeling; on the other, he is not carried away by his feelings, but he regulates and moderates his feelings; he has control over his passions.
2. He will endeavor to discriminate sins of ignorance and error from sins of a darker hue. He will deal thoughtfully with souls, not regarding all sinners as equally guilty or all sins as equally heinous. In so doing he will be following precedents of unquestionable authority. Our Lord and his apostles thus discriminated, and made merciful allowance for the ignorance and error of sinners (see Luk 23:1-56. 34; Act 3:17; 1Ti 1:13; 1Pe 2:25).
3. He will treat the ignorant and the erring with gentleness. He will “have compassion on the ignorant,” etc; margin, “reasonably bear with;” Revised Version, “who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring.” How beautiful and sublime is our Savior’s example in this respect! For his crucifiers he prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
III. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS OWN MORAL INFIRMITY SHOULD INDUCE THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER TO DEAL THUS GENTLY WITH THE IGNORANT AND THE ERRING. “For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.”
1. His own moral infirmity qualifies him to understand the moral ignorances and errors of others. He has had to contend against sinful inclinations and Satanic temptations. He knows from his own experience how easily the soul is sometimes led astray, and he can enter into the moral wanderings and sorrowful returnings of others.
2. His own moral infirmity should lead him, to be patient and gentle with the ignorant and erring. He has himself required and received forbearance at the hands of both God and man. He will very probably need similar forbearance in time to come. How, then, can he be intolerant or harsh with others? Our own need of mercy and patience from others, and preeminently from God, should lead us to be merciful and patient with others. The chief lesson of our subject is applicable to all who would render spiritual services to their fellow-men. Let parents, and instructors of the young, and preachers of the gospel, and pastors of Churches, ever remember that if they would benefit the ignorant and erring they must be forbearing and gentle with them. Sternness and severity will repel and discourage, and probably aggravate moral infirmity into moral perversity. But patience and. charity will encourage worthy hopes in the breasts of those who have gone astray, and restore them to the path of truth and. duty, and inspire them to more earnest and patient efforts in Christian life and service. Be it ours, not to condemn the ignorant and erring, but to instruct and restore them.W.J.
Heb 5:7, Heb 5:8
The suffering Savior.
“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered,” etc. Our text suggests the following observations:
I. IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH OUR LORD ENDURED SEVEREST SUFFERINGS. “The things which he suffered” induced the agonizing prayer, the “strong crying and tears.” He bore the common sufferings of our humanity; e.g. hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. He suffered from the cruel ingratitude of men, from the base slanders of his enemies, and from the subtle and sinful solicitations of Satan. His sensitive and holy soul suffered keenly from his contact with so much of sin and sorrow and pain in this world. But the particular reference in the text is to his anguish in Gethsemane. How sore was his sorrow, how terrible his agony, upon that occasion! “He began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled: and he saith, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death.”
II. IN HIS SUFFERINGS OUR LORD SOUGHT RELIEF IN PRAYER, “He offered up prayers and supplications,” etc. (Heb 5:7). Notice:
1. The Belong to whom he addressed his prayer. “Unto him that was able to save him from death,” i.e. to the great Sovereign of both life and death; “the God in whose hand our breath is,” who “giveth to all life and breath and all things, in whom we live and move and have our being.” Our Savior directed his prayer to his Father, saying, “O my Father,” etc.
2. The object which he sought in his prayer. This is not mentioned here; but it is in the narrative of the conflict in Gethsemane. “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me.” From what did the Savior recoil so shudderingly? Certainly neither from mere death, nor from “the dread of something after death.” The pains of dissolution could not have affrighted him, and beyond death there was nothing to dismay or repel him. But death, with all the dread significance and terrible circumstances such as awaited him, he shrank from in intense spiritual pain. This has been forcibly expressed by Dr. Farrar: “It was something far deadlier than death. It was the burden and the mystery of the world’s sin which lay heavy on his heart; it was the tasting, in the Divine humanity of a sinless life, the bitter cup which sin had poisoned; it was the bowing of Godhead to endure a stroke to which man’s apostasy had lent such frightful possibilities. It was the sense, too, of how virulent, how frightful, must have been the force of evil in the universe of God which could render necessary so infinite a sacrifice. It was the endurance, by the perfectly guiltless, of the worst malice which human hatred could devise; it was to experience, in the bosom of perfect innocence and perfect love, all that was detestable in human ingratitude, all that was pestilent in human hypocrisy, all that was cruel in human rage. It was to brave the last triumph of Satanic spite and fury, uniting against his lonely head all the flaming arrows of Jewish falsity and heathen corruptionthe concentrated wrath of the rich and respectable, the yelling fury of the blind and brutal mob. It was to feel that his own, to whom he came, loved darkness rather than lightthat the race of the chosen people could be wholly absorbed in one insane repulsion against infinite goodness and purity and love. Through all this he passed in that hour which, with a recoil of sinless horror beyond our capacity to conceive, foretasted a worse bitterness than the worst bitterness of death.” This was the cup which he prayed might pass away from him.
3. The intensity with which he urged his prayer. This is indicated
(1) by the fact that two words, which are nearly synonymous, are used to express his prayer. He “offered up prayers and supplications.” The conjunction of synonymous words is “a mode of expressing intensity, which is very frequent in the sacred writings.”
(2) By his “strong crying.” The loud cries were the expression of agonized feeling and of earnest entreaty.
(3) By his “tears.” Great natures weep, but not for trifles. Their tears indicate deep emotion. Our Lord’s tears in Gethsemane welled up from a “soul exceeding sorrowful,” and were significant of a painful fervency of supplication. “Being in an agony he prayed more earnestly,” etc. (Luk 22:44).
III. IN ANSWER TO HIS PRAYER OUR LORD OBTAINED SUPPORT IN HIS SUFFERINGS.
1. The nature of the answer to his prayer, Not exemption from the cup, but victory over the dread of it, and support in drinking it. He was fortified for his future sufferings and trials, and sustained in them. “There appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.” His personal wishes were now lost in the perfect will of his Father. His dread anxieties are gone, and he is divinely calm. His trembling fears have departed, and he is sublimely courageous. Henceforth, even unto the bitter end, he is serene in sternest sufferings, patient under the most irritating provocations, a meek yet majestic Conqueror. Such was the Father’s answer to his prayer. And every true prayer which is offered to God is answered by him, though not always by granting the specific requests (cf. 2Co 12:7-10).
2. The reason of the answer to his prayer. “And was heard in that he feared;” margin, “for his piety;” Revised Version, “Having been heard for his godly fear;” Alford, “Having been heard by reason of his reverent submission.” His pious resignation to the holy will of his Father was the ground upon which his prayer was answered, and the victory was given unto him. “Nevertheless,” said he, “not as I will, but as Thou wilt…. O my Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.” When we can thus say, “Thy will Be done,” we have already an installment of the answer to our prayers, and the fullness of the blessing will not tarry.
IV. BY HIS SUFFERINGS HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE HOLY WILL OF HIS FATHER WAS PERFECTED. “Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by,” etc. His obedience as a Son was always perfect. His obedience here spoken of is obedience in suffering. As his obedience became more difficult, involving more and more of self-renunciation, and pain ever increasing in severity, he still obeyed, He willed to endure the sharpest, sternest sufferings rather than fail even in the slightest degree in his practical loyalty to the perfect will of his Father. “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” This obedience he learned, as he proceeded step by step along his painful path, until the lesson was finished and the obedience was consummated on the cress. All Christ’s disciples need the discipline of suffering to perfect them in the practice of the Father’s will (cf. Mat 16:24).W.J.
Heb 5:9
Salvationits Author and its recipients.
“And being made perfect, he became the Author,” etc. The subject of the writer in this part of his Epistle is the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. In treating this subject he dwells upon the sufferings of Christ in his priestly office, and a certain perfection which resulted from his sufferings. He was God’s only and well-beloved Son, yet he was not exempt from suffering. “He learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” We must not suppose that he was not perfectly acquainted with the nature of obedience, or that he did not fully recognize the duty of it, or that he was in any way indisposed to render it, before he suffered. The meaning is that though he was so highly exalted in his relationship to the Father, yet “he was subjected to learn experimentally what it is to obey in the midst of suffering.” He learned the lesson perfectly. He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Our text leads us to consider three things.
I. THE PERFECTION WHICH CHRIST ATTAINED THROUGH SUFFERING. “And having been made perfect.” Having assumed human nature, Christ was capable of suffering; and in that nature he did indeed suffer. His entire life upon earth was one of humiliation and sacrifice. Being sympathetic, the sufferings of men were a constant grief to him. Being holy, the sins of men constantly stung his soul with pain. At the last his sufferings deepened into awful intensity. In Gethsemane his sorrow and conflict almost brought down his human nature unto death. And on the cross his pain and woe were unutterable, and to us inconceivably severe. Of all sufferers Christ is the Sufferer. In all these sufferings he was obedient. He endured them voluntarily. Through his obedience in suffering he became perfect. The author of our salvation was made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb 2:10). This acquired perfection was not personal As God he is eternally perfect; as man he was perfect without suffering. The perfection of our text is relative. By suffering he Became perfect in his relation to us as our Savior, our Intercessor, our great High Priest. By suffering:
1. He made a perfect atonement for sin.
2. He became perfectly qualified to sympathize with and to succor his suffering people. (Cf. Heb 4:14-16)
3. He became a perfect example for his people in their sufferings.
4. He entered upon his perfect triumph and glory. (Cf. Heb 2:9; Heb 12:2; Php 2:5-11)
II. THE GREAT END BOTH OF CHRIST‘S SUFFERING AND OF HIS PERFECTION ACQUIRED THROUGH HIS SUFFERING. This end was that he might Be the Author, or the great procuring cause, of a perfect salvation for men. “Being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation.” Here are three points.
1. The salvation. Forgiveness of sin, freedom from condemnation, deliverance from the sovereignty of sin, the awakening of a new ruling principle and power in man, conversion into a condition of holiness, peace and joy, entrance into heaven, blessed union with God.
2. The perpetuity of salvation. “Eternal salvation.” No partial, incomplete, temporary Blessing; but “eternal salvation””the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Does not this, at least, suggest that there is no falling back from the hand of Christ into the power of Satan? Doubtless man always can do so, inasmuch as he is morally free; but this “eternal salvation” establishes man’s freedom, yet binds it to holiness, and leads him to cry, “I delight to do thy will, O my God.” This Blessing shall continue when bonds and banks, estates and fortunes, coronets and crowns, shall have perished. Blessed Be the Lord for his “eternal salvation”!
3. The Author of salvation. Our salvation is owing to Jesus Christ. The ministry of providence, of religious ordinances, and of good men, may assist us in availing ourselves of this salvation; but they cannot save us; they are not “the cause of salvation.” Our salvation originated in the infinite love of God. “God so loved the world,” etc. Our salvation was effected by his Son, our Savior. He became man, taught, labored, suffered, lived, died, and ever lives to save us. He is our only Savior. The great end of his sufferings was our “eternal salvation.”
III. THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS SALVATION. “Unto all them that obey him.” This, of course, does not mean that we merit salvation by obeying the Savior. But those who have merely some doctrinal knowledge of Christ and his salvation, those who have only a dead. faith in him, a mere intellectual assent to the great facts of his history and teaching, are not partakers of his salvation. As he attained his mediatorial perfection and glory by complete and hearty obedience to his Father, so must man obey him if we would attain unto “eternal salvation.” Salvation is found in obedience to him, because:
1. True and saving faith inspires the life and shapes the conduct. (Of. Act 15:9; Rom 16:26; Gal 5:6; Jas 2:17-26)
2. Christ saves men from their sins. He is a Prince to rule us, as well as a Savior to deliver us.
3. All who are being saved by Christ love him, and the loving heart delights to obey the loved One.
4. The disobedient cannot enter heaven. Heaven is a realm of perfect obedience to the supreme will, of loyal and loving devotion to God’s service. Unless the spirit of hearty obedience be ours, we are out of sympathy with heaven.
CONCLUSION.
1. Trust this perfect Savior.
2. Obey him. Copy his own obedience.W.J.
Heb 5:11-14
Spiritual obtuseness.
“Of whom we have many things to say,” etc. In treating of the analogy between the priesthood of Melchizedek and that of Christ, the writer was hindered by the spiritual obtuseness of his readers. “We have many things to say, and difficult of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing.” The writer found it difficult to explain his subject to them, because they were so dull and slow in their apprehension. Notice
I. SPIRITUAL OBTUSENESS IS SOMETIMES VERY GREAT. It was so in the case of the persons here addressed, as may be seen by contrasting what they might anti ought to have been and. what they were. They should, have been able to have taught others; they really needed teaching themselves, and that of the most elementary kind. “When ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God.” They required instructing again in “the beginnings of the beginning” of Christian doctrine. Moreover, when they should have been men in spiritual intelligence, they were only babes. “And are become such as have need of milk,” etc. It is pitiful and painful to reflect upon the prevalence of spiritual obtuseness in our own age. How many Christians are perfectly content and self-satisfied having only the barest rudiments of Scripture truth! Some even pride themselves in holding “the truth,” as though they had grasped and mastered all truth; and in their firm adherence to “the simple gospel,” as though there were no profundities and sublimities in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We fear that the Bible is far more widely circulated than read, and far more extensively read than studied or understood.
II. SPIRITUAL OBTUSENESS IS SOMETIMES SINFUL. We say “sometimes;” for when this dullness of perception or difficulty of apprehension arises from original deficiency of faculty, or from the scarcity of opportunities for progress in acquaintance with Christian truth, no moral blame attaches to it. It is deplorable, but not censurable. To whom only little is given, of him only little will be required. But in the case before us the writer says, “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers,” etc. Let us look at the argument expressed or implied here.
1. Time and opportunities for progress had been given to them. “By reason of the time” since they became Christians they should have made sufficient advancement to have been able to have instructed others. Therefore the time must have been considerable.
2. There should have been a proportion between the opportunities afforded and the progress made. This is clearly implied in the text. It is also righteous and reasonable.
3. The existence of spiritual obtuseness notwithstanding opportunities of progress is morally wrong.
Such spiritual dullness is not a misfortune, but a sin. It is an evidence of opportunities of progress neglected, of responsibilities unacknowledged or unfulfilled, and, it may be, of sins indulged in. Purity of heart and the power of perceiving spiritual truth are closely related. Slowness of spiritual apprehension often arises from the corruption of the heart. The pure heart is quick and true in its perceptions. “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God.” Worldliness of spirit also dims and diminishes the perceptive powers of the soul. If a man’s eyes are ever fixed upon the earth, how can he see the brilliance and beauty of the starry heavens? If a man’s affections are fixed upon the material and perishable things of this present world, he will gradually lose his power for perceiving the ethereal and perennial beauty of religious truth, or even for perceiving such truth at all.
III. SPIRITUAL OBTUSENESS INVOLVES SERIOUS LOSS.
1. Loss to the community. In cases like that mentioned in the text, the obtuse persons ought to be able to teach others, at least the elementary truths of Christianity. Parents should be able to instruct their children; the Christian should be able to help his friend who is seeking for life and truth, etc.
2. Loss to the individual. The man of dull spiritual apprehension loses the fuller and higher teaching. The full beauty of the landscape is not for the man of diseased or impaired physical vision. In like manner the beauty and sublimity of Divine truth and the serene splendors of holiness are invisible to those who are spiritually obtuse. Or, changing the figure, the food of moral manhood is not for them; they are unable to assimilate it, and must needs be limited to the dietary of babyhood. Several practical and profitable reflections arise from our subject.
1. The need of adaptation in Christian teaching. The sacred writings contain “milk for babes,” “solid food for full-grown men,” and food suited for all the intermediate stages of the Christian life. The wise teacher will endeavor to distribute to each the food suited to his condition.
2. The obligatoriness of progress in Christian discipleship. Infancy has its charms, but not as a permanent state. Infancy must pass on by orderly development into manhood. Continuous spiritual infancy is unnatural and sinful. A permanent milk diet in the spiritual life indicates a stationariness which is unhealthy and culpable (cf. Eph 4:11-15).
3. In the mature stage of Christian life there is the qualification for the exercise of discrimination in spiritual things. “Full-grown men by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.” Their spiritual faculties are trained and disciplined, and so they are able to distinguish between the true and false, the superior and the inferior, in Christian teaching. Alas, that the people who are least mature are generally the most forward in exercising this critical function!
4. We see why the ministry of the gospel is sometimes comparatively ineffectual. In some instances the smallness of its success is owing to the want of adaptation in the ministry itself; in others, to the sinful and almost insuperable spiritual obtuseness of the hearers thereof.W.J.
HOMILIES BY C. NEW
Heb 5:1-6
Christ’s Divine appointment to the high priesthood the fulfillment of one essential qualification for that position.
This begins the third great section of the Epistle. Section 1. (Heb 1:1-14. and 2) sets forth the Deity and humanity of the Lord Jesus; Christ’s superiority to the angels through whose ministration the old dispensation was said to be established. Section it. (Heb 3:1-19. and 4) sets forth the surpassing greatness of our Lord as compared with Moses, the great leader of the old dispensation. Section 3. (Heb 5:1-14.-10) sets forth our Lord greater than Aaron, the representative of the purely religious element of the old dispensation. Christ infinitely greater than all these, and therefore the new covenant in him infinitely better than the oldthat now is the writer’s argument. The first ten verses of Heb 5:1-14. are an introduction to the third section. Before Christ’s fulfillment of high priestly work is discussed, it is necessary to show that he does actually hold that position. Christ is really High Priest; the first proof of that is in the passage before us. SubjectChrist’s Divine appointment to the high priesthood the fulfillment of one essential qualification for that position.
I. CONSIDER THE FACT OF MEDIATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. The high priest was “appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” “Gifts” equivalent to, those of God to menreconciliation and benediction. “Sacrifices for sins” equivalent to, those of men to God; that is, he was charged to manage the concerns of his brethren with the Most High, holding an intermediate position. What was the necessity for such an intermediary?
1. It was a witness to the sinfulness of man. One tribe was set apart for the service of the tabernacle. Only one family of this might enter the sacred building, Aaron and his four sons; five persons in all out of the thousands of Israel, and these only permitted to undertake their duties after solemn rules of consecration. But of this family, only one might pass into the most holy place, and he but once in a year, and then only in a manner which must have impressed him deeply with the sanctity of the place. Nothing could more clearly show the distance at which sin had placed man from God.
2. The fact of mediation is a declaration that the broken intercourse between God and man can be renewed. In Eden God communed with man, but sin broke this communion. Sinful man could only say with Cain, “From thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond.” But when the doctrine of mediation was taughtand that must have been very early, for it underlies the idea of sacrificehow great a door of hope was suddenly opened before them! The intervention of another might yet be, like Jacob’s ladder, the means of communication between heaven and earth.
3. The fact of mediation is a testimony to the principle of substitution. This principle which underlies the New Testament system no less underlies the Old; it runs through the entire Word of God as the principle which keeps it together. Mediation is representation. The high priest represented the people before God. God treated with him on their behalf. What they could not do for themselves, he did.
II. THE NECESSITY THAT THE MEDIATOR SHOULD BE DIVINELY APPOINTED. The stress of the passage is on the word “appointed.”
1. This is necessary to ensure the Divine acceptance of the Mediator. Man has no rights, no power, he is helpless and undone, entirely dependent on the mercy of the offended God. He, therefore, can have no assurance that his representative will be accepted apart from the Divine appointment of him; but that gives perfect assurance. He whom God has appointed to draw near to him on our behalf cannot draw near in vain.
2. This Divine appointment is necessary to show the good will of God to those for whom mediation is made. “If man appointed his own mediator it would only show his yearning after God, but when God appoints the mediator it shows God’s yearning after him.” Man could not devise the idea of one to present his case before God; the will would be wanting. Before there could be any movement towards heaven, God himself must work; there must be the upward drawing Before the upward tendency. God must always precede our desire for him. Tim desire for a mediator, the fact of a divinely appointed Mediator, prove that God is on our side.
3. This Divine appointment is necessary to secure the fulfillment of the mediatorial work, or, at least, for one assurance of this. We expect that “what is no one’s work” will remain undone. A special appointment is necessary if we are to enjoy confidence. Now, for the removal of our doubts as to whether our wants really are made known to God, the sacrifice for our sin really presented, etc., there is the fact that one Person of the Divine Trinity has been set apart for this purpose. That being so, not in the least particular will the mediatorial duties be unfulfilled.
III. THE FULFILMENT OF THIS NECESSITY IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. “So also Christ,” etc.
1. The Father hath appointed Christ to this work. Could our case be in better hands? He is no stranger to us. We have seen him, and walked with him, and lived with him in the Gospel history. Could we choose, with whom would we leave ourselves as with Jesus?
2. The Divine dignity of Christ adds yet greater worth to this appointment. “Thou art my Son.” The Divine Son has free access to the Father, and. to his ear and heart. What he asks the Father desires; for he and his Father are one. For him to plead for us is for God to plead with himself for us. Moreover, as God he is omniscient and untiring and infinitely loving, so that none of our needs escape him.
3. The fact that Christ regards this position as one of glory adds still further worth to the Divine appointment. “Christ glorified not himself to be,” etc. He counts it a glory to be our Mediator; then behold how he loves us! How certainly he will fulfill this work; for he is jealous of his glory!C.N.
Heb 5:7-10
Christ’s human experience the second qualification for high priestly work.
The second proof that Christ holds the high priestly position. In Heb 5:1, Heb 5:2 the double qualification for this is showna qualification Godward and rearward; he must be appointed by God, and able to sympathize with man. Both these are shown to be true of Christ, and that he is, therefore, officially “perfect” (Heb 5:9, Heb 5:10).
I. THE NECESSITY THAT THE HIGH PRIEST SHOULD HAVE PERSONAL ACQUAINTANCE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE. He “must be taken from among men.”
1. Apart from this he could be no true representative of mankind. Human obedience to the Divine Law was required of men. Christ undertook, as their Representative, to meet all requirements; that made the Incarnation a necessity. Christ must keep the Law on the same footing on which Adam stood when he came from God’s hand. So, likewise, bearing man’s penalty, he must assume a nature which could be. That is, he must become man.
2. Apart from this he could not secure the confidence of the people. Christ need not pass through human experience in order to understand it; he understands it by his omniscience. But the infirmity of human faith can better confide in the sympathy of one who, it knows, has personally endured its trials.
II. THE FULFILMENT OF THIS QUALIFICATION IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. “Who in the days of his flesh,” etc.
1. An illustration of Christ’s deep experience of human suffering. The reference is, evidently, to Gethsemane. What could have affected the Savior then so intensely? Not the anticipation of physical anguish, for then he would have fallen lower than the martyrs; not the dread of rejection by the people, for he had already endured that with great calmness; not the fear of the act of death, for he spoke of that with joy: “If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because,” etc. It could only have been because death would be to him what it could be to none otherthe bearing of the world’s sin, the experience of sin’s doom. But why does the writer refer to this, but because it is the culminating point of our Lord’s suffering? He leads them to look at Jesus when he has reached the deepest depth of suffering possible. However deep his people’s darkness, Jesus has gone deeper still. He knows the lowest, therefore also the intermediate stages.
2. An illustration of the pain involved in submitting our will to God. “He learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” Obedience is submission of the will to God. That was the burden of the prayer in Gethsemane. He laid his will absolutely at the Father’s feet. Christ did not learn to be obedient. He came to do God’s will; that was his meat and drink. He did always (from the first) those things which please the Father. He learned obediencecame to know what it means for the flesh to submit ever to the will of Heaven; what it is to obey God amidst human frailties, pains, temptations.
3. An illustration of Christ’s dependence for fidelity on heavenly helps. He prayed to be saved (not “from”) “out of death;” not that death might be avertedfor his prayer “was heard”but that he might be delivered out of it. Divine support was given, and a glorious resurrection. Christ, as man, had no inherent power by reason of his Deity for what, as man, he had to do and bear. He stood on man’s footing. Perhaps nothing brings him closer to us than that for all he needed he had to cling to God in trustful supplication as we have, and receive delivering and sustaining grace because thereof as we do.
III. THE WORTH TO HIS PEOPLE OF CHRIST‘S FULFILMENT OF THIS QUALIFICATION. He was thus “made perfect”perfect as to his fullness for high priestly work. Then:
1. The perfection of Christ’s priesthood makes every other priesthood needless. He is “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek;” not in the Aaronic order, not thus for Israel after the flesh, but “for all those who obey him,” i.e. submit to him. Christ, High Priest for every sinner who yields himself to him; and for this he is perfect. Then what room for any other mediator?
2. The power of sympathy in a God who has himself suffered. For perfect repose we must have one of whose fellow-feeling we are assured by his experience of our own trials. If we only knew God in heaven, we might revere, obey, trust, love him; but we could not put our head on his bosom and weep there. But when we see that there is not a trial we experience whose counterpart we cannot find in his earthly life, we can rest in the Lord.
3. The humiliation and woe by which alone our salvation was secured. See how Christ shrank from Calvary, and yet how he advanced to it with unswerving willingness, and thus “became the Author,” etc. That leaves on the mind two deep impressions:
(1) the baseness of making light of what was bought at such a cost; and
(2) the terror of that wrath which shall overtake the impenitent, since such was the experience of the Son of God when he stooped to the penalty of sin.C.N.
Verse 11-Heb 6:3
The evil of inability to apprehend the deeper truths about Christ.
This begins a parenthesis continued to end of Heb 6:1-20. The writer has come to the chief illustration of his great themethe pre-eminence of the Lord Jesus; but he has hardly entered on this section before he feels himself unable to give full utterance to what he sees of the Redeemer’s greatness, because of the dullness of spiritual perception in his hearers. He fears their religious condition will prevent their following him as he tries to scale the more inaccessible heights, and he cannot restrain an utterance of sorrow, and a solemn warning of the connection between ignorance of these things and apostasy from the Son of God. The subject of the whole parenthesis, therefore, isThe danger of apostasy which lies concealed in the immature apprehension of Christian truth; but of the part, in these verses, the following is the subjectThe evil of inability to apprehend the deeper truths about Christ.
I. THE TREASURES OF TRUTH WHICH ARE HIDDEN IN THE LORD JESUS. “Of whom we have many things to say,” etc. Why should the writer preface this particular part of his subject with a reference to its difficulty, since no such reference is attached to the equally profound truths of previous chapters? There is no necessity to attach this reference only to what follows; it may look backward as well as forward. The apostle is in the midst of his themethe greatness, the fullness, the preciousness of Christ, which he knows not how to utterand is more likely to feel its difficulty there than at the beginning.
1. The treasures hidden in Christ are, of necessity, infinitely great, because he is the Revelation of the character and will of God. “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” He is the perfect expression of God’s love to man. He is the Fountain of all good. He is the embodiment of what the Father desires us to have and be. He is the utterance of what God would say to man. When we think of Christ, therefore, we are but children standing on the shore of an ocean whose further side has never been seen nor reached, and whose depth no human line can fathom.
2. But, in as far as this is revealed through God’s Word, it is intended to be understood. It will require an endless life to understand it perfectly. Growing knowledge resulting in growing gratitude, love, and devotion,this, perpetuated without end, is the bright future before us. But, however much we cannot know in the present, Scripture contains a revelation of such fullness in the Savior as the wisest and best have not yet understood and appreciated; and what is revealed here and now, is obviously intended here and now to be apprehended. We cannot overrate the Savior’s desire to reveal himself, the deep things of his heart, and the best glories of his nature to his beloved, nor the Father’s will that, as far as on earth it can be received, that revelation should be theirs.
II. THE HINDRANCES TO OUR POSSESSION OF THESE TREASURES. “How is it that ye do not understand?” Why do we know so little about Christ? Why are the Scriptures to us to a great extent sealed? This passage reveals three reasons for this.
1. Spiritual feebleness. The Hebrews had lost their early religious vigor. “When by reason of the time [since ye became Christians] ye ought to be,” etc. Their condition was one of retrogression. (See what they had been once: “Ye endured a great fight,” etc) They had become vacillating, and ready to return to Judaism. A feeble and deteriorated piety was one reason for their dullness of hearing. That is natural. Christ’s riches are spiritual, and. can only be understood by spiritual perception. Let spiritual power decline, and ability to understand Divine truth declines with it. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;” “The secret of the Lord is with them that feat-him.”
2. Intellectual prejudice. They desired to return to Judaism; its ancient glories still fascinated them, and. they were predisposed to accept any teaching aimed to show the untruth of Christianity. That was enough to account for their being dull of hearing. Skepticism is made, more than by anything else, by unwillingness to receive the truth. The mind that allows its personal desires to decide what is truth must become increasingly incapable of discerning truth when it is placed before it. Nothing more surely blinds than prejudice.
3. Sinful inattention. “Every one that partakes of milk [i.e. not able to partake of the solid food of Divine truth] is without experience [i.e. has not made himself acquainted by observation and. study] of the Word of righteousness; but solid food is for full-grown men, even those who,” etc. That is, spiritual discernment, an apprehension of God’s deep things, is the result of use. Inability to understand is the judgment on inattention. Scripture is a sealed, book to the heart that neglects it.
III. THE NECESSITY FOR THE REMOVAL OF THESE HINDRANCES OF SPIRITUAL MATURITY IS TO BE ATTAINED.
1. For Christ, as revealed in the Word, is spiritual nourishment. The truth about Christ is “milk” and “strong meat.” Christ is the essence of Scripture, and he is “the Bread of life.” What nourishing food is to the body, therefore, the Word of God is to the Divine life in man. On participation on it that life depends.
2. There is a distinction drawn here between those truths which merely sustain and those which increase life. What is the “milk”? Those first necessary principles recorded in Heb 6:1, Heb 6:2. There we have the essential life-giving points (not quite such a “simple gospel” as some think!). The doctrines of repentance, faith, the Holy Spirit, Christian service, the resurrection, and the judgment,these are the “milk.” What is the “strong meat”? The deeper, fuller truths about Christ set froth herehis character, work, relation, grace, Son of God and Son of man, our Prophet, Priest, and King, with the height and depth, and length, and breadth of meaning all this involves.
3. Christian maturity depends on the partaking of truth in these higher forms. They ought to be “babes” no longer, but “strong men;” and how? “Let us cease to speak of the first,” etc. The method by which this Epistle seeks to arouse a lukewarm and enfeebled Church to higher things is the presentation of these higher truths concerning the surpassing glory of the Son of God. “Grow in grace, and in the knowledge,” etc.C.N.
HOMILIES BY J.S. BRIGHT
Heb 5:1-3
The character and office of the Aaronic high priest foreshadows the higher glory of Jesus Christ.
As there had been given some counsels to pray for Divine help because our Lord is the Divine High Priest, the thought advances to show the true idea of a high priest under the Mosaic Law, that over against him may appear in his glory the character of him who was one after the order of Melchizedek. The ancient priest was taken from among men to minister in spiritual things, as others are appointed to manage temporal matters; and therefore Paul declares that the ruler is a minister of God to us for good. It was the office of the priest to present sacrifices for sins of ignorance, and those faults which arise from the weakness and inclinations of our nature. They were not offered for such daring and flagrant transgressions as were committed by David and Manasseh, who by faith and penitence sought and obtained pardon outside the ritual of the Jewish Law, and from the free and sovereign mercy of God. The sacrifices for ordinary faults were presented especially on the Day of Atonement, when the people bowed in penitence, and the errors of the past year were forgiven. The high priest himself needed the advantage of the atonement which was vouchsafed through the sacrifices which he offered for himself. To perform his office with success he must be, since he was beset with infirmity, tender-hearted without being indulgent to evil, and firm without being severe and unfeeling. He had to deal with men’s souls in states of anxiety, and, knowing his own frailties, must be merciful towards others. Eli charged Hannah with intemperance when she was praying with fervor for a gift which God only could bestow, and thoughtlessly added affliction to affliction; but on her appeal he relented, and said,” Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant thee the petition thou hast asked of him” (1Sa 1:14-17). The appointment of the priest is a proof of the merciful interest of Jehovah in the spiritual condition of men, and his willingness to invite them to enter into blessed relations with himself.B.
Heb 5:4-6
These verses show us the honor of the priesthood. Aaron was divinely called (Exo 28:1), and was endowed with gifts and qualifications for the office. It was an honor to approach unto God in the sacred uses of his ministry; “for blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee.” He transacted the most important affairs for the people, and made reconciliation for them on the Day of Atonement. He revealed and interpreted the Divine will by Urim and Thummim, and his lips kept knowledge. He represented the people to Jehovah, and carried the names of the children of Israel on his breast and shoulders. He was set apart by the sacredness of his office from many of the cares and changes of human life, and was to lead life of special consecration to the service of God. Our Lord undertook the work of priest in a more glorious manner than was suggested by the most holy and distinguished minister of the ancient Law. All the aspects of honor and gracious service are exalted in him to an unimaginable degree. He is at the right hand of the Father. He officiates for all nations, people, and tongues. He treats the successive generations of believers with constant love, and imparts Divine help in worship. He is the final and most glorious revelation of God to man. He exalts and enriches the life of his followers by the tenderness and sympathy of his nature, and inspires them with resolution to come boldly to the throne of grace.B.
Heb 5:7-10
Sacrificial sorrow.
I. THERE IS HERE AN AFFECTING OUTLINE OF THE SACRIFICIAL SORROWS OF OUR LORD. Like the ancient psalmists, he bows in solemn and agonizing prayer, with profuse weeping, that the cup which was presented to him in Gethsemane might be removed from him. It was a bitter and brimming cup of indescribable distress. Scripture gives us the outward signs of the sorrow, and leaves the awful cause in solemn silence. This must have been from his standing in our place as Surety and Substitute. He was heard; and an angel from heaven appeared to strengthen him.
II. THERE IS THE CONTRAST BETWEEN HIS DIGNITY AS THE SON AND THE PROOF OF HIS OBEDIENCE. If we would understand the glory of his sonship, it is necessary to turn to the first chapter of the Epistle; yet he submitted, and learned, not by painful failure and unsuccessful attempts to obey his Father, but passed through the whole circle of teaching, working, enduring contradiction, until he could say, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work thou Rarest me to do.”
III. THE DIVINE PERFECTION AND ISSUES OF HIS OBEDIENCE. He passed through his Divine consecration, and received the approving voice of his Father, who raised him from the dead. From him can now flow eternal salvation, which begins here in redemption from guilt, the restraint of sin, the indwelling of the Spirit, freedom from the penal stroke of death, and the blessedness of eternal life. All this is connected with obedience on the part of believers, who, while they trust in his sacrifice, yield their life to his authority as the King of Zion. He was “called of God.” The appointment is valid and unchangeable, and foreshadowed by the ministry and office of Melchizedek.B.
Heb 5:11-14
Dullness of spiritual perception.
I. THERE IS A REPROOF FOR THESE RELIEVERS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT HEAR, AND THEREFORE CANNOT TEACH, THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL. They had become, through slackness and yielding both to the attractions of the temple-worship and the opposition of their countrymen, unable to hear the weighty truths connected with Melchizedek, the illustrious type of Christ. To be dull of hearing the sweet sounds of joyous nature in spring, or to catch imperfectly the strains of sacred music, would be a loss; but how more serious is the loss of being unable to receive inspired communications respecting Jesus Christ, who is the Alpha and Omega of our faith and hope! The painful result was that they could not teach others, and “give a reason for the hope that was in them with meekness and fear” They must, therefore, go back to the Christian alphabet and learn their letters afresh, and begin again their course of discipleship. They needed some one who was advanced in the knowledge of the Savior; but he need not be an apostle, a prophet, or an evangelist. Considering how much the diffusion of the gospel at that time depended upon the living voice, their inability to teach was a loss to themselves and many others.
II. THEY ARE REPROVED FOR THE NON–IMPROVEMENT OF LONG–CONTINUED PRIVILEGES. When for the “time,” which word signifies a considerable period, during which they had had many who were pastors, and spoke the Word of God. They had had public worship, in which Christ was set forth evidently crucified before them. They had often been invited to the Lord’s Supper, and. had been reminded of his matchless fidelity to their interests, even when his holy soul encountered billows of distress, and deep called unto deep, and the awful sorrows of the cross darkened and crushed him. Miracles had been wrought; prophecies interpreted by their glorious fulfillment; and prayer and praise had diffused a hallowed influence. Notwithstanding the richness of the soil, the regularity of the rains, and the bright shining of the sun, the vineyard produced grapes which were small, acid, and unacceptable. And all these advantages, which were crowned by the willingness and love of the Divine Spirit to encourage and bless them, they were “dull of hearing and could not teach.”
III. THE REPROOF AFFIRMS THE SERIOUS PERSONAL DISADVANTAGES OF NEGLECT. They are described as babes which need simple nourishment and must be fed with milk, which signifies the rudimentary truths of the gospel. As babes they are unskillful, and cannot speak the Word of righteousness with distinct and powerful utterance; for he who would speak with power must do so from a full mind and a large experience. Such as these believers, who had so unprofitably used the time which had elapsed from their conversion, are only fit for the elementary truths of the gospel, and are consequently unacquainted with the vast and unsearchable treasures of strength laid up in Christ for the comfort and joy of his disciples. The perfect and full-grown men who use their senses and spiritual powers aright are privileged to “eat of fat things full of marrow, and. drink wine on the lees well refined.” The stronger they are, the more they can enjoy of the rich and solid comforts and supports of Divine grace; and are thereby fitted for the arduous work of professing the gospel, vindicating its claims, and illustrating its power.B.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Heb 5:1-6
The qualifications and functions of the true priest.
I. HE IS TAKES FROM AMONG MEN. It is not an angelic ministry. The true humanity of Jesus must ever be emphasized. A perfect man is needed to be the true priest, but he must be a man. And the reason of this is found in the kind of work he has to do. Especially in that part of it which concerns the sin offering. He has to act for those who, begirt with infirmity, are continually showing their ignorance, and continually wandering into forbidden paths. He should have imagination enough to enter measurably into the extent of their sin.
II. HE IS TAKEN FROM AMONGST MEN BY DIVINE APPOINTMENT. As to sacrifices, God gave through Moses general instructions, enough to secure the people from a blundering and slovenly presentation. And with respect to the priest, he might have pointed out certain qualifications and left the people to select. But that there might be no dispute as to fitness, he chose the man himself. And then the succession to the office went on as easy a process as anythat of natural descent. God only can choose, consecrate, and qualify the true priest.
III. HE IS AN OFFERER OF GIFTS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN. He is the habitual channel through which man recognizes his double duty to God. Man has to present gifts to God; expressions of thanksgiving and signs of service; tokens that the harvest which man gathers is the result of Divine bounty as well as of human effort. And inasmuch as these gifts, material things, were not usable by God directly, they had to go to the use of his priests, away for ever from the common use of men. Then along with the gifts had to be sacrifices for sin, the recognition of how imperfect the very best gift must be. To make the gift without the sin offering was presumption; it argued a conceited satisfaction with what one had. done. Nor must the sin offering be without the gift, on pretence that nothing could be given worthy of God’s acceptance. That would have been adding sin to sin. We must give our best re God through Christ, however poor that best may be.Y.
Heb 5:7-9
Gethsemane.
Here we have Gethsemane, apart from external circumstancesthe treachery of Judas, the apathy, ignorance, and drowsiness of the disciples. The one thing of supreme importance is set before us, even the struggle and suffering in the heart of Jesus himself. Note
I. THE ELEMENTS OF THE SUFFERING.
1. The possession of a suffering nature. This struggle happened in the days of his flesh. It was nothing wonderful that he should shrink from physical pain, especially when he knew it was to be such pain as of the scourging and the cross.
2. The possession of a sinless nature. To find a sinless human being shrinking with peculiar horror from death, accords with the great theological dictum that death is the result of sin. The right of Jesus could not be less than to pass from this world as Enoch did, by translation into glory. Death is the thing from which he shrinks. And full of life as Jesus was, life of the whole being, spiritual life most of all, how should he not shrink from death?
II. INTENSITY OF THE SUFFERING. This is shown by the urgency of the supplications. Jesus had had his times of intercession, his times for sweet remembrance of his disciples, and of a sinning, sorrowing world; but now here is a prayer out of keen personal agonyagony with an overpowering effect on the very thoughts and intents of the heart. Here in Gethsemane is the field of the Lord’s supreme temptation. He who had raised others from the dead, it was not for him to submit to death without clear proof that such was the will of his Father. We have to submit. We look on death as a constant possibility; in us there are no resources for warding it off or recovering us from its captivity, as there were in Jesus. Hence the considerations which would press on him, “Can it be right that I should die? Shall I let myself sink into the hands of this approaching band, and finally into the grasp of Pilate, to become passive and yielding in everything save spiritual integrity?” What wonder was it that in such a struggle of the heart he should sweat as it were great drops of blood!
III. SUCCESSFUL ENDURANCE OF THE SUFFERING. Jesus goes into this struggle of Gethsemane with one great practical truth in his heart, viz. that his Father’s will was the supreme determining guide of his course. To adopt a subsequent metaphor of the Epistle, this was the anchor within the veil. That will, his guide hitherto, had led him to Gethsemane, had led him into the very midst of plots and treacheries, into a thick circle of the wicked, each with his own special interest, and yet all wonderfully combined in bringing Jesus to the cross. This great truth, that he was in the midst of these things by God’s will, kept Jesus as on the rock in the great hour of his temptation. There was more to be done for God’s glory and the world’s good through death, than through mere continuance of life. A dying Jesus is infinitely more than a translated Enoch.
IV. RESULT OF THE SUFFERING. His obedience becomes the measure of obedience to others; and also their inspirationthe thing that prompts ever to ask inquiringly, earnestly, with singleness of heart, as to what the will of God is. To the right-hearted. God ever gives an infallible intimation; and. before such ever stands also the figure of their perfected Leader. By the will of God he went to the cross, yielded to death; and then came the ascension, the passing within the veil, the entrance on the functions of the true High Priest. And so he became the cause of eternal salvationeternal as distinguished from temporal. To Lazarus he had once been the cause of temporal salvation; but Lazarus would die again, and needed, through faith and obedience, eternal salvation. That is the salvation which transcends death. Death may get mixed up with the process, may for a time even conceal, or at least dim, the reality; but in due course death is left behind, and eternal salvation shines forth in all its Divine glory.Y.
Heb 5:11, Heb 5:12
A special hindrance to Christian truth.
We have here
I. A LARGE TOPIC. Much had to be said in the times of old concerning the scope of the priesthood. Many instructions had to be given as to various offerings and various seasons. And. not one of them was without some reference to the higher and abiding priesthood of Jesus. As the writer of the Epistle thought of all the tabernacle furniture of the holy of holiesark, mercy-seat, lamps, table of shewbread, altar of burnt offering, priestly garments, ephod, breastplate, Urim and Thummimand. considered how all these things shadowed forth some office, some relation, of Jesus, what wonder that he should try to stir up the languid intellect of his readers by announcing how much had to be said! Multum in parvo, it is true, but still multum. And we have to rejoice that as much has to be said, so in the New Testament much is said. No time is spent over useless knowledge and. speculation, things conjectural, things to please; everything is bent to setting forth the large needs of man and the comprehensive fullness of Christ.
II. A SPECIAL DIFFICULTY IN DEALING WITH THE TOPIC. Those who are addressed will not give proper attention. We are reminded of the words of Jesus, “He that hath ears let him hear.” Progress in the apprehension of Christian truth, true progress in theology, depends on our own disposition. Great attainments in human sciences are not for all, or even for many. They demand a certain degree of intellectual power, a certain amount of leisure, and perhaps other facilities; so that it is quite certain all men cannot be learned any more than all can be rich. But God has made progress in Christian truth to depend on the state of the heart. He has ordered things so that those who are babes in this world’s knowledge may be as giants in the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned; and if God has given his Holy Spirit that we may be led into all the truth, and if nevertheless we stumble among misapprehensions, then assuredly we are to blame, and especially will blame fall upon us when the element of time is brought into consideration. Here were people who had had gospel truth a long time before them, and yet knew little more than the alphabet. Still learners when they ought to be teachers? What worse reproach could there beseeing how much spiritual ignorance there is in the world, and how much error, and how many there are busy in misleading men? Nor must we omit to notice how this gentle yet searching rebuke of the writer here shows his own advanced attainments. He is writing of things which he well understands, and knows what he means. His topics are not mere trifles. They are very practical, and point forward into the developments and occupations of the future.Y.
Heb 5:12-14
The powers of the full-grown Christian.
Here is the close analogy between the natural life and the spiritual.
I. THE PROGRESS OF THE NATURAL LIFE. At birth the babe finds food provided for it, without effort, without thoughtfood exactly suited to its infantile state, and which it makes use of by a kind of instinct. Nothing is expected from it save that which it is certain to do by a law of its nature. But this season, when nothing is expected from it, is only a season of preparing for the day when much will be expected. Nature will not always provide food in this caw, simple fashion. Milk has to make the way for solid food, and, what is even more important, food to be chosen by us. Whenever we are fit to choose, God leaves us to choose, not between the pleasant and the unpleasant, not between that which appeals most powerfully to the taste, and that which is plainer, simpler fare; but, as the writer here emphatically puts it, between the good and the bad. That is the great matter to decide in the choice of foodIs it good or bad? Will it minister to growth, health, energy of function, fullness of life, length of days? God leaves us to settle this. He gives us, without our choice, a suitable food up to the time when our perceptions are sufficiently trained to choose for ourselves. Then he leaves us to freedom and responsibility.
II. THE SIMILAR PROGRESS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. There is the new creature in Christ Jesus, born again, beginning in feebleness, alive to new and heavenly things, and yet hardly knowing for a while what that life is. Needing to be treated with great long-suffering and consideration because of infirmity (1Co 3:2). But, as in the natural man, there should be growth, development of spiritual perception and grasp, so that the spiritual man may come to discern the difference between the true and the false, the fleshly and the spiritual, the abiding and the temporary, the earthly and the heavenly. Jesus Christ is the Bread of life. Recollect his own words, all important in the present connection: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” How many, spiritually considered, are monstrosities to what they ought to be! The natural man, nourished by proper food, full of life, growing and connecting itself with a thousand things around, while the new creature in Christ Jesus within is but a starved and pining babe. There may, perhaps, be much talk of living a life of faith on the Son of God, but no reality.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Heb 5:1. For every high-priest This stands connected with the preceding verse, Let us come boldly to the throne of grace,for that, or because every high-priestis ordained, that he may offer, &c. as that last verse of the former chapter is in consequence of what is said Heb 5:14.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 5:1-2 . Justification of the , Heb 4:15 , as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indispensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. does not glance back to Heb 4:16 , as is maintained by Hofmann ( Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 395) and Delitzsch. for Heb 5:1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, Heb 4:16 . The supposition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that logically controls the whole section, Heb 5:1-10 , is arbitrary, inasmuch as Heb 5:4 ff. is logically and grammatically bounded off from Heb 5:1-3 , and the assertion that the aim in the section, Heb 5:1-10 , is to enforce the exhortation, Heb 4:16 , by a reminder “of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priesthood of Melchisedec” (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of Jesus” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, Heb 5:5-10 , Aaron and Melchisedec are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation in which the one stands to the other is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec.
] refers, as is evident from , and from Heb 5:3 , to the earthly, i.e. the Levitical, high priest . Wrongly, because going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle, Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges inirent sacerdotium. But neither is a part of the subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wetstein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp. also Tholuck). for then the order would have been chosen, nor is it intended “to lay stress upon the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to represent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.), for thereby a reference altogether foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by its like; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man should represent angels, but it contains a note of cause to . The twice occurring stands full of emphasis, and presents a correspondence between the two. By the the is explained and justified. For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he also appointed or installed in his office as mediator with God.
] not middle , so that were accusative of object thereto (Calvin: Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive , so that , as Heb 2:17 , is to be taken as an accusative absolute.
. . .] epexegetic amplification of .
[ ] and are properly distinguished as gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction, however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LXX. Lev 2:1 ff., Num 5:15 ff., Gen 4:3 ; Gen 4:5 , where is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Gen 4:4 , Lev 1:2-3 ; Lev 1:10 , al., where is used of bloody sacrifices. In our passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in mind; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular.
] i.e. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to (Grotius, Limborch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to (Owen, Alford), but to the whole clause of the design.
Heb 5:2 is to be coupled with Heb 5:1 without the placing of a comma, in such wise that the participial clause: , connects itself immediately with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he presents them as one who is capable of . [71] is therefore neither to be resolved into . (Heinrichs), nor is it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like with (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis loco” (Bhme).
] stands not in opposition to , Heb 4:15 , for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and the divine one (Tholuck); it is not, however, identical in meaning with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr, Abresch, al .), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its composition equivalent to or , and is accordingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute which the Stoics demanded of the sage. Comp. Diogen. Laert. 5:31: ( sc . Aristotle), , . Further instances in Wetstein and Bleek. Here the moderation or tenderness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbour is intended, as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable .
] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the ignorant and erring . Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however, designedly chosen (comp. also Heb 9:7 : ) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of precipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had sinned ; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah, Num 15:22-31 ; Lev 4:13 ff.
] Confirmation of the : since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it). is to be understood, as Heb 7:28 , of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, comprehended under this expression; comp Heb 5:3 .
The construction , which in the N. T. occurs likewise Act 28:20 , is genuine Greek; comp. Theocrit. Idyll . xxiii. 14: Khner, Gramm . II. p. 231; Winer, Gramm. , 7 Aufl. p. 215.
[71] When for the rest Hofmann ( Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the expression of this relation of thought only Could be chosen, and not , since the latter would “only be a declaration of the vocation” of the high priest, while the former “can take to itself the participial clause , and thereby signify to what end it serves in the exercise of his office, that he has been in this way appointed thereto,” this is grammatically altogether baseless. Either turn of discourse was equally open to the choice of the author. Only, in case the latter was chosen, the nominative must naturally be changed into the accusative .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 5:1-3 . The first qualification : the capacity, as man, who himself is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity. To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further added Heb 5:4 , the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in detail from Heb 5:5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express application to Christ, of that which was observed Heb 5:1-3 . What the author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the homogeneity of Christ with the Jewish high priest, namely, that He, like the Jewish high priest, can have sympathy with sinful man, since He had become in all points like unto men His brethren, had been fully traced out in the second chapter, and attention is called anew to it in Heb 4:15 by the and . The element of the dissimilarity, on the other hand, namely, that while the Jewish high priest had to offer for his own sins, Christ was without sin, is first brought prominently forward in Heb 4:15 by means of , and, besides this, followed already from the exalted position the author had, in the opening chapters of the epistle, assigned to Christ as the Son of God.
That, in reality, also the paragraph Heb 5:7-10 , no less than Heb 5:5-6 , is subordinate to the second main consideration, expressed Heb 5:4 , has been denied, it is true, by Beza, Schlichting, Hammond, Limborch, Storr, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others. They are of opinion that from Heb 5:5 onwards an application of all the statements, Heb 5:1-4 , to Christ ensues; that this, however, takes place in inverse order, so that Heb 5:5-6 refer back to Heb 5:4 , Heb 5:7-8 to Heb 5:2 , and finally, Heb 5:9-10 to Heb 5:1 . The untenable character of such opinion is self-evident. For (1) Heb 5:7-8 cannot have the design of applying to Christ that which was observed Heb 5:2 , because only the parenthetic clause of Heb 5:7 ( ) adapts itself to any extent to the contents of Heb 5:2 , and this parenthetic clause stands in logical subordination to Heb 5:8 as the main point of the argument, consequently just Heb 5:8 and Heb 5:2 must present a similarity of contents, which is not the case. (2) That Heb 5:9-10 should be referred back to Heb 5:1 cannot be accepted as correct, because Heb 5:1 forms in itself no independent and complete statement, but stands in closest concatenation with Heb 5:2 , so that only with this verse comes in what is for Heb 5:1 the all-essential point of nearer definition.
From the foregoing it results that the harmonizing view of Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 444, 447) is unwarranted. According to this view, Heb 5:7-8 are indeed, “in the first place,” or “formally,” a link in the demonstration that Christ did not become high priest by an act of arbitrary self-glorification, but as regards the “contents” or “tenor” form, “at the same time also an indication corresponding to Heb 5:1-3 , and pointing out that Christ upon His path of suffering has passed through experiences which were adapted not only to make Him acquainted with the human , but also to prove in Him the capacity for the .”
With Tholuck, for the rest, to take Heb 5:1-3 still in relation to the preceding chapter, as an antithesis to Heb 5:14 , and to begin a new section with Heb 5:4 , is not permissible. For a comparison of the main contents of Heb 5:1-3 with the main contents of Heb 4:15 , points to the fact that the author designs to bring out a relation of resemblance and affinity. We cannot possibly, therefore, attach, with Tholuck, to the particle , Heb 5:1 , the sense: “the distinction namely arises, that.” The consideration, moreover, presents itself, that Heb 5:4 can only appear in relation to Heb 5:1-3 , alike as regards tenor of contents as with regard to its lax grammatical nexus, as a further co-ordinate link in an enumeration, before begun, of the qualifications essential to the character of every earthly high priest, consequently is not appropriate to the introduction of a section entirely separated from that which precedes.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 5:1-10 . Emphasizing of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ likewise is not wanting.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
II
Christ has the characteristic of a High-Priest primarily by His capacity to sympathize with human weakness.
Heb 5:1-3
1For every high priest [being] taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices1 for sins: 2Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way [being able to deal tenderly with the ignorant and erring]; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.3And by reason hereof [on account of it]2 he ought [is obliged], as for the people, so also for himself,3 to offer for4 sins.
[Heb 5:1., not taken=who is taken, as if applying to that particular class of high-priests that are taken from among men, in antithesis to Christ; but being taken, as a universal and indispensable attribute of high-priests, viz., that they be taken from among men, and an attribute, therefore, which must be shared by Christ., on behalf of men.
Heb 5:2., not exactly have compassion upon, but, deal moderately, and hence tenderly with; Moll, das richtige Mass im Mitleiden einhalten., on the ignorant and erring, or straying. The (Gr. Art. not repeated; hence both participles belong to the same subject.
Heb 5:3., ought, i. e., is bound, is under obligation., according as, marking equality of relations.K.].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Heb 5:1. For every high priestrelating to GodThe position of the words forbids our connecting the participle immediately with the subject=every high-priest who is taken (Luth., etc.)as if the purpose were to contrast with the heavenly, the earthly high-priest; but requires it to be taken predicatively, as expressing the first requisite of every high-priest, viz., that He, as being taken from men, be appointed as religious mediator in behalf of men. Nor is any such contrast of Christ with the human high-priest, expressed as to warrant the interpolated idea of Thol.: While Christ, through the compassion and sympathy to which His susceptibility to temptation has given rise, becomes (according to Heb 2:17) a faithful high-priest (), the human high-priest, by that liability to temptation which passes over into actual sin, is moved to indulgence toward his partners in guilt, and a prompt and willing exercise of his mediatorial office. Of a contrast between the pure sympathy of Christ and the over indulgence of the earthly high-priest, there is not the slightest trace; on the contrary, the sympathy previously ascribed to Christ, was regarded as the most immediate proof of His fitness for the high-priestly office, and as such introduced with a . is not middle, but passive, and is not an Accusative of the object (Calv.), but (as Heb 2:17) a sort of adverbial or absolute Accusative.
Heb 5:2. That he may offerfor sinsAlthough denotes, Gen 4:4; Lev 1:2-3; bloody sacrifices, and , Gen 4:3; Gen 4:5; Exo 2:1; Deu 5:15, those which are bloodless, still the combination, , points here, as Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9, to the well-known distinction between offerings made without bloodshed (expressed by , gifts), and those which require the shedding of blood (expressed by , sacrifices). The words belong neither to alone (Grot., Beng., etc.), nor to both nouns conjointly, but to the verb , indicating that the high-priestly offerings in questionfor those of priests in general are not here referred toin which may be included gifts, may be conceived as expiatory. The author is stating precisely the purpose of the high-priests religious ministry and mediation.
As one who can deal gently, etc., is a term that past over (Diog. Laert. vit. phil. 5:31) from the School of the Peripatetics into general use, and which has a double contrast, on the one hand, with the , passionlessness, which the Stoics demanded of the wise man, and on the other, with excess of passion () in those who were passionately excited. It is commonly understood, in too narrow a sense, of moderation in anger, and of indulgence and gentleness toward the short-coming; for it applies, in general, to the preserving of the proper mean in our emotions, and hence in the case of sufferings denotes stead fastness. This quality was specially necessary for the high-priest; for all crimes, without distinction, could not be equally expiated by sacrifices. On the one hand, therefore, he must not allow himself to be moved by false sympathy to unwarranted offerings, nor, on the other, to be provoked by the constantly recurring demands for intercession and sacrifice, to impatience and hard-heartedness. Wilful and determined transgression of the law demanded even still the infliction of the appointed punishment. For sins that were committed , with upraised hand, i.e, in a spirit of haughty violence and insolent defiance of the law of God, the offender was to be cut off from the congregation by death, Lev 4:13 ff.; Num 15:22 ff. Sins, on the other hand, which were committed in error (), so that in the moment of their commission there was but an indistinct consciousness of their nature, admitted expiation by sacrifice. The subject of expiation must then take the victim to be offered from his own possessions, and bring it to the priest who put it to death as a substitute for its owner, after previously ascertaining whether the offence in question fell under the above mentioned category. The expression, , is, however, by no means to be restricted to men who have committed unwitting and involuntary offences; for, on the great day of Atonement, even sins which were not committed thus in error (), and which admitted in the course of the year no expiatory sacrifice, could, under the condition of repentance, receive expiation. Those persons, therefore, are intended, who, in distinction from the impious mockers at the law, disregarded, in their natural and hereditary sinfulness, the Divine will, and by yielding to temptation, fell into error.
Heb 5:3-4. Since he himself is compassed with infirmityofferings for sin. is here, as at Heb 7:28, that native moral weakness with which man is encompassed not so much as by a garment (Ln.), as by light, or by the skin, so that he can in no condition of earthly life be conceived as separated from it. The classical form (found elsewhere in the New Testament only Act 28:20), expresses admirably this condition, so entirely independent of human will. points not exclusively to the legal requisition (Bhm., Hofm.), and not exclusively again to a moral necessity, which lies in the very nature of the case, as springing from the like state of infirmity, (Bl., Ln.). Both are blended in the conception of the author (Del.). For not only does the law take for granted (Lev 4:3-12) that the high-priest may also in the course of the year find himself under a necessity of offering sin offerings for himself, but on the great festival of atonement, the high-priest, after accomplishing the customary morning sacrifices, was obliged to lay aside the so-called golden garments, and in simple priests clothes, yet of Pelusian linen, descend from the bathing apartment into the inner fore-court, there lay his hands on the bullock that stood as a sin offering between the court of the temple and the altar of burnt offering, and offer intercessory prayers, first for himself and his house, then for the entire priesthood, and finally for all Israel; prayers which Del. in his history of Jewish poetry, p. 184, 185, has given and explained. The first prayer of intercession ran thus: O Jehovah, I and my house have trespassed, have done wickedly, have committed sin before Thee. O, in the name of Jehovah (according to another reading, O Jehovah) expiate, I pray Thee, the trespasses and the evil deeds and the sins where-with I have trespassed, and have sinned against Thee, I and my house, as written in the law of Moses Thy servant; For on this day will he make an atonement for you, to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before Jehovah, (Lev 16:30). It was only as having himself received expiation that the high-priest could make atonement for the priesthood and the congregation according, to the principle: Let an innocent person come and make expiation for the guilty, and not a guilty person come and make expiation for the guiltless. stands absolutely as at Luk 5:14; Num 7:18; comp. Reiche Comm. Crit. III. 35.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The idea of the Priesthood is that of a religious mediation, which, culminating in the High priesthood, concentrates itself in sacrifice, and receives, according to the special character of the religion, its peculiar expression, but reaches in Christianity its adequate realization.
2. Among sacrifices, those which relate to the restoration of that fellowship of man with God, which sin has interrupted, are of the greatest importance; inasmuch as the religious life of the human race in its actual course turns upon, and as it were revolves about, the realization of the atonement, as about its central point in the mutual relations of sin and grace.
3. The institution of the priestly office therefore originates in the necessities of men who are to be reconciled to God. But for this reason again the priests themselves are taken from men, inasmuch as any genuine intercession with God requires that they know, from their own experience, the necessities of sinful men. But from this again it necessarily follows, that they are under obligation to offer expiatory sacrifices, not merely for others, but also for themselves, until the appearance of the sinless High-priest, Jesus Christ.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Our condition summons us primarily; 1, to the humble confession of our sinfulness and weakness; 2, to a, fitting sympathy with the erring and sinful; 3, to the conscientious employment of the appointed means of grace.True sympathy springs from a perception of our own liability to transgression, and qualifies us for a consoling ministry.The office which is committed to us does not free us from the sin which cleaves to men generally; but it entrusts to us the means of reconciliation to be impartially applied in the conscientious exercise of our office.
Starke:An evangelical teacher, although he walks worthily of the Gospel, must still, in the proper estimate of his own weaknesses, deal with all sinners, in the midst of severity, with tender sympathy and love, by which he will find all the happier entrance into the consciences of his hearers (2Ti 2:24).The priesthood is certainly to be respected, and they who are called to it are to be honored; but they are not to be too highly and sacredly regarded; for they are also encompassed with infirmity, and are obliged, in due order, to pray as well for the forgiveness of their own sins, as of those of others. (2Co 4:7).
Rieger:God has, even from ancient times, foreshadowed the blessings and the consolations which we have to enjoy in a high-priest, and in the access to God, which is obtained by means of him. It is a feature of the good and gracious counsel of God, that He takes from the midst of men those whom He deems worthy of this calling and employment. For those who are taken, it is an admonition that, apart from that which their office assigns to them, they are in like circumstances with their brethren; and, for those whom they are to serve in their ministry, it is surely encouragement that to some in their midst, freedom to draw near to God has been thus largely opened.Such a High-priest taken from among men, had thus no ground of self-complacency to exalt Himself above others; but rather to exercise a sympathizing and gentle spirit toward all, and to be well aware of the two abiding sources of sin, viz: ignorance and error.
Heubner:The need of a priestly office manifests itself in all religions and among all nations. This should make us give attention to the genuine priest.The office of priest is not instituted for his own sake, but for the sake of others. He is to be a leader of others to God, and his sacred service should be to him a pleasure.A sympathizing heart, love, is the most indispensable quality of a priest. He is to know men, their weakness, their deficiency, and this should make him sympathizing and attentive; and he should reflect upon his own weakness, in order to become the more patient. Lowliness and self abasement make us sympathizing.
Footnotes:
[1]Heb 5:1.The lect. rec. , has the sanction of Sin., A. C. D.*** E. K. L., and all the minusc.
[2]Heb 5:3.Instead of , should be read with Sin. A. B. C* D* 7, 80, . [This is intrinsically better, as the unemphatic , it, suits better than , this, with the incidental and parenthetical character of the verse.K.].
[3]Heb 5:3.The lect. rec., , is found in Sin. A. C. D.*** E. K. L., and in nearly all the minusc.
[4]Heb 5:3.Instead of , . is, after Sin. A. B. C.* D.* 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, approved by Griesb., and received by Lach. and Tisch.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The same most precious Subject, as in the former Chapter, is carried on in this. Melchizedek is spoken of. Precious Views of Christ.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: (2) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. (3) And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. (4) And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (5) So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
This is a very blessed Chapter. Every verse, more or less, is big with importance. It opens with shewing the nature and office of an High Priest. The very name implies somewhat of mediation. And, when considered with an eye to solemn transactions between God and Man, it is eminently so. The first feature described of his Person, who is an High Priest, is, that he must be taken from among men. He, that hath to mediate between God and men, must himself be a man, and not an angel; for an angel could not enter into the feelings of men; and therefore, could not be properly interested for those, in whose name he acted. Secondly, Not only must he be a man, who can, from his own feelings, judge how to act for man, and one of a nature like himself, but he must be able to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Gifts, if needful, to obtain favor; and sacrifices, to do away the guilt of sin, in the way of God’s appointment. I need not tell the Reader, that in all this, there is an allusion to the law. Indeed, all this is beautifully represented, as what the law required, and which was typical of Christ; in order to shew, how God the Holy Ghost, under the gifts and sacrifices under the law, shadowed forth Christ; and how Christ, in the Gospel, hath fully become himself the whole substance of the law. If the Reader will turn to the law concerning gifts and sacrifices, he will discover how graciously the Lord the Holy Ghost appointed those things in his Church, by way of preaching Christ in figure; until He, to whom the whole referred, came in Person, to do away sin, by the sacrifice of himself, Heb 11:26
The priest, that was anointed to minister in holy things, was to form his judgment concerning sins done through ignorance by any of the people, and appoint a suitable sacrifice accordingly. The Reader will find a large account of this, Lev 4 throughout, for both priest and people. And again, Num 15:24-29 . And, in like manner, concerning presumptuous sins, Lev 6 and Num 15:30 . Now, upon all those occasions, the High Priest was supposed to enter into the feelings of the people, and to make, in some measure, their interest his own. So that none could be fit for an High Priest, but one taken from among men; and even among men, none but he who had a feeling heart, and who, from a consciousness that he himself was compassed with infirmities, could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way. And, after all these qualifications, still no man had an authority to take the office of High Priest upon him, uncalled of God. Aaron was specially called of God. And so much so, that the daring presumption of Korah, and his company, who sought the priesthood, uncalled, was punished with an awful death. See Num 16:1-35 . Reader! if such a tremendous judgment, under the law, followed the unhallowed attempt of men to minister in holy things before the Lord, what may be ultimately expected to follow those, who, under the Gospel, run unsent, uncalled, and not only rush, like the unthinking horse to the battle, into the sacred department of the ministry, but profess to be moved by the Holy Ghost, albeit everything seems to speak concerning them, as in that Scripture: I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied, Jer 23:21 .
Reader! I need not, I should hope, call upon you to observe, what is in itself so very plain; that all that is here said, in these verses, concerning the High Priest, taken from among men, with those qualifications, and appointed of God, is here said, expressly to shew how Christ was taken from among men; how suited he was to such an office of mercy, and how fully authorized, and called of God to the appointment? But, Reader! though this was the evident intention of God the Holy Ghost in this Scripture; and though, at first view, in reading what is here said of the great Jewish High Priest, Aaron; every child of God, who is taught of God, cannot but be immediately led, to contemplate the unequalled suitableness of our Almighty Aaron; the Lord Jesus Christ; as the One, and the only One, capable in all its departments to the performance of this high office: yet, I should be unpardonably remiss, in a work of this kind, to pass away from so interesting a subject, without first offering an observation or two upon it. The thoughts which arise out of it, are indeed very plain and striking; but they are not on that account the less beautiful and important. Let us look at a few of them.
And, first. As every High Priest was taken from among men, so the Son of God took upon him our nature for this express purpose, so that he also was taken from among men. For we are told, that in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, in things pertaining unto God, Heb 2:17 . And hence, when, in the counsel of peace, between the Persons of the Godhead, the Lord Jehovah is represented in Scripture as speaking in vision to his Holy One, these are the words which were spoken, I have laid help upon One that is mighty; I have exalted One chosen out of the people, Psa 89:19 . And as Jesus, our great High Priest, was taken from among men, so was he ordained for men. For there would have needed no High Priest, nor sacrifice, had there been no sinners. But, as Christ’s Church, Christ’s people, his spouse, whom he betrothed to himself before all worlds, had fallen into sin; the Son of God came to redeem her from all sin, by the sacrifice of himself. And, as God the Father, first gave her to his dear Son, so God the Father ordained Christ from among men, to be an High Priest, to act the part of an High Priest, to redeem her to himself, and to present her to himself a glorious Church; not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but to be without blame before him in love, Eph 5:26-27 .
Secondly. As no man, among men, would have suited the office of an High Priest, according to what this blessed Chapter saith, but such as could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; so the great feature of character, in our dear Lord, to constitute him High Priest, was eminently his great meekness and tenderness of heart. God the Father’s account of him was this by the Prophet. Meek and lowly, Isa 42:1-4 , compared with Mat 2:23 and Mat 12:17-21 . And, although in point of holiness, Christ was holy, harmless, and undefiled: and, in point of power, made higher than the heavens: and, in point of understanding, in him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; yet, though all these were indeed requisites for the high office of the Priesthood, it was the infinite compassions of his heart, which made him so peculiarly suited for our High Priest, and more immediately hath endeared him to the affections of his people, Heb 7:26 ; Col 2:3 ; Heb 4:14-16 .
Thirdly. Our great High Priest, as in Person and qualifications, so in gifts and sacrifices, hath infinitely transcended all the offerings made by mere men. The priest taken from among men, who had a tender heart, and who, upon due consideration of the sinner’s offence, when he came to him, knew how to distinguish, and to make an offering accordingly, between sins of ignorance, and sins of presumption, acted in a very suitable manner, as the law appointed (see Lev 4 and Num 16 ), but the gifts and offerings of Jesus, were himself, which not only included an all-sufficient ransom for all sins, both of omission and commission, but carried with it such an over-value, resulting from the dignity of his Person, and the preciousness of the offering, as can never be fully recompensed to the Church of God, to all eternity. Reader! think of this! Such is the efficacy of Christ’s merits and sacrifice, that the remuneration to the Lord’s body, the Church, can never be made, so as to say, there is nothing more to be received, in a way of acknowledgment, to all eternity!
Fourthly. One very blessed view meets us in this subject, of a similarity in the cases of the Jewish High Priest, to that of our Almighty Lord, only here also, as in all other comparisons with an infinite superiority on the part of Jesus; I mean, in that it is said, the High Priest taken from among men, must have been one that could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that were out of the way, in that he himself also was compassed with infirmity. Here opens a most precious view of Jesus. Though in himself he knew no sin, yet he personally knew all the sinless infirmities of our nature. Though none of our sins was put in him, yet the Lord laid on him the iniquities of all his people, Isa 53:6 . Though, in himself, temptations had no power, yet, temptations, in all the varieties of being tempted, he knew; and was in all points tempted as we are. And, though no guile was found in his mouth, yet, surely, in the years he lived in our world, all the sin he beheld in his people, became so many wounds to his heart. If the filthy conversation of the wicked vexed the soul of Lot day by day; what must the holy Jesus have felt, when he endured such a contradiction of sinners against himself? 2Pe 2:8 ; Heb 12:3 . Reader! here again contemplate the suitableness of the Lord Jesus, in his High Priestly Office, for the boundless compassion of his heart, and for the compassion he must still feel for the ignorant of his people, and all their infirmities, seeing he himself was compassed with all of them; though in himself without sin, and liable to none of them in the possibility of error.
Fifthly. we must not overlook one feature more belonging to our Lord, as our great High Priest, to which the Jewish high priest could bear no comparison. I mean, that the interests of Christ are blended with the interests of the people. He that acted as an high priest in the Jewish church for men, and was taken from among men, might have had, and no doubt he had being from the Lord’s appointment, a feeling heart. But he could go no further. If he succeeded not when he had made his offering, he might indeed lament in secret, as holy men of old did, over the sins of the people. But, with our High Priest, there can be no failure. His Church is his body. Her concerns are his. The glory of Christ is more than all the events to his people. That glory ensures his Church’s interest. Hence, she must succeed in all her members. Jesus must see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied, Isa 53:11 . And, hence that blessed intercession of Christ, as our High Priest: Father! I will! that they also whom thou host given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold any glory, Joh 17:24 .
Lastly: and as the crown of all. As no man presumed to act as an High Priest, in the Church of God, uncalled of God, so sweetly are we told, in this blessed Scripture, that Christ, though Son of God, and equal with the Father and the Holy Ghost, in his divine nature, yet, when taking upon him our nature, glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, but was called to it; yea, and sworn into it, (different from all other priests, Heb 7:21 ) and consecrated in it, an High Priest forever, in an unchangeable priesthood, after the order of Melchizedeck! This is a grand point ever to be kept in view, in our remembrance of the priesthood of Christ. This gives validity and efficacy to all. Here is the warrant to faith to believe the record which God gives of his dear Son. Hence, every child of God, coming to the mercy-seat of God in Christ, finds confidence and boldness in the double view, that Jehovah’s authority, and his name, is in Christ; and, therefore, in the efficacy of Christ’s blood and righteousness, he cannot but meet with a most gracious reception, Heb 10:19-23 . Reader! I must not trespass any longer. The subject indeed is in itself endless. Oh! for grace to have it always in view! Jesus is my High Priest. He was, and is, and ever must be, One with the Father over all God blessed forever, Amen. He was also, in his human nature, taken from among men. He can have compassion, yea, boundless compassion. Not simply by taking our nature only, but by having known that nature compassed with infirmities. And now in heaven he wears that nature still. And he cannot but recollect his former exercises, when on earth, and which hath everlastingly suited him, by past experiences, for sympathy, and fellow-feeling for his people here below. Precious High Priest of thy people! surely, all thy redeemed upon earth are as dear to thee, and as much watched over by thee, and loved and regarded by thee, as thy redeemed in heaven, Isa 27:3 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Heb 5:8
God had but one Son free from sin; but none of all His sonnes free from correction.
Herrick.
Contrast the erroneous view of the Theologia Germanica (xxx), which affirms that Christ’s ‘words and works and ways, His doings and refrainings, His speech and silence, His sufferings, and whatsoever happened to Him, were not forced upon Him, neither did He need them, neither were they of any profit to Himself”.
References. V. 8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2722. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 193. Archbishop Cosmo Lang, ibid. vol. lv. p. 235. V. 8, 9. A. T. Guttery, ibid. vol. lvi. p. 317. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 34; ibid. vol. ii. p. 16. V. 9. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx. No. 1172. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 74. V. 9, 10. R. M. Benson, Redemption, p. 152.
Christian Growth
Heb 5:11
This writer addresses the Hebrews in very plain language. He calls them babes. He upbraids them with being content with a milk diet. They had been some time alive, but they had not grown; and no wonder, for they had never discovered that they had teeth. They ate no solid food; they preferred what others had digested for them; they preferred being dandled in the arms of others, and shrank from using their own limbs. That is to say, they were content with rudimentary knowledge of Christian truth and with traditional teaching, and made no effort to think for themselves and to advance into the infinite of spiritual realities.
I. In correction of this common fault of backwardness and indisposition to learn, this writer bids us observe two facts: (1) That growth is expected in the Christian. In fact, he tells us that if we are not growing we are dying. There is no third condition: he has in view only the alternative, either we are going on to perfection, or we are falling away. ‘Let us go on unto perfection, for it is impossible to renew those who fall away.’ This is the law of all life. Nothing is born mature. It passes through a period of growth, and it must grow or die. The parent who is delighted with the innocent helplessness of his child, and rejoices in its efforts at speech, becomes seriously alarmed if this lisping, tottering, help-requiring state threatens to become permanent.
II. The second fact regarding the Christian life which this writer wishes us to observe is that this growth, which is essential, depends on the truth we receive. He compares Christian truth to food; that is, Christian teaching does for the inner man what food does for the body. The body cannot grow without food; neither can the spirit come to maturity save by the reception of spiritual truth. But he divides Christian truth into two grand kinds, and these he represents by milk and solid food. Milk represents traditional teaching; it is the product of that which has been received and digested by others, and is suitable for those who have no teeth of their own and no sufficiently strong powers of digestion. Like infants, they can only receive what others have thought, having no independent power of their own to investigate for themselves and form their own opinion about things. This milk, or traditional teaching, is admirably adapted to the first stage of Christian life, but cannot form mature Christians. The other kind of teaching he compares to solid food, which the individual must chew and digest for himself. It is true, physically, that poor and thin diet makes poor and thin blood; that if a man is to spend much strength he must eat heartily. Spiritually it is equally true. Growth comes by nutrition. Without partaking of sound and wholesome truth the spirit cannot grow or be strong.
If we are not to be spiritual imbeciles, if we are to be strong and helpful men in Christ, we must seek nutriment in Christian truth. The vigorous and healthy soul does not need to be told this, as little as the strong, hard-working man needs to take tonics or be directed what to eat. But many of us do need, and most urgently, the direction here given us, to keep the mind feeling about for new ideas. The sea anemone is the emblem of the healthy Christian, fixed firmly to the rock, but with many feelers freely floating around to apprehend all that can be used.
What nutrition, then, are you giving to your spirit? Is it such as is likely to secure your growth? What do you read? Tell me what a man reads and I will tell you his spiritual condition. Newspapers and magazines admirably serve their ends, but these ends are not spiritual nutrition. The Bible read carelessly and formally, so many verses a day, will work no charm any more than any other book so read. But the Bible read with expectation, interest, thought and personal application will yield nutriment of the most various and stimulating kind.
No language in the whole Bible is more stringent or alarming than that which this writer uses of those who fall away. So alarming is it, so firm in its prediction of inevitable perdition, that men have striven in every way to turn its edge. But in vain. The fact is, there are conditions of spiritual growth and health as there are conditions of physical growth; and carelessness in the one case is as certainly followed by disaster or by death as carelessness in the other.
Marcus Dods, Christ and Man, p. 214.
Heb 5:11
‘I am at present,’ says James Smetham in his Letters (p. 170), ‘on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The great difference of such a subject from all others is that all the interests of Time and Eternity are wrapped up in it. The scrutiny of a title-deed to 100,000 a year is nothing to it How should it be? Is there a Christ? Is He the heir of all things? Was He made flesh? Did He offer an all perfect sacrifice? Did He supersede the old order of priests? Is He the Mediator of a new and better Covenant? What are the terms of that Covenant? There are no questions like these. They raise, in their very investigation, the whole soul into the Empyrean. All other interests seem low, trivial, petty, momentary…. I am astonished at the imperative tone of this Epistle, and the element of holy scorn against those who refuse to go into those great questions carefully.’
References. V. 11, 12. Marcus Dods, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lv. p. 139. V. 11-14. Expositor (4th Series), vol. viii. p. 119.
Heb 5:12
‘The wisdom from above has not ceased for us,’ says Coleridge in the introduction to his Lay Sermon; ‘”the principles of the oracles of God” are still uttered from before the altar! Oracles, which we may consult without cost! Before an altar, where no sacrifice is required, but of the vices which unman us! no victims demanded, but the unclean and animal passions, which we may have suffered to house within us, forgetful of our baptismal dedication no victim, but the spiritual sloth, or goat, or fox, or hog, which lay waste the vineyard that the Lord had fenced and planted for Himself.’
References. V. 12-14. Archbishop Temple, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvi. p. 148. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 31. V. 13, 14. Bishop Bethell, Sermons, vol. i. p. 386. V. 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix. No. 506. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 268.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
XXI
JESUS CHRIST, HIGH PRIEST OF THE NEW COVENANT, GREATER THAN AARON, HIGH PRIEST OF THE OLD COVENANT
Heb 4:14-8:5
The letter to the Hebrews is an inspired exposition of the Sinaitic covenant, and particularly of the book of Leviticus. Our analysis and exposition of the Sinaitic covenant (Exo 19:1-24:9 ) shows that this covenant consisted of three distinct elements:
1. God and the normal man, or the moral law (Exo 20:1-17 ) as a way of life; not simply an obligation but a condition of life they that do these things shall live, they that do them not shall perish.
2. God and the nation, or the ordinances that set forth the principles of civic righteousness (Exo 21:1-24:9 ); in obedience to which the nation lives, and in disobedience dies.
3. God and the sinner, or the Law of the Altar (Exo 20:22-26 ), or the way of the sinner’s approach to God in order to find mercy.
We learn that all subsequent statutory legislation in the Pentateuch was developed from these constitutional elements or principles. Deuteronomy was developed from the first and second, and from the third was developed the last sixteen chapters of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and most of the legislation in Numbers. The Altar part, or God and the sinner, was typical of the new covenant, and contained in figures the way of grace and mercy, and revealed the only way by which Parts 1-2 could be kept. Hence it was the most important element of the Sinaitic law.
In the Pentateuch we find also these elements of the law of the sinner’s approach to God:
1. The sanctuary, holy of holies, or a place where the sinner might find God.
2. A means of approach to God in the sanctuary, or vicarious, expiating sacrifices placating the divine wrath against sin.
3. A mediator to go between the sinner seeking mercy, and God bestowing mercy. This mediator, or priest, took the blood of the vicarious expiation and carried it behind the veil and offered it upon the mercy seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim. That mediator, on the basis of that offered blood, made intercession for the people.
4. Times in which to approach God are set forth elaborately in that book daily, weekly, monthly, annually, septennially, and every fiftieth year. Those were the times that they could go before God, but the heart of Leviticus, as well as the heart of Hebrews, was a particular time, to wit: On the great day of atonement, when the people appeared before God to receive through an offering presented by the priest, the remission of their sins, we find a prescribed ritual that gave the steps involved.
5. Then we find what place there was for penitence, faith, and prayer. We find penitence to indicate that the man approaching God came as a confessed sinner. We find faith set : forth by the laying on of hands upon the head of the victim the victim to take his place. We find the prayer part to be the petitions that went with the high priest and were presented by him when he made the offering. All that ia, presented in the book of Leviticus.
So we find that the sanctuary of God was that part which was called the holy of holies, and that there God was visibly manifested, according to all Jewish interpretation, in the Shekinah of fire between the cherubim on the mercy seat. We find the victims to be bullocks, goats, and lambs. We find the mediator to be, and particularly upon the great day of atonement, Aaron. We find the sacrifices constantly repeated every year; on the ‘great day of atonement the priest bad to go for the people, carrying the names of the tribes on his breastplate, going for them into the holy of holies. In the letter to the Hebrews, which expounds the Altar part of the Sinaitic covenant, Paul does not discuss the Temple of Solomon, nor of Zerubbabel, nor of Herod, but the tabernacle of Moses, because his plan is to go back to origins, and to the dignity of founders. It would have been incongruous if after discussing angels, Moses, Aaron, and the prophets, he had skipped to the ritual of the Herodian Temple.
He makes this argument: AB Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is greater than the prophets, greater than the angels, greater than Moses, greater than Joshua, so he is greater than Aaron. We do not discuss in this chapter superiority of the new covenant over the old, but the superiority of Jesus Christ over Aaron as high priest.
In some respects Aaron and Jesus Christ are alike neither one took the honor to himself. Aaron did not appoint himself high priest to go before God, and Jesus Christ did not appoint himself to be mediator. The Father appointed them. Aaron was one of the people. Christ was like Aaron in that respect he was one of the people. He took upon himself the nature of man and became as one of those who became his brethren.
So we have not yet arrived to the point of discrimination between Christ and Aaron, but we do now come to the dividing line: Aaron being a priest under the covenant made upon Mount Sinai, was himself of the tribe of Levi. Jesus Christ did not belong to that tribe. He was of the tribe of Judah, therefore the priesthood of Christ does not come within the law of the covenant established by Moses on Mount Sinai. It was not his office to go to the Temple at Jerusalem and there officiate as priest. He had no such place there. That is a distinction. It shows that the priesthood of Christ must be according to an entirely different covenant, otherwise he would have to be a son of Levi to be a priest.
In getting to this point of distinction, Paul takes up a fragment of the history of Genesis, about an ancient king of Jerusalem Melchizedek. Before Abraham had any possession there, this man was both a king and a priest of God before the call of Abraham, before the segregation of the Jewish nation, when there was no distinction between Jew and Gentilei He had no pedigree of which there is any record, but when we come to Aaron’s time, no man could officiate as an Aaronic priest unless he could trace his Levitical descent. Melchizedek had no such genealogy, and therefore in a genealogical sense’ he is said to be without father or mother, and held his office as king and priest directly from God. He was recognized as greater than Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, for when Abraham was returning from the victory over Chedorlaorner he paid tithes to the king of Salem and received a blessing from him.
In the days of the psalmist a reference is made to that history: “The Lord hath sworn, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” This makes another distinction Christ, not Aaron, was made priest by oath of God. So a distinction between Christ and Aaron is that Aaron is after the order of Levi and his priesthood is under the Mosaic covenant made upon Mount Sinai, and Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek anterior even to Abraham, much less Moses, and greater than Abraham, receiving tithes from the whole Jewish people in the person of Abraham, and inducted by the oath of God. It shows, too, that no scripture is of private interpretation. The prophets spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and when you go to interpret a passage of Scripture which the Holy Spirit indicted, you get the meaning through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
The next point is that when Aaron, under the Levitical law was preparing to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people, he must first offer for himself because he was a sinner, and before he offered for others he must himself be cleansed; but this Man was holy, “tempted in all points as we are tempted, yet without sin.” That distinction in character is very strong between the two persons between the two orders of priesthood. Aaron was a sinner; our priest was not a sinner. No man ever convicted him of sin.
Then Aaron died and could not continue to live to intercede for the people, but this priest ever liveth to make intercession for his people.
We now take up the general superiority of the New Covenant, and it embraces items 10-12 of the analysis, only in expounding this I will follow a more orderly and logical method than we have in the analysis. This section extends from Heb 8:5-13:16 , and it even includes one verse of Heb 7 .
So far, our exposition has had to do with the person and most of the offices of the Mediator of the new covenant, but here we contrast the covenants themselves. Notwithstanding the previous statements of the elements of the Sinaitic covenant, we must restate them here briefly in order to clearness in this exposition. The old covenant is set forth in Exo 19:1-24:11 , and consists of three distinct elements:
1. The Decalogue, or God and the normal man.
2. The fundamental principles of civic righteousness, or God and the theocratic nation.
3. The altar, or God and the sinner, or the law of the sinner’s approach to God.
From the first and second elements are derived a part of Numbers, and all of Deuteronomy; from the third element, God and the sinner, or the law of the altar, are derived the last 16 chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and a part of Numbers.
Our first question now arises: What are the faults of the old covenant, for our text says that God found that old covenant faulty? If we know what the faults are, we can then ‘ consider the superiorities of the new covenant. Evidently the one supreme fault of the first and second elements, that is, the moral code and the national code, was the inability of a fallen, sinful people to keep the law, as a way of life for the individual, or a way of life for the nation. The reason is that the moral element was written outside of the people and on tablets of stone; they had no internal personal knowledge spiritual knowledge of the law. So written, it discovered sin and condemned sin, but there was nothing in it to overcome this inability and render the obedience efficacious. The normal man Adam before his fall, and his descendants could have kept the Decalogue if he had not fallen and corrupted their nature derived from him, could have constituted a successful theocratic nation. But after the fall no lineal descendant from I Abraham, nor circumcision of the flesh, could impart a new nature.
And now what the faults of the third part of that covenant that is, the Levitical code the last three chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and a part of Numbers? The faults of that element were:
1. It was in whole and in all its parts but a shadow merely of heavenly things to come; in its nature and in its intent it was only transitory and educational.
2. The lack of intrinsic merit in the expiating sacrifices to atone for sin.
3. The emptiness of its nonexpiatory sacrifices arising from the want of the heart back of them.
4. Conforming to it could never relieve the conscience from the sense of sin, guilt, and condemnation, and give peace and rest.
5. The repentance of the sinner on human go-betweens, or third parties in making offerings, and in the administration of cleansing ordinances, the limitation of one fixed place to meet God, and the further limitation of set times in which to meet God that is, the sinner could not for himself directly approach God at all times, in all places, and in all emergencies.
From these faults what our text declares necessarily and inevitably followed, to wit: “They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” Their whole national history is but the record of a series of breaches of the covenant on their part, and of God’s disregard of them on his part. They broke the covenant first in the very shadow of Sinai, before its tablets were completed, in the matter of the golden calf. They broke the covenant again at Kadesh-barnea, and the whole generation of adults were disregarded and perished. They broke the covenant again throughout the period of the judges, and at the close of that period their rebellion culminated in the rejection of God as King, and in the demand for a human monarchy. After that monarchy was established, the ten tribes broke the covenant at the very start in erecting the calves to worship at Dan and Bethel, and kept on breaking it without cessation until they perished. The Judah part of the monarchy, while more faithful than the ten tribes, repeatedly broke the covenant, and finally, at the downfall of the monarchy by Nebuchadnezzar, they were swept away. The hierarchy which, through the clemency of Persia, succeeded the monarchy and continued throughout the Grecian and Roman supremacies, repeatedly violated the covenant, and the culmination of their rebellion was in the days of our Lord when they rejected him and killed the Prince of Glory, bringing upon themselves the terrible denunciation in Matthew 21-23 the gravest judgment that was ever assessed against a people. This on account of the faults in that covenant. In every period of their probation they broke it and disregarded it.
This review of the faults enables us to sum up in one sweeping, inclusive generality the superiority of the new covenant, to wit: Our text says, “It was enacted on better promises,” so that our next question arises: What are these better promises? Here it is all important to make no mistake. If we do not discern these better promises clearly and retain them permanently in our hearts, we will utterly fail to master the priceless lessons of this book. Notwithstanding the importance of discerning and retaining these promises, what a sad thing it is, that if the preachers of Christendom were called up and asked to state what these better promises are, probably not more than one in a hundred could give them correctly, and three-fourths of so-called Christendom have never seen them. I will give them to you in the next chapter.
QUESTIONS
1. Hebrews is an exposition of what covenant, and what Old Testament book in particular?
2. Where is the record of the old covenant, and what are its constituent elements?
3. What subsequent parts of the Pentateuch developed from each of these elements?
4. What are the elements of the law of the sinner’s approach to God, and what the particulars of each?
5. What do we find as to the sanctuary, the victims of sacrifice, the mediator, the times and the work of the high priest under the old covenant?
6. Why does the author of the letter to the Hebrews discuss the tabernacle of Moses and not the Temple of Herod?
7. In what respects are Aaron and Christ alike?
8. In what particulars is Christ greater than Aaron? (See analysis.)
9. Who was Melchizedek, and how does he illustrate the order of Christ’s priesthood?
10. What are the fault of the first and second elements of the old covenant?
11. What are the faults of the third element of the same covenant?
12. From these faults what necessarily and inevitably followed, and what particular illustrations of this in the history of Gods people, Israel?
13. Sum up in a sweeping generality the superiority of the new covenant and show its importance.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Ver. 1. Both gifts ] Of things without life.
And sacrifices ] Of living creatures.
For sins ] Christ, as God, was the priest and altar to offer up and to sanctify the sacrifice; and, as God-man, he was the sacrifice; for the Church was purchased by the blood of God, Act 20:28 . A bloody spouse she was unto him, as in a sense it may be said.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 .] For (takes up again ch. Heb 4:15 with a view to substantiate it: see remarks below) every high priest (in the sense, Levitical high priest, the only class here in question. Delitzsch is however right in maintaining, that it is not right to limit the words to this sense, or to see in them this condition, which indeed is not brought forward, but only exists in the nature of the case, no other high priests being in view), being taken from among men (this participial clause belongs to the predicative portion of the sentence, and indeed carries the chief weight of it, having a slight causal force; ‘inasmuch as he is taken from among men.’ And thus the clause is understood by Chrys., Thl., Primas., and Calv., Schlicht., Grot., Beng., Bl., De W., Lnem., Ebrard, Delitzsch, al. Others, as Luth., Seb. Schm., Wetst., Storr, Kuinoel, al., take it as belonging to the subject , as does the E. V., “Every high priest taken from among men,” and see in it a contrast, as in ch. Heb 7:28 , between human high priests, and the Son of God. But such contrast here is not only not in, but inconsistent with, the context: which does not bring out as yet any difference between Christ and the Jewish high priests, but rather (see below) treats of the attributes of a high priest from their example. is no technical word, as ‘ capi ’ in Latin: “Eximie virgines Vestales, sed flamines quoque Diales, item pontifices et augures capi dicebantur,” Aul. Gell. i. 12: for the question here is not of electing or appointing, which comes below in , but simply of taking from among , as in reff.), is appointed (the ordinary classical word: , Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 30: and the pass., , id. Ages. iii. 1, see also reff., and numerous examples in Bleek) for ( on behalf of , for the benefit of: vicariousness must not be introduced where the context, as here, does not require it: see note on ch. Heb 2:9 ) men (the stress is both times on this genitive and its preposition, , : the former justifying the latter. This is a powerful additional reason for taking . . predicatively: for if it be taken as attached to the subject, “every high priest taken from among men ,” with a necessary stress in such case on ‘ men ,’ the same stress must be laid on ‘ men ’ in the ., with an implication that Christ, with whom on this hypothesis the human high priest is contrasted, was not appointed for men ) in matters relating to God (see note on ch. Heb 2:17 . It is extraordinary how Calvin and Kypke could, in the face of usage and of ch. Heb 2:17 and Heb 7:28 ; Heb 8:3 , have supposed to be active, and . . . accus. after it: “ Curat Pontifex, vel ordinat, qu ad Deum pertinent : constructio melius fluit, et sententia est plenior,” Calv.: “Cultum divinum instituit,” Kypke. So also Stuart in his summary, “that he may superintend or direct the concerns which men have with God;” but not in his commentary. All the instances of an active (dynamic) sense of the middle of adduced by Kypke are in the aorists , which stand on different ground from the present ), that he may offer (the technical word: see reff.) both gifts and sacrifices for sins ( and are both to be taken with , as the shews: not, as Grot., Bengel, al., alone, and . . together; nor, as Delitzsch, is to be taken with . And the sentence . . . . is not, as Thl., a mere epexegesis of , but is intimately connected by the word with what follows: see below. , i. e. to atone for , = , ch. Heb 2:17 ; see also reff. No satisfactory distinction can be set up between and : properly speaking, the former would be any manner of offerings , the latter slain beasts only: but this usage is not observed in Scripture: see reff. Thl. says, , ),
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
CHAP. Heb 5:1 to Heb 10:18 .] THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST: and this in several points of view. That which has before been twice by anticipation hinted at, ch. Heb 2:17 ; Heb 3:1 ; Heb 4:14-15 , is now taken up and thoroughly discussed. First of all, Heb 5:1-10 , two necessary qualifications of a high priest are stated, and Christ is proved to have fulfilled both: . Heb 5:1-3 , he must be taken from among men, capable, in respect of infirmity, of feeling for men , and, . Heb 5:4-10 , he must not have taken the dignity upon himself, but have been appointed by God .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 5:1 . introduces the ground of the encouraging counsel of Heb 4:16 , and further confirms Heb 4:15 . [But cf. Beza: “Itaque non tam est causalis quam inchoativa, ut loquuntur grammatici”; and Westcott: “the is explanatory and not directly argumentative”.] The connection is: Come boldly to the throne of grace; let not sin daunt you, for every high priest is appointed for the very purpose of offering sacrifices for sin ( cf. Heb 8:3 ). This he must do because he is appointed by God for this purpose, and he does it readily and heartily because his own subjection to weakness gives him sympathy. . “Every high priest,” primarily, every high priest known to you, or every ordinary Levitical high priest. There is no need to extend the reference, as Peirce does, to “others who were not of that order”. , “being taken from among men,” not, “who is taken from etc.,” as if defining a certain peculiar and exceptional kind of high priest. It might almost be rendered “since he is taken from among men”; for the writer means that all priesthood proceeds on this foundation, and it is this circumstance that involves what is afterwards more fully insisted upon, that the high priest has sympathy. For . cf. Num 25:4 ; Num 8:6 . On the present tense, see below. Grotius renders “segregare, ut quae ex acervo desumimus”. Being taken from among men every high priest is also appointed not for his own sake or to fulfil his own purposes, but , “is appointed in man’s behalf”; not with Calvin, “ordinat ea quae ad Deum pertinent,” taking . as middle. The word is in common use in classical writers. “The customariness [implied in . and .] applies not to the action of the individual member of the class, but to that of the class as a whole”. Burton, M. and T. , cxxiv. , “in things relating to God”; an adverbial accusative as in Rom 15:17 . See Blass, Gram. , p. 94; and cf. Exo 18:19 , . In all that relates to God the high priest must mediate for men; but he is appointed especially and primarily, , “that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins”. Were there no sins there would be no priest. The fact that we are sinners, therefore, should not daunt us, or prevent our using the intercession of the priest. , technical term, like our “offer”; not so used in the classics. , the same combination is found in Heb 8:3 and Heb 9:9 with the same conjunctions. as well as include all kinds of sacrifices and offerings. Thus in Lev 1 passim, cf . Heb 5:3 : . It is best, therefore, to construe . with and not with ; cf. Heb 5:3 and Heb 10:12 . So Bleek and Weiss against Grotius and others; e.g. , Westcott, who says: “The clause . is to be joined with and not with as referring to both nouns. The two ideas of eucharistic and expiatory offerings are distinctly marked.”
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Hebrews Chapter 5
We now enter on the main doctrinal development of the Epistle, the detailed comparison of the priesthood of Christ with that of Aaron, pursued with collateral truths to the middle of Heb 10 . The aim evidently is to prove the incontestable superiority of Christ in this as in every other point of view. It was of the utmost moment for such confessors of His name as were Jews; it is of scarcely less importance for souls accustomed to the traditions and practices of Christendom, where an order of officials has been set up, not always sacerdotal in name but ever tending to fall back on that Aaronic order, though according to God it grew old and vanished away when the substance was established for ever in Christ by redemption.
“For every high priest, taken as he is from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining unto God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, being able to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is compassed with infirmity; and on account of this he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself also to offer for sins. And no one taketh the honour to himself but when called by God even as Aaron also” (verses 1-4).
The description is general, but with Aaron in view in order to bring in the glorious contrast of Christ. This has not always been seen, and the consequence is often disastrous. Such an oversight is inexcusable, because God has clearly revealed the infinite dignity of Christ’s person and the grace of His work. Were these foundations of the faith held fast, they afford an invaluable safeguard for souls. Where it is not so, what is there to preserve from error of the deadliest kind? Christ is the truth. This scripture upholds Him, as the Holy Spirit is here to glorify Him and will never be a consenting party to His dishonour. And the Father’s love is never tasted otherwise. For His complacency was ever there, and especially expressed to Him as man on earth, that we who believe in Christ might hear the Son and have fellowship with the Father no less than with Him.
Assuredly Christ is only viewed as priest, and only became such after the assumption of manhood, and indeed much more. As little can it be questioned that He entered on that office for the partakers of the heavenly calling, to sympathise with them, as well as appear and intercede for them in God’s presence. But the language here employed does not refer to Him; rather is it to give point, by way of contrast as a whole, with that earthly priesthood whose highest representative was Aaron. Hence the language, however comprehensive, leaves out what is most distinctive of Christ, and expresses a ground in verse 2 and a consequence in verse 3 which faith ought to have regarded as intolerable in His case, because it is opposed to the truth of both His person and His work. The fact is that it is simply every case of human high priesthood which is set before us here, and not that of Christ, which follows subsequently and is placed in marked contradistinction. Indeed the basis laid at the beginning of the Epistle refutes the inclusion of Christ; for He is carefully shown to be Son of God as well as Son of man. His divine glory is carefully maintained from the first and throughout. It is this, as well as the accomplishment of redemption, that gives infinite efficacy to His office no less than to His sacrifice.
The opening verses of our chapter therefore set out the ordinary requirements of any and every high priest, however truly the Lord may have possessed some and superseded others by His surpassing and unique dignity. The real aim is to evince the necessary inferiority of a human high priest, great as the privilege was in divine things, even if the high priest were Aaron the most honoured of all; and thus to enhance the incomparable glory of Christ’s high priesthood.
Every high priest was “taken from among men.” This would be most inadequate if applied to Christ, but perfectly true of Aaron and his successors. They were but men, though taken from among them. So to speak of the Lord is to forget who He is. The Word was made flesh. He became man, but God He was and is from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal. An angel had been wholly unsuited, and is only employed in prophetic vision when the object is to express distance without losing the fact of priesthood, as in Rev 8 : But in fact, a high priest was of necessity a man, though taken from among men. He was to represent man before God, and to represent God before men. His appointment was on behalf of men in things relating to God, and more definitely to “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” What a meagre statement, if Christ were in view, who gave Himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour! It is, on the contrary, precise and full if the inspired writer were treating only of human high priesthood as distinguished from that of Christ.
Still more evident is the other side of high priestly functions, “being able to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is compassed with infirmity.” He can feel and make considerate allowance for the ignorant and erring, being no more than a weak man himself, whatever be the exalted character of his office; he himself also is beset round about with infirmity. How true this is of every high priest without qualification needs no proof. But what guards and limitations and reserves are necessary if a believer essays to bring Christ within the range! That the Son deigned to become man is truth only secondary to His being God, perfectly man and perfect man. That He knew hunger, thirst, weariness, is certain, that He was crucified in (or of) weakness* is so revealed to us. Were this or its like that which is conveyed here, none ought to hesitate; for it is a wrong to the truth to detract from His real humanity, as of course from His proper deity. But to my mind the passage speaks of a mere man, such as every other high priest is necessarily, and grounds his ability to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring on his own besetment with weakness; whereas, when He is without doubt referred to, He is spoken of as “Jesus the Son of God” and thus shown in the power of divine nature and relationship, though partaking of ours to sympathise with us fully, in fact tempted in all things after a like manner with the momentous exception of sin. Of that class of temptation He had absolutely none, as it was incompatible with the integrity and holiness of His person as well as the efficacy and acceptance of His work.
* Calvin in his Commentary argues on Christ bearing our infirmities, though free from sin and undefiled. The reference is of course to Matthew’s application (Mat 8:17 ) of Isa 53:4 . But it is erroneous. The manning is, not that He took our infirmities and bare our sickness as in His person, jut that thus He acted in healing diseases and expelling demons. It was not mere power; but He felt before God in grace the weight of all the evil that He removed.
But what absolutely precludes and expels this loose, erroneous, and Christ-dishonouring application is the pendant in verse 3. “And on account of this [infirmity] he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.” This is bound up with the verses that precede, and rigorously pertains to “every high priest” intended in them. All well-read men are aware that some scholars have dared to apply even this to Christ, following out logically the mistake that applies the passage to Him generally. They ought to have judged rather that, as it is a blasphemous falsehood that Christ offered for sins on His own account, the verses that precede describe high priesthood in general but not His, which has a higher ground in His deity and in His humanity Son of God as born of woman, and thus a more glorious character with power and efficacy intrinsic and eternal. The contrast here cannot be fairly denied. And it is the more striking because of the only point where resemblance is expressed immediately following. “And no one taketh the honour to himself but when called by God even as Aaron also.” The call of God was essential, and one might have thought indisputably clear in Aaron’s, and all the more after the gainsaying of Korah was answered in the destruction of himself and his rebellious companions. But the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, and Christendom is apprised of that very woe in the solemn warning of Jude, no less prophetic than that of Enoch which he cites.
It is evident from the last verse under consideration that the priest is viewed according to God’s mind and statutes, not as the facts had long misrepresented this in fallen Israel. For notoriously intrigue, corruption, and violence had reigned for many a year in Jerusalem, and the civil power had taken the place of God as things at length grew irretrievably evil. If the priests did not take the honour to themselves, it was because the power of the sword forbade any save its own nominee. Hence the disorder that prevailed when the word of God came to John, the forerunner of the Messiah, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,” not only two but such a pair! Far different was the will of God even for the time of shadows.
From Scripture we know that the early uprising of Korah the Levite with others not even of that tribe disputed the priesthood of Aaron. This gainsaying, however, God settled publicly and solemnly by a destruction without parallel of the ringleaders, and by a plague that cut off thousands of the guilty people only stayed by the gracious and effectual intervention of Aaron at the bidding of Moses. Nor was this all. For Jehovah directed twelve rods to be laid up in the tabernacle of the congregation before the testimony, one for each house of their fathers, that He might cause that man’s rod to blossom whom He chose to draw near to Himself on behalf of all the others. On the morrow the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi alone budded, and blossomed, and yielded almonds: the figure of a better priesthood, of life out of death and fruit by the evident grace of God, of the One that ever liveth to make intercession. From Aaron the descent was fixed in his sons, not without striking dealings in good and evil that modified the succession according to the declared will of God. With Phinehas in the desert was the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; as it was manifest later when Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest and set Zadok in his stead, thus fulfilling the prophetic word about the intruding line of Eli. God alone was entitled to order it; and this He did, as He will by-and-by in the new age when all Israel shall be saved. Then the sons of Zadok reappear to minister to Jehovah, and stand in His presence to offer unto Him the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah. Eze 44:15-31 ; Eze 48:8-14 .
But of this future restoration when temple, priesthood, and sacrifice shall be in force, never more to be misused but rather to remind Israel under the new covenant of their accomplished blessing in the Messiah, we hear nothing in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The habitual aim is to bring out what the believer has now in Him Who died and is risen and exalted at God’s right hand. There are hints here and there of the age and habitable earth to come, of the rest that remaineth for the people of God, of good things to come, of the day approaching, and the like. There are those intimations which look onward to another state and for blessing to the elect nation. But it would have undone the object of the Spirit to have expatiated on these earthly glories, though enough is said to prove that they are in no way effaced or forgotten, but await their fulfilment when Christ appears. Yet the evident and earnest and urgent task in hand is to bring out a “better thing” already verified in Christ on high, for those who believe while He is hidden in God and have the Holy Spirit to show us the efficacy of His sacrifice as seen in the light of glory, and the present application of His priesthood to the partakers of a heavenly calling, and the heavens themselves as the only true and adequate sanctuary, into which we are invited to draw near with all boldness in spirit. Hence the regeneration and its assured earthly privileges for Israel by-and-by stand in the background that the lustre of present heavenly associations may be undimmed, and that those who now believe in Christ while the nation rejects Him may see and enjoy their portion as incomparably deeper and higher.
Accordingly, whether for vindicating God’s glory on the one hand or for the soul’s complete blessedness on the other, we are waiting for no work. The mightiest for both is already done and accepted; as the person who has wrought all is the guarantee of its absolute and eternal excellency. And it is all the more precious and admirable, because He previously came down into the reality of a race and a scene ruined by sin, suffering for it yet perfectly free from it. This place He accepted loyally with an entire submissiveness and an unswerving obedience, whatever it might cost. Never was such a servant. Divine dignity, infinite love, unfailing devotedness, met in Him who took a bondman’s place all through His life on earth, yea, in the end was made sin where none could follow.
“Thus the Christ also glorified not himself to be made high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son: I today have begotten thee: even as he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek” (verses 5, 6).
Truly He glorified not Himself in any respect, even when the atoning work was done. For His kingdom He waits, though Ruler of the kings of the earth. He is gone into the far country and on receiving it He will return. Meanwhile we have in Him a great High Priest, as we have seen. But in this too He “glorified not Himself to be made high priest.” He waited on Him that sent Him, It was for God to speak, as He did. And here Psa 2:7 is again cited. The dignity of His relationship is acknowledged. “Thou art my Son: I today have begotten Thee” (verse 5). Others were lifted out of their nothingness. God conferred as He would on such as were but men compassed with infirmity like Aaron. Christ too deigned to be truly born of woman, but even so God owned Him His Son as none else. To partake of blood and flesh through and of His mother was in no way to forfeit His title. Son of God from everlasting to everlasting, in time also as man He has God declaring “I today have begotten thee.” His personal dignity, His relationship as Son of God, we hear repeated in connection with the office of priest. Such is the true ground in contrast with every other. Undoubtedly the Word was made flesh to be made high priest; and He has been already shown truly Son of man in this very connection (Heb 2 ). Still there is the utmost care to reiterate the words of the second Psalm, though cited long before, that we may remember the more distinctly who He is that was made high priest in contradistinction with the highest human one of God’s own appointment.
Not till then have we the direct and explicit prediction from Psalm ex. “As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek” (verse 6). “For ever” is of course here qualified by the necessity and the existence of priesthood. In the eternal state, where sin and suffering are no more, it will cease in the final result of grace triumphant in glory.
Farther on we shall have before us the detailed application of this remarkable oath of Jehovah, the oath of which, it is added, He will not repent, the key to the scene historically introduced in Gen 14 . Suffice it here to say that the Spirit appears in this allusion to be simply drawing attention to the singular honour of the Christ, as in no way sharing in the order of Aaron but giving force to that of Melchizedek, who comes before us long before as sole priest, without successor, predecessor, or subordinates. The order of Aaron was essentially successional, and for a reason that attaches to man as he is, subject to death because of sin. Melchizedek is strikingly brought before us as a living priest, alone in his blessing the faithful man on God’s part, and in blessing God most high on man’s part: the eloquent type which the Spirit so often uses of the Christ, as the sole and ever-living Priest on high.
We have had the first reference to the order of Melchizedek, which is repeated so often in the Epistle as to prove to any one who reverences Scripture its immense importance in the mind of God. It is a striking part of the typified glory of the Messiah, foreshown in Gen 14 , predicted and declared with divine solemnity in Psalm ex., applied and expounded with care and fulness in our Epistle, which can be examined as each reference comes before us. In the present chapter it is the peculiar and personal dignity which is insisted on in distinction from Aaron, however eminent by God’s choice and appointment. But the Christ was God’s Son, begotten too in time according to Psa 2 , as in John’s Gospel Only-begotten before time and above dispensation, being eternal no less than the Father. Such was His person; and His office was no less singularly glorious even if typified by a royal priest of early days. For, as the psalm cited puts it, He is a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. As Melchizedek stands alone, without predecessor or successor so far as the record speaks, the negative in his case becomes the positive in the case of Christ. And this the unimpeachably divine authority of the Psalm lays down with all simplicity and assurance. And such will be the exercise of His priesthood for the earth when the days of heaven shine upon it in the future kingdom. Meanwhile, as our Epistle urges, He is priest after this order now as for ever. As He alone is Son, so He is exclusively royal priest without end, yet not glorifying Himself any more than Aaron, but a thousand years before so addressed by God, as the typical shadow met Abram not far from a thousand years before the Psalm.
Here we are first directed to His earthly path, then to His heavenly place, and the blessed results. “Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him out of death, and having been heard for his pious fear, though he were Son, learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, he became to all those that obey him author of everlasting salvation, addressed by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (verses 7-10). Suffering was to be distinctively His portion. It had no place in Aaron any more than in Melchizedek. In the Christ it was altogether pre-eminent and peculiar.
Glory intrinsic and conferred is His beyond comparison yet this is not all that grace gives in Him, nor yet all that we need, not merely as sinners but here especially as saints. Our sin and our misery but furnished the opportunity to divine love, and this is only shown and learnt in Christ, in Him that suffered infinitely here below – and Christ alone from the mystery of His person was capable of such suffering. Thus has He glorified, and thus reached hearts opened by grace to feel in our measure the wonders of His love. In the days of His flesh we behold the surface and hear the sound of His sorrows which God alone was able to fathom. For this as for other reasons essential to the purpose of God and the blessing of man the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us, and obeyed unto death, yea, death of the cross. And if ever prayers and supplications, if ever strong crying and tears, were realities for the heart before God, His were. For His divine nature screened Him from no pain, grief, or humiliation, or suffering, but rather gave competency of person to endure perfectly, while all was accepted in absolute dependence on, and subjection to, His Father.
Not a particle of hardness or insensibility was in Christ. It was no small thing for His love to have hatred and contempt, to be despised and rejected of men; not only not to be honoured by the people of God and His people, but to be esteemed stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; to be deserted by all His disciples, denied by one, betrayed by another; and, far the most terrible of all and wholly different from all, to be forsaken of God just when He most needed His consolation and support. But so it must have been if sin was to be duly judged in His sacrifice, if our sins were to be completely borne away, and God to be glorified as to evil adequately and for ever. Gethsemane and the cross, or the first part of Psa 22 , are the best comment on verse 7. It was equally in keeping with God that He was not heard while atonement was in accomplishment, and that He was heard when He poured out His soul unto death, and Jehovah made it an offering for sin. For He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.
Christ therefore, besides that which fell exclusively on Him as the propitiation for our sins in vindicating God at all cost sacrificially, knew as no saint ever did all that can befall holiness and love in a world and in the midst of a people alienated from God, yet claiming all the more that privilege as theirs only. As at the beginning Satan sought to attract Him from the path of lowly suffering and absolute obedience, by temptations subtly suited to the circumstances, so he assailed Him at the end with the terrors of death, and of such a death! But all was in vain. He suffered but did not succumb. Though prayer characterised Him at all times, then especially in His sorrow and deep depression He is alone with His Father (even His chosen three left behind about a stone’s throw), and fallen on His face deprecates that cup, yet in meek submission; and this a second time (while others could not watch one hour with Him), and a third time from that agony in which He prayed more earnestly. And if an angel appeared to strengthen him, none the less did His sweat become as great drops of blood falling down on the ground. He endured the temptation and was blessed, suffering to the utmost. they slept for sorrow and, instead of praying entered into the temptation and fell. And He was saved not from dying but out of death. Whatever His inward and unwavering confidence, He could have no public answer till resurrection, when He was saved and out of death. To be saved from dying had left man in his sins, and Satan’s power unbroken, and God’s judgment in suspense, and His grace impotent. But the Son of man was there to deliver from all evil and to set all good on an immutable foundation to God’s glory, even while saving the lost. He was heard for His pious fear,* but after unsparing judgment had taken its course. Though Son of God, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. We learn to obey as God’s children, who were once sons of disobedience; He being Son was used to speak, and it was done; He knew not what obedience was. But when He became man, He took loyally this place: in the volume of the book it is written of Him, not of the first man, “Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.” Indeed He suffered it to the uttermost as well as did it in all perfection. His “having learned obedience” is only “difficult and much agitated,” because of weakness in holding fast His personal glory as true God, used only to command till He became man, and then “learned obedience” in all perfection as the perfect Servant, absolutely submissive to what He subsequently suffered.
* Not only Calvin and Beza of the Reformed, but the old Latin versions, followed by Ambrose, and by moderns, especially Lutherans, strangely render this “delivered from fear,” or the like.
Dr. Whitby fell into the perversion of rendering the verb “taught”!
This expression “perfected” means the completeness of His course through sufferings in resurrection and heavenly glory, as we may see far beyond controversy in Heb 7:28 , where the word has a form to express permanent result, instead of only indicating the fact accomplished as here. Neither “sanctified” nor “consecrated” is the true force: other words signify these correctly. Nor would either suit this place when His completed work of suffering is in view, by which alone salvation could be. And the result is here affirmed in terms of triumph: “He became to all those that obey Him author of everlasting salvation.” Thus on the one hand is His glorious position maintained, and on the other everlasting salvation is assured to all who own Him. He is none other than the prophet like unto Moses whom Jehovah promised long ago to raise up. But He is far more, and more blessed. For instead of only the threat of God’s retribution to him that hearkens not, He is become author of salvation to those that obey Him; yea, in contrast with legal uncertainty, “of everlasting salvation to those that obey Him.” How indeed could it be otherwise if we believe in the glory of His person and the efficacy of His work? But all have not faith; and faith – obedience is the root of all other obedience precious in God’s eyes, who disdains to accept the homage that is proffered to Himself while making light of His Son and of His infinite sufferings. “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who sent Him.” “Whoever denieth the Son hath not the Father either; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.”
The rest of the chapter, and the following one, compose a long and instructive digression on the state of those addressed, the more to be blamed because they had had time to become mature. This it was forbade opening up the subject of Melchizedek, which otherwise might have been happy. It even exposed souls to the danger of going back from Christianity, though better things were expected of themselves, seeing that grace already had wrought practically in them. Hence on the one hand they are encouraged to be imitators of those that through faith and patience inherit the promises; and on the other God is shown to have given strong encouragement to the most tried and feeble by Jesus within the veil, the Forerunner gone in for us.
“Concerning whom [or, which] we have much to say and hard to be interpreted in saying, since ye are become dull of hearing. For whereas on account of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye again have need that some one teach you the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and have become in need of milk, [and] not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk [is] inexperienced in word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food belongeth to full-grown [persons], who on account of habit have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil (verses 11-14).
There is no such hindrance to spiritual intelligence as traditional religion, and hence none exposed to it so much as Jewish believers. The wisdom of the world is another great impediment, which drew out the censure and warning of the apostle to the Corinthian saints, especially in 1Co 2:3 , and in terms somewhat parallel. Both are hostile to that faith which is only nourished by the divine word, and is impaired by any human admixture. But of the two the religious rival is the more dangerous, because it has more seeming devotedness and humility, and so appeals, however groundlessly, to conscience instead of to mere mind. The effect is that growth in the Lord cannot but be arrested. Instead of becoming spiritual, souls abide fleshly and infantine. For the Holy Spirit is grieved, and reproves the state, instead of being free to lead on and strengthen by taking the things of Christ and showing them to such. We learn thereby how much the moral condition has to do with God’s training of the saint; and we may well thank Him that so it is. For nothing is more dangerous than advancing in knowledge where flesh and the world are unjudged: the devil at once seizes his opportunity to overthrow the unwary and careless, and seek His dishonour whose name they bear. But it is no remedy for the evil to be dwarfed by tradition or diverted by philosophy. The Holy Spirit has ample matter to convey; but if we are dulled and darkened by seeking to glean in other fields, the word of God becomes hard Of interpretation to us. Hence it is added “Since ye are become” (not simply “are” as in the A.V.) “dull in your hearing” (the dative of reference, and naturally thence in the plural).
Our Lord had touched on the same difficulty and danger for His Israelitish hearers in the first Gospel. From every hearer of the word of the kingdom, if he understand it not , the wicked one comes and catches away what had been sown in his heart; as on the other hand the seed sown on the good ground is he that hears and understands the word (Mat 13:19 , Mat 13:23 ). In Mark, as with a view to service, it is a question of reception or not; in Luke, as looking on to strangers of the Gentiles, the point is “believing” and being “saved,” keeping the word and bringing forth fruit with patience. But the Jew, as being in continual contact with religious prejudice and tradition, was in peculiar danger of not “understanding” what was new and of God, the present test of faith.
The apostle now expostulates because of their backwardness in the truth (after professing it so long). “For whereas ye ought on account of the time to be teachers, ye again have need that some one teach you the elements,” etc. Christendom lies open to the self-same rebuke, and from similar causes. Rom 11 had pointed out a danger peculiar to it, and tending to as great if not greater self-complacency, the danger of conceiving itself secure for ever, and so perverting the obvious admonition from the excision of the Jew into the proud assurance of immunity for the Gentile craft. It is indeed the very snare into which the Romish system has fallen beyond all others – and is it not striking that the Spirit gave this warning there in particular? Here it is only the stop put to their learning the things of God that is noticed. Instead of being teachers now, after so long bearing the Lord’s name, they had need again to be taught the very rudiments. So in similar conditions it ever is. No man ever became mighty in God’s word by the study of theology, though some theologians have in a measure grown in spite of what is calculated to obstruct and blind. It is the general effect which proves the character of what works for profit or loss. Now who can doubt the lamentable ignorance of God’s word in Christendom at large? And is it not certain that the darkness is greatest where men are most shut up to tradition and least search the Scriptures?
No doubt when souls are in this state, they need a powerful means to set them free; and this Epistle is a fine sample of the truth grace employs to that end. The person of Christ has to be clearly presented, and their distinct and blessed association with Him through His atoning work, as well as His position and gracious functions for them on high. This alone dispels all earth-born clouds, and extricates from the din and dust of human schools. Therefore was the apostle ministering these fundamental truths throughout in order to their deliverance. He implies, nay affirms, that they were spiritually infants needing to learn the elements over again. These, qualified as “of the beginning of the oracles of God,” mean what God gave in Christ here below, short of His redemption and His heavenly place, with the gift of the Spirit, which lend Christianity its true distinctive character and its power. The eyes of the disciples were blessed because they saw, and their ears because they heard, what many prophets and righteous men desired to see and hear but did not. The accomplishment of redemption and the new place of Christ in heaven went far beyond. Here they were utterly dull, not so much about the facts as respecting their blessed import and results to faith, as well as for God’s glory. The issue was that the very rudiments were rendered obscure and uncertain: so little can the Christian afford to waste his time in seeking the living One among the dead, and so injurious is the issue of turning from the actual testimony of God on our relationships to a vague and dreamy sentiment about the past. Not one thing is understood aright. “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” It is never so, if we look not to Christ where God is now pointing us. In His light we see light. Failure here exposes the Christian now as then to become a person Having need of milk and not of solid food – of fare for babes rather than for adults: a state quite anomalous since redemption.
This figure is unfolded in the next two verses. In no way is milk slighted in its due place. It is the most wholesome and suited of all nourishment for the infant; but the grown man requires quite different food for his developed state and appropriate duties. “For every one that partaketh of milk [is] unskilled (or, without experience) in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant; but solid food belongeth to full-grown persons that have by reason of habit their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil.” By “partaking” is meant having milk for one’s share in ordinary use, as a babe takes it not for partial or occasional fare, as any one might. The word translated “full-grown” is literally “perfect,” and given in the A.V. so repeatedly that some lose the true force, which is simply those come to maturity.
Now this is the present aim of the gospel, and its effect wherever souls submit to God’s righteousness in Christ. We may see the same truth in substance set forth in Gal 3:4 . Faith having come (i.e. dispensationally), we are no longer under a child-guide, as the law had been unto Christ; “for ye are all,” says the apostle to the Galatian saints, “God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus.” “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is an infant, differeth nothing from a slave, though he be lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. So we too, when we were infants, were enslaved under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under the law, that we might receive our sonship. And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
We may gather therefore that to stop short of liberty and sonship is to abide in the bondage of law, and to undo the privileges of the gospel. Further, we may note how indigenous to the heart is this fear of God’s grace, which, even when the gospel is sounding freedom to the slave through faith in Christ, is ever prone to go back to what is annulled (2Co 3 ); and this among Gentiles as well as Jews: a retrograde tendency which the apostle was combating always and everywhere. Whatever its source, whether worldly wisdom or legalism, it is an evil to which no quarter should be shown, more particularly as we have rarely to do with it now in Jews, for whom old and fond habits might be pleaded. But for the ordinary Christian, what extenuation can be offered? The risen and ascended Christ supposes the work accepted of God whereby peace was made; and every believer is justified from all things from which none could be justified by the law of Moses.
The Hebrews addressed had not gone on with the gospel. They were as infants needing milk, and unable to digest solid food. It was not God’s will, but their prejudices and unbelief which thwarted their growth. The believer if simple passes, we may say, at once into sonship; if occupied with self, with his ordinances, with his church, or with any object to engage his soul other than Christ, he remains an infant like those Hebrews, and in no real sense full-grown any more than they. God is not mocked, nor does He suffer even saints to slight or doubt the gospel with impunity. It is to prefer bondage when grace is proclaiming liberty; and to need milk instead of that solid food which suits the full-grown; yet every Christian ought to be full-grown. Christ redeemed him, even if a Hebrew of Hebrews or a Pharisee of Pharisees, to know the sonship of God in the power of His Spirit.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 5:1-4
1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; 2he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; 3and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. 4And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.
Heb 5:1-4 Heb 5:1-4 describe OT Levitical high priests.
1. comes from one of the tribes (Levi)
2. stands before God on humanity’s behalf
3. offers gifts and sacrifices for sin (cf. Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9)
4. deals gently with sinners because he is a sinner (cf. Lev 16:3; Lev 16:6)
5. does not take personal honor, but is honored by God’s choice and use
Heb 5:2
NASB, NRSV”gently”
NKJV”compassion”
TEV”able to be gentle”
NJB”sympathize with”
This Greek term is used only here in the NT and does not occur at all in the Septuagint. It is used in Aristeas 256 to refer to the philosophy of moderation (cf. Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 406).
“the ignorant and misguided” In the OT the sins of ignorance and passion were forgivable through sacrifice (cf. Lev 4:2; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:15-18; Lev 22:14; Num 15:22-31), but sins of premeditation were not (cf. Deu 1:43; Deu 17:12-13; Deu 18:20; Psalms 51).
In Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, A. T. Robertson makes the theological connection between the premeditated sins of the OT for which there was no forgiveness through sacrifice and the warnings of Heb 3:12; Heb 10:26. His statement is “for deliberate apostasy (Heb 3:12; Heb 10:26) no pardon is offered” (p. 368).
Paul believed God had mercy on him because of his ignorance of the truth and not his intentional rejection of the gospel.
Heb 5:3 “and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins as for the people, so also for himself” This refers to the procedures for the high priest atoning for himself is found in Lev 9:7-17 (initial consecration; Lev 16:6-19 Day of Atonement; and Lev 9:7. We learn from Heb 7:26-27 that Jesus never had to make an offering for His own sin, but He does understand our need (cf. Heb 4:15).
Heb 5:4 “no one takes the honor to himself” God appointed a certain tribe (Levi) and a certain family (Aaron’s, cf. Exo 28:1; 1Ch 23:13) to act as priests (cf. Num 16:40; Num 18:7; 1Sa 12:9-14; 2 Chr. 16:18).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
from among. Greek. ek. App-104.
men. Greek. anthropos. App-123.
pertaining to. Greek.
pros. App-104.
God. App-98.
that = in order that. Greek. hina.
offer. Greek. prosphero. Occurs twenty times in Hebrews in relation to blood and bloodless “offerings”. Elsewhere, only in Gospels and Acts. In the Septuagint over a hundred times, eighty times in the Pentateuch.
sins. Greek. hamartia. App-128.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
CHAP. Heb 5:1 to Heb 10:18.] THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST: and this in several points of view. That which has before been twice by anticipation hinted at, ch. Heb 2:17; Heb 3:1; Heb 4:14-15, is now taken up and thoroughly discussed. First of all, Heb 5:1-10, two necessary qualifications of a high priest are stated, and Christ is proved to have fulfilled both: . Heb 5:1-3, he must be taken from among men, capable, in respect of infirmity, of feeling for men, and, . Heb 5:4-10, he must not have taken the dignity upon himself, but have been appointed by God.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Shall we turn now in our Bibles to Heb 5:1-14
At the end of chapter 4, the author of Hebrews introduced the idea of Jesus being our great High Priest. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession” ( Heb 4:14 ). That would be our profession of faith. “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin [or tempted apart from sin]. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help” ( Heb 4:15-16 ). We can come boldly to the throne of grace because we have a great high priest.
You see, the mission of the priest was two-fold. He was to go before God to represent the people before God. Here is a holy, righteous God. Here is a sinful people. A sinful person could not approach the holy, righteous God. So the priest would take the sacrifice and he would go before God for the person, make the way, and he would represent that person before God. Then, as he came out from the offering of the sacrifice, he would then represent God to the people. He was a mediator. He was a go-between between God and man.
Now we have a great high priest. This was, of course, so instilled in the Jewish mind. They would not dare to try to approach God apart from the sacrifices and the priest. That has changed today. That has changed radically. For the Jews today feel that they have direct access to God and that they need no mediator. That is why they do not believe that they need Jesus Christ. They say, “We go directly to God.” And so the whole mental concept has been changed through the years.
At the time that Paul was writing, the mind frame of the Jew was how God was so totally unapproachable by sinful man, that he would not dare to approach God. And so he felt his only approach to God was through the priest, which was the correct, through the offering of the sacrifice and the priest coming before God for him. Now with the coming of a faith in Jesus Christ, there was this mental problem, subconsciously, of, “I don’t have a priest now representing me before God.” And so the writer of Hebrews is going to point out that we do have a superior representative–Jesus. He is our great High Priest and that through Him we have an approach to God whereby we can come boldly now, seeing that we have this great High Priest Jesus Christ.
In the Jewish mind, there would be an immediate objection. How could Jesus be our High Priest when He is from the tribe of Judah? And we know the tribe of Levi was to be the priestly tribe. The author begins to answer that question in chapter 5. Then he takes up the same subject again in chapter 7, and amplifies it even more in chapter 7, the high priesthood of Jesus Christ, and comparing the priesthood of Jesus Christ with the Levitical priesthood.
Now, the priesthoods were known as orders, the Levitical order. But there was another order of priesthood in the Old Testament and that was known as the Melchisedec order. And so the author of Hebrews is going to show that Jesus is our High Priest. He is not after the Levitical order, not of the tribe of Levi, but He is after the Melchisedec order. And in, again, chapter 7 he will be showing the superiority of the Melchisedec order over the Levitical order of priesthood.
In chapter 5, then,
For every high priest that is taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God ( Heb 5:1 ),
The high priest represented the people before God. That was his duty. I could not come directly to God. I would have to come to the priest with my offering and I would have to lay my hands upon the head of my sacrifice, and confess on to the head of the ox or the lamb all of my sin. The priest would then kill the ox or lamb and he would take and offer it as a sacrifice unto God for me.
So the high priest was ordained for men. He was taken from among men, but was ordained to come before God.
that he may offer both the gifts and the sacrifices for sin: this man needed to have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with weaknesses ( Heb 5:1-2 ).
Because he was taken from among men, he understood the weaknesses of man, and so he would be compassionate towards the penitent or towards the sinner, for he himself was guilty of sin.
It is interesting that before he could actually offer any sacrifice for my sins, he had to, first of all, offer sacrifices for his own sin. He didn’t even have the direct approach. He had to, first of all, take care of himself, and then he would come and take care of me.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, also for himself, to offer for sins ( Heb 5:3 ).
He not only had to bring the sacrifice me, but he had to do it for himself. He was a man, and as a man, a sinner. And as a sinner, he needed to have sacrifices for his own sin, so he had to offer first for himself.
And no man would take this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron ( Heb 5:4 ).
It was not something that you could just say, “Well, I’m going to be the high priest.” It was an honor that a man didn’t just take upon himself. It was something that was ordained or appointed of God. Unfortunately, in time it became, more or less, a political position and a political appointment. That was only an indictment against the lack of spirituality that the whole system had practically degraded into. As so often man’s organization, setting up the hierarchy and all, degrades into something less than it originally was, into a political institution instead of a spiritual organism. One of the problems with most of the major denominational churches today is that they have become political systems rather than spiritual organisms.
So the high priest was taken from among man to offer the gifts and the sacrifices for man. He had to have compassion, and this he possessed because he also was a man and familiar with the weaknesses of man. And so, because he himself was a man, he had to offer sacrifices for himself. It is a position that is ordained of God and man did not take it unto himself. Even as today, the ministry is not something that man takes up as a profession. It’s a calling. It is something that God ordains a man to the ministry. No amount of education can make you a minister. That is something that God ordains a man to be. No man can ordain another man to the ministry. Having the bishop lay hands on me does not ordain me to the ministry. It is God who ordains a man to the ministry. It is an honor a person doesn’t take upon themselves. It is something that is ordained of God for them.
So also Christ glorified not himself ( Heb 5:5 )
He didn’t take on this position as our great High Priest on His own.
that is making himself the high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee [ Psa 2:1-12 ]. Also said in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec [ Psa 110:1-7 ] ( Heb 5:5-6 ).
God who said, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” also said to Him, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” And so speaking of Jesus,
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared ( Heb 5:7 );
Now, this is a reference to Jesus’ experience in the Garden of Gethsemane when He wept before God, prayed. He offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him. He said, “Now is my soul heavy, the hour has come, what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour,’?” But He said, “It was for this hour that I came into the world. Father, glorify Thy name” ( Joh 12:27-28 ). But there in the garden, sweat as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground as He prayed. “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” ( Mat 26:39 ). Jesus, at this point, desired to back away from the cross. The cross of Jesus Christ is an offense to many people, because the cross of Jesus Christ declares to all men that there is only one way to God.
That prayer of Jesus “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me.” If what is possible? If the redemption of man is possible by any other way than the cross. “Let this cup pass from Me. Father, if we can redeem man any other way, if man can be redeemed by works, by his efforts, by being good, by being righteous, or by keeping the law, by being sincere, let this cup pass from Me.” The fact that the cup did not pass from Him but that He went ahead and drank the cup indicates that there is only one way by which salvation or redemption for man is possible, and that’s through the cross of Jesus Christ. The cross actually declares one way only by which a man can come to God. If there were any other way then He would not have gone to the cross. He was praying, He was crying before the Father, for the Father was able to save Him from this death and He was heard. The Father heard Him, heard His prayers. And yet, He ended His prayer, “Nevertheless, not what I will, but Thy will be done,” so He learned obedience through His suffering. In going to the cross, He was submitting to the will of the Father.
I think that that is an important thing to note, because so often we picture God as filled with wrath and judgment and ready to strike us dead, and Jesus as saying, “No, No. Please, Father, don’t.” Not so. It was the Father that initiated the plan of salvation. It was the Father who sent His only begotten Son. It was the Father that held firm when the Son was ready to back out. And in submitting to the will of the Father, “nevertheless, not what I will,” and the will of Christ at that point was, “Let’s forget it.” “Not what I will, but Thy will be done.” So we see God not as angry and vengeful and ready to cast fire and brimstone upon us, but we see a loving Father, willing to make the supreme sacrifice of allowing His own Son to go through the ignominy of death and to take our sins upon Himself that the Father might, through the Son, be able to grant us pardon and forgiveness and receive us and fellowship with us. Because that is what God wants more than anything else is just to fellowship with you. He wants you to become one with Him. So the Father heard Him. He was heard, but the prayer was not answered as He desired it to be answered. But through prayer and through the sufferings, He learned obedience, that is, the submission to the will of God.
Now, that is something that prayer should always teach us. Prayer is not an instrument by which we can accomplish our wills upon the earth. God never intended that prayer be the medium by which you can do anything you want to do, have anything you want to have. And yet, unfortunately, so many people look at prayer like that. Like its something where I can just come to God and ask anything I want. We say, “Well, didn’t Jesus say, ‘Ask what you will and it shall be done’?” Who did He say it to? Did He say that to the multitudes? No. He said it to His disciples. What constitutes being a disciple? “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me” ( Mat 16:24 ). When you read, “And whatsoever you desire when you pray, believe that you receive it and you have it,” put over the top of that “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me.” You see, that’s who He is giving this broad promise to. If I have indeed denied myself to take up the cross and to follow Him, then I’m not going to be seeking those things for my own glory and for my own flesh or whatever, but I’m only going to be seeking those things that would please the Father.
And in prayer is where we so often learn submission to the will of God. Prayer does change things, but prayer changes me more than it changes God. I cannot believe that God is changed by prayer. If you think that prayer is a way by which you can snow God and get Him to see your point of view, you’re wrong. You can get God to acquiesce if you just talk fast enough, and smile enough, and throw in enough hallelujahs, surely God will see it your way and you can get what you want. Not so. I’m convinced that every right thing I’ve ever prayed for, God intended to give it to me before I ever prayed. If I pray for something that is wrong, God is too good and too loving to give it to me, though I cry and carry on and threaten and stomp out and everything else. He loves me too much. He’s not going to destroy me nor is He going to change. He said, “Behold I am the Lord God, I change not” ( Mal 3:6 ).
But I have changed so often in prayer. I think I’ve got to have that and I pray, “Oh Lord, please.” But, as I’m praying the Spirit of God changes me and I say, “I really don’t need it, Lord. Your will be done.” You learn submission.
So Jesus, it says,
Even though he were a Son, yet he learned obedience ( Heb 5:8 );
It was obedience to the Father in going to the cross. Submitting now unto the will of the Father. He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. He had to go through that suffering. The path of the cross is a path of suffering.
Paul the apostle, in writing to the Philippians, said, “Oh, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection.” Yes, Paul, I’m with you. I want to know Him and I want to know power. Paul went on to say, “and the fellowship of His sufferings.” Oh no, Paul, I don’t want that. I want the power. I want the glory. I want to ride the gravy train. Fellowship of suffering, no. “Being made conformable unto His death, even the death of the cross.” No, I don’t want the cross. I don’t want suffering, but that’s where He learned obedience. The submitting of my life to God, the learning to yield my life to Him, I learn it more in suffering than in any other place. That’s where I learn obedience, when I endure suffering as a good soldier. When I accept this by just committing my life to God and saying, “Well, Lord, my life is Yours.”
Peter said, “He who suffers according to the will of God let him commit himself unto God, as a faithful Creator” ( 1Pe 4:19 ). “God, You know I don’t like to suffer. I don’t like to feel this pain, emotional or physical. God, You know what I need and what is best for me. So, Lord, my life is Yours and I submit to You.” This takes much greater faith than saying, “God, I command You to take this pain away,” where I’m demanding or commanding God to follow my orders. I don’t learn anything that way. Jesus learned obedience through the things that He suffered.
And being made perfect [complete], he became the author of eternal salvation ( Heb 5:9 )
We are told also in Hebrews that He is the author and the finisher of our faith. Now, “He is the author of our eternal salvation.” He has made salvation possible for us because He went to the cross, because He was obedient to the will of the Father, because He learned this obedience and submitted to the Father. He was then able to bring to us eternal salvation. He could not have brought it to us had He not gone to the cross. But now it’s complete, our salvation is complete.
[And so he was] called of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of which we have many things to say, which are hard to be uttered, seeing you are dull of hearing ( Heb 5:10-11 ).
Now these people were on the fence. They had come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ from their Judaistic backgrounds. They had this deep-ingrained traditions of their fathers. All their lives they were accustomed to going to the temple, participating in the temple worship, very moving, very dramatic, deeply instilled. And now they saw a better way. Now they came to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and some of them were on the fence. They didn’t know if they wanted to go all the way with Jesus or whether or not they wanted to go back to the temple worship, go back to the high priest, take my sacrifice again back to the priest that he might offer it for me. So they were dull of hearing.
Paul said, “I’d like to talk to you more about this.” He will talk more about it in the seventh chapter. “I’d like to say more about this, but they are hard things to utter, because you’re dull of hearing.”
For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and you’ve become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat ( Heb 5:12 ).
They had been around, they had heard. They needed to be going on, but they needed to have the first principles rehearsed over again. They should have been at the stage where they could go out and teach others, but they had need that he just go back and give them the bottle again. “You’re not ready to take the meat yet. Though the time has come you should be able to digest some meat by now,” but there was an arrested spiritual development.
Oh, watch out for that. That is one of the most common diseases within the church, arrested spiritual development. A person comes to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and then they hit a plateau and they just hang there. They never go on. If you talk to them, they’re still talking about the same things they were talking about twenty-five years ago; arrested spiritual development. They’re no further along in spiritual maturity than they were twenty-five years ago. You see them and they’re still drinking bottles. “Entertain us, do a dance, do a jig, sing a song, play a harp, do something to entertain me.” They can’t take the strong meat. But you know what? You folks are spoiled, because once you’ve developed a taste for strong meat, you’ll never be satisfied with bottle again. And some of the people that go back out to get some of the excitement of the bottle experiences that they used to have as a babe they find out that it doesn’t satisfy anymore. Once you get a taste of the strong meat of the Word, I’ll tell you, it spoils you for anything else, so you’re spoiled. You just can’t go back to that old routine anymore. You’ve been spoiled. You try and go back and you say, “Wow! Did I use to engage in that?”
Every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe ( Heb 5:13 ).
Paul, in the Corinthian epistle, talked about carnal Christianity. He said they were babes in Christ. Arrested spiritual development is a common ailment within the church.
But strong meat belongs to them that are mature, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil ( Heb 5:14 ).
Growing in the Word, it gives you discernment. And you can immediately begin to discern some of these milky little scintillating kind of doctrinal trivias. And you say, “Hey, it’s fraud, whip cream, not nourishing.” And the guy next to you is getting blessed out of his socks, saying, “Oh, isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t that marvelous?” There is nothing there. It is cotton candy. It tastes sweet, but it dissolves. There is no substance.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Heb 5:1. For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
The high priest of old was taken from among men. Aaron was chosen, and then his son; an angel might have been sent to perform Aarons duty, but it was not so. And, glory be to our blessed Lord and Master, he is One chosen out of the people, taken from among men.
Heb 5:2. Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
Christ was not compassed with sinful infirmity, but he was compassed with sorrowful infirmity. His were true infirmities or weaknesses; there was no evil about him, but still he had the infirmity of misery, and he had it even to a greater extent than we have. The high priest of old was a man like those for whom he stood as a representative, and our great High Priest is like unto us, though without sin.
Heb 5:3. And by reason hereof he ought,
That is, the ordinary high priest, chosen from among men ought,
Heb 5:3. As for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
But our Lord had no sins of his own. Do not, therefore, think that he is less sympathetic with us because he had no sins; far from it. Fellowship in sin does not create true sympathy, for sin is a hardening thing. If there are two men, who are guilty partners in sin, they never really help each other, they have no true heart of kindness, either of them; but when the time of difficulty comes, each man looks to his own interest. The fact that Christ is free from sin, is a circumstance which does not diminish the tenderness of his sympathy with us, but rather increases it.
Heb 5:4-5. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
The text is quoted from the second Psalm, and it proves that Christ did not arrogate to himself any position before God. He is Gods Son, not merely because he calls himself so, but because the Father says, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. He took not this honour upon himself, but he was called of God, as was Aaron.
Heb 5:6. As he saith also in another place,
In the 110th Psalm,
Heb 5:6. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
He does not assume the office on his own account, but it is laid upon him. He comes not in as an amateur, but as an authorized priest of God.
Heb 5:7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
This is to prove his infinite sympathy with his people, and how he was compassed with infirmity. Christ prayed. How near he comes to you and to me by this praying in an agony, even to a bloody sweat, with strong crying, and with weeping! Some of you know what that means, but it did, perhaps, seem to you that Christ could not know how to pray just so; yet he did. In the days of his flesh, he not only offered up prayer, but prayers and supplications, many of them, of different forms, and in different shapes, and these were accompanied with strong crying and tears. Possibly, you have sometimes had a dread of death; so had your Lord, not a sinful fear of it, but that natural and perfectly innocent, yet very terrible dread which comes to a greater or less extent upon every living creature when in expectation of death. Jesus also comes very near to us because he was not literally heard and answered. He said, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me. But the cup did not pass from him. The better part of his prayer won the victory, and that was, Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. You will be heard, too, if that is always the principal clause in your prayers; but you may not be heard by being delivered from the trouble. Even the prayer of faith is not always literally heard. God, sometimes, instead of taking away the sickness or the death, gives us grace that we may profit by the sickness, or that we may triumph in the hour of death. That is better than being literally heard; but even the most believing prayer may not meet with a literal answer. He was heard in that he feared; yet he died, and you and I, in praying for ourselves, and praying for our friends, may pray an acceptable prayer, and be heard, yet they may die, or we may die.
Heb 5:8. Though he were a Son,
Emphatically, and above us all a Son,
Heb 5:8. Yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
He was always obedient, but he had to learn experimentally what obedience meant, and he could not learn it by the things which he did; he had to learn it by the things which he suffered; and I believe that there are some of the most sanctified children of God who have been made so, by his grace, through the things which they have suffered. We may not all suffer alike, we may not all need the same kind of suffering; but I question whether any of us can truly learn obedience except by the things which we suffer.
Heb 5:9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Being made perfect. What, says one, did Christ need to be made perfect? Not in his nature, for he was always perfect in both his divine and his human nature; but perfect as a Saviour, perfect as a Sympathizer, above all, according to the connection, perfect as a High Priest. Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Christ will not save those who refuse to obey him, those who will not believe in him; there must be an obedient faith rendered unto him, or else the virtue of his passion and death cannot come to us.
Heb 5:10. Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
It is a glorious mark of our Lord Jesus that he was called of God an High Priest. He did not assume this office to himself, but this high honour was laid upon him by God himself.
Heb 5:11-12. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
I hope it is not true of any of you, dear friends, but it is true of many Christians that they learn very little to any purpose, and always need to be going over the A B C of the gospel. They never get into the classics, the deep things of God; they are afraid of the doctrine of election, and of the doctrine of the eternal covenant, and of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, for these truths are meant for men of full age, and these poor puny babes have not cut their teeth yet. They want some softer and more childlike food. Well, it is a mercy that they are children of God; it would be better, however, for them to grow so as to become teachers of others: Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
Heb 5:12-14. And are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness : for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Do not be frightened, you who have lately been brought into the Lords family. We are not going to feed you with meat yet; we shall be glad enough to serve you with milk for the present. At the same time, let us all be praying the Lord to make us grow, that we may know more, and do more, and be more what the Lord would have us to be. A child is a very beautiful object, an infant is one of the loveliest sights under heaven; but if, after twenty years, your child was still an infant, it would be a dreadful trial to you. We must keep on growing till we come to the stature of men in Christ Jesus. God grant that we may do so, for Christs sake! Amen.
This exposition consisted of readings from Heb 4:14-16; Hebrews , 5.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Heb 5:1. ) Every priest of the house of Levi. An antithesis to Christ; for the apostle is speaking of the Levitical priesthood, Heb 5:1-3 : and the Apodosis is not added, because it is included (contained virtually) in the antecedent observations. But in Heb 5:4, there is a Protasis in a new part of the comparison with the Apodosis subsequently following it. This is the sum. Whatever is excellent in the Levitical priests, that is in Christ, and indeed in a more eminent degree; whatever is defective in them, that however is also in Christ.- , taken from among men) A part of the predicate. Before they were taken, they were evidently of the same condition.-, for) from among men, for men, an elegant (neat) expression.-, is ordained) The present; is usually ordained.- , in things pertaining to God) So the LXX., Deu 31:27.-, gifts) referring to things without life.- , sacrifices for sin) consisting of animals.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Heb 5:1-4
ENCOURAGING AND BENEVOLENT DESIGN
OF THE PRIESTHOOD; AND THE
REQUISITE QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE
WHO WOULD MINISTER IN THE HIGH PRIESTS OFFICE
Heb 5:1-4
Heb 5:1 —For every high priest, etc.-The object of the Apostle in this paragraph, as above indicated, is to further encourage his Hebrew brethren to draw near at all times to the Throne of grace, and there, in the name of Jesus, to seek for seasonable help. This he insists we should feel encouraged to do from the fact that God has himself appointed the priesthood for the very purpose of aiding and supporting us in the discharge of our religious duties. For every High Priest, he says, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; being able to have compassion for the ignorant and erring, since he himself is compassed with infirmity; and on this account, he is under obligation, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins. Since, then, it was Gods benevolent intention in the ordination of the priesthood to comfort and support us in the discharge of our religious duties, we should especially feel encouraged to approach the Throne of grace in the name of Jesus, who, as our ever living High Priest, is so eminently qualified to help our infirmities, bear our weaknesses, and procure for us through the sacrifice of himself the pardon of our sins, and that full measure of grace which is necessary for our support under all the trials, temptations, and conflicts of life.
Heb 5:1 —is ordained for men-It was not for the benefit of God, but of men, that the priesthood was instituted. God does not need any such help, so far as it respects himself. He was infinitely happy before the sacerdotal office was created, and he would still be so, even if all the laws and ordinances of the priesthood were forever abrogated. Nevertheless, he so loved and pitied our poor, lost, and ruined race, that he gave his own Son to die for it; and in order to make the benefits of Christs death available to all, God instituted the priesthood and many other ordinances as media of blessings to mankind. Surely, then, it is not the will of God that any should perish, but that all should be brought to repentance and to the enjoyment of the great salvation. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Heb 5:1 —in things pertaining to God,-That is, in religious matters. Aaron and his son were not appointed to any secular calling. It was not their province to cultivate the soil, to carry on commerce, or even to investigate the laws and ordinances of nature. They were called to minister in holy things; and especially to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. The words gifts (dora) and sacrifices (tlmsiai) are sometimes used interchangeably, as in Gen 4:3-5. But when contrasted, as they are in this case, and also in 8: 3; 9: 9, the former is used for bloodless offerings, and the latter for such as required the life of the victim.
Heb 5:2 —Who can have compassion on the ignorant,-The word rendered have compassion (metriopatheo) means to feel moderately. It comes, says Delitzsch, from the mint of Greek ethical philosophy; and it was employed by Academics, Peripatetics, and Skeptics, to indicate the right mean between a slave-like passionateness and a stoical apathy. It is used by Philo to describe Abrahams sober grief on the loss of Sarah (volume ii. 37), and Jacobs imperturbable patience under afflictions (volume ii. 45). Transferred from the language of the schools to general literature, it signifies the disposition of mind which keeps the right mean between excessive feeling and sheer indifference; and here it indicates a pathetic judgment which is neither too severe nor too lenient ; but reasonable, sober, indulgent, and kind.
Such a quality of head and heart was peculiarly necessary in every High Priest; for to him it belonged to decide, in any given case, whether or not a sacrifice could be legally offered for the sin committed. See Lev 10:8-11; Deu 17:8-13 Deu 24:8 Deu 33:10; Mai. 2:7. If a man sinned through ignorance or in error, that is, either without a knowledge of Gods will in the case, or under such temptations as might serve to obscure for the time being his consciousness of guilt, then in that event and under such circumstances a sacrifice might be offered, and the sin might be forgiven. (Num 15:22-29.) But not so if the sin was committed with a high hand, that is, in a spirit of haughty insolence and open rebellion against God and his government. In that event, there was no room for repentance, and none for sacrifice. The presumptuous sinner was always to be put to death, at the mouth of two or three witnesses. (Num 15:30-31; Deu 17:6.) See notes on 6: 4-6. But in many cases it might be difficult to determine the exact nature and character of the offense. What the Jews were wont to call, by a species of euphemism, a sin of ignorance, might under some circumstances seem, for a time at least, to be a presumptuous sin. And hence the necessity under the Law, as well as under the Gospel, of using all lawful means to bring the offending party to repentance. This was especially the duty of the High Priest, who, as the head of the sacerdotal order, was charged, on the one hand, with faithfully executing the law of God against all high-handed transgressors; and, on the other, with exercising all due forbearance and compassion towards the ignorant and the erring.
Heb 5:2 —for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.-A proper sense of our own infirmities enables us to bear with more becoming patience the infirmities of others. I have, says Paul, great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh; for I myself was once, like them, wishing to be accursed from Christ. (Rom 9:2-3.) And just so it was with Aaron and his successors. They, too, like their brethren, were compassed about, and, as it were, clothed with all the weaknesses and infirmities common to our fallen nature. Aarons folly in making the golden calf (Exo 32:1-6) was to himself, no doubt, a source of much grief and painful experience; but it served, nevertheless, to make him deal more tenderly with others who were afterward overcome by similar temptations.
Heb 5:3 —And by reason hereof, etc.-On account of the infirmity which constantly beset him, and which rendered imperfect even his most solemn services, the High Priest was required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. This he did not only on special occasions and for special offenses (Lev 4:3-12), but also in all the regular daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly sacrifices that were offered for the sins of the nation; in all these there was an acknowledgement of his own guilt, as well as of the guilt of his brethren. And on the Day of atonement, he was required to go into the Most Holy Place, and there make an offering for his own sins, before he was allowed to offer for the sins of the people. This of course served to make him deal more tenderly and compassionately with the ignorant and the erring.
Much of what is said in this paragraph is very beautifully and impressively illustrated by the symbolical dress of the High Priest; several parts of which indicate very clearly the holy and representative character of his office, and also the righteous and benevolent design of his administration. These articles of clothing were (1) a pair of Drawers; (2) a long Coat or Tunic; (3) a Girdle; (4) a Mitre; (5) the Robe of the Ephod; (6) the Ephod; (7) the Breastplate; and (8) the Plate of the Mitre. The first four of these were called linen garments, because they were made of fine white linen, which in all ages has been regarded as a symbol of purity and holiness. See 1Ch 5:12; Rev 19:8. And hence these were called also holy garments. (Lev 16:4.) The four other pieces were also called holy garments (Exo 28:2 Exo 28:4); and by the Jews they were frequently designated as The golden garments, because they all consisted more or less of gold, either plated or interwoven with their texture. See Exodus 28. The first of these, the Robe of the Ephod was a long, sky-blue robe, without a seam, and was worn directly under the Ephod. Around its lower border were tassels made of blue, and purple, and scarlet, in the form of pomegranates, alternating with golden bells. The Rabbis say there were seventy-two of each. See Exo 28:31-35. The Ephod (from to bind) was a short coat worn over the Robe, and with its curious girdle was made of gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work. To the shoulder pieces were attached two onyx stones, on which were engraved the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, according to their birth. (Exo 28:10.) This phrase, according to their births, is differently understood by the Jewish Rabbis, as well as by Christian writers. Some place the names of the six oldest sons on the right shoulder, and the names of the six youngest on the left, as follows:
LEFT RIGHT
Gad Reuben
Asher Simeon
Issachar Levi
Zebulun Judah
Joseph Dan
Benjamin Naphtali
Others arrange them alternately on the right and left; placing first in order the six sons of Leah (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issa- char, and Zebulun) ; next, the two sons of Bilhah, Rachels maid (Dan and Naphtali) ; next, the two sons of Zilpah, Leahs maid (Gad and Asher), and lastly, the two sons of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin), as follows:
LEFT RIGHT
Simeon Reuben
Judah Levi
Zebulun Issachar
Naphtali Dan
Asher ad
Benjamin Joseph
The Breastplate was a sort of pouch or bag, half a cubit square. It was made of gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine- twined linen. To each of the four corners was attached a gold ring by means of which it was, fastened to the Ephod. On the inside of its face were four rows of precious stones set in sockets of gold, through which they were exposed to view on the outside. And on the external faces of these stones were engraved the names of the Twelve Tribes of the children of Israel, most likely according to their birth, as follows :
CarbuncleTopazSardius
LeviSimeonReuben
DiamondSapphireEmerald
NaphtaliDanJudah
AmethystAgateLigure
IssacharAsherGad
JasperOnyxBeryl
BenjaminJosephZebulun
In this Breastplate were placed the Urim and Thummim (Lights and Perfections) ; names which seem to have been given to the twelve stones, because of their being made, in some miraculous way, the medium through which God made known his will to the High Priest. See Num 27:21; Jdg 20:27-28; 1Sa 23:9 1Sa 28:6; Ezr 2:63; and Joseph. Ant. iii. 8, 9. The fourth and last article of the High Priests golden attire was the plate of gold which was fastened to the Mitre by a blue fillet. On this Plate was inscribed Holiness to Jehovah. These articles of clothing are mostly, except the drawers, which are of course concealed by the outer garments.
Heb 5:4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, etc.-Our author refers here to another essential qualification of every High Priest. He must be called of God, as was Aaron. And the man who claims this honor for himself as did Korah (Num. 16), though sustained by the highest human authority, is really not a High Priest, but a usurper (Acts 23: 5). It is hardly necessary to add that the honor which is here spoken of is simply the honor of being a High Priest, and that it has no reference whatever to the calling of the Christian ministry.
Commentary on Heb 5:1-4 by Donald E. Boatman
Heb 5:1 –For every high priest, being taken from among men
Gods high priests were men:
a. The first indication that Aaron and his sons were to care for the tabernacle is found in Exo 28:1.
b. Their first distinct separation to the office of the priesthood is recorded, in Exodus 28.
c. After this, the legal head of the house of Aaron became high priest. Usually the eldest son succeeded in office.
The task was theoretically for life.
Heb 5:1 –is appointed for men
God does not do things because of Himself, but because of men:
a. Mar 2:27 : Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
b. Joh 3:16 : God so loved the world.
The world is Gods object of love, not Himself.
Heb 5:1 –in things pertaining to God
Aaron and his sons were not appointed to secular things, but unto God:
a. They were to minister to holy things.
b. Their responsibility was not cultivation of the soil, commerce, etc., but to minister in holy things.
Heb 5:1 –that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins
What is the difference between gifts and sacrifices?
a. Gifts usually appear first. See Heb 8:3 and Heb 9:9.
1. Milligan says gifts and sacrifices are used interchangeably as in Gen 4:3-5.
2. Milligan says gifts refer to bloodless sacrifices, and offerings to those that require the life of the sacrifice.
3. Mathew Henry says gifts refers to free-will offering.
4. Newell says gifts appear first because the chief and normal business of a priest was to receive the gifts and direct the worship.
b. Sacrifices for sins generally is understood to be the blood offerings:
1. All the sins and iniquities of Israel were confessed by the priest on the great day of Atonement, and during the year all sacrifices were under his direction.
2. The priest goes to God on mans behalf; the prophet comes from God representing God to men.
Heb 5:2 –who can bear gently
The prophet can cry out against the sins of a people, Repent or be destroyed.
a. The priest is to be sympathetic, and to aid in the forgiving of sins.
b. The word bear gently means have compassion.
1. The priest had to decide whether a sacrifice for sin could be given legally. Lev 10:8-11; Deu 12:8-13; Deu 24:8; Deu 33:10; Mal 2:7.
2. A bitter judge could be just.
Heb 5:2 –with the ignorant and erring
The ignorant-see Lev 5:17-19.
a. If a man sinned through ignorance or in error, or in an occasion where temptation might obscure for a time the guilt, a sacrifice could be given, sin be forgiven. Num 15:22-29.
b. If it was the sin of the high hand, in the spirit of haughty insolence, there could be no sacrifice. He could be put to death at the testimony of two or three witnesses. Num 15:30-31; Deu 17:6.
The erring-those deceived by passions. See Lev 6:1-7.
a. This was hard to judge, and the high priest hearing gently could sometimes bring a person to repentance.
b. Calvin feels that the word, erring, does not refer to the sinners.
Heb 5:2 –for that he himself is compassed with infirmity
The high priest was in a condition of temptation:
a. Paul could understand the Jew having infirmity, for he was one of the best Jews.
Rom 9:2-3 : I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
b. Infirmity was a physical condition, meaning frailty, feebleness, distress of the soul, 2Co 12:5-10.
Heb 5:3 –And by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins
Consider the Old Testament priest:
a. To offer for himself as well as for the sins of others. Lev 4:3-12 : Lev 4:3, If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering.
b. Occasion of sacrifice for self:
1. He offered sacrifices for special sins. Lev 4:3-12. On special occasions.
2. He, in the regular daily, weekly, monthly, yearly sacrifice, recognized his own sin.
3. On the day of Atonement he was required to go into the most holy place and there make an offering for his own sins first and then for the people. cf. Heb 9:7; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:25.
Compare the priest with Jesus. He need not offer sacrifices for His sins:
Isa 53:9 : For He had done no violence, neither was there and deceit in His mouth. Pilate, in Mat 27:24, could find no sin in Christs life. cf. Heb 4:14.
Heb 5:4 –and no man taketh the honor to himself
No priest can be self-appointed. It is a task appointed by God:
a. Where do priests get their appointments today? Not from God.
1. Some have been tried in the past and have suffered: Num 16:10-11 : When Korah sought the position of priest, the earth swallowed all of them up who were faithful to Korah.
2. Jud 1:11 speaks of the gainsaying of Korah.
3. Uzziah meddled with an office and became a leper. 2Ch 26:18.
4. Saul. 1Sa 13:8-10.
b. A thousand priests can do no good, if not appointed, and it is a sin of which we must have no part.
1. Read the warning for those who follow false priests. Rev 18:4.
Heb 5:4 –but when he is called of God even as was Aaron
See Exo 24:1 and Exodus 28 for his appointment.
See Num 16:8 for the sons of Levi being made priests.
Study Questions
695. Describe the high priest taken from among men.
696. When was the priestly system started?
697. What family was selected to serve?
698. When did the family first serve?
699. What is significant in the statement, appointed for men?
700. Does God do things for Himself or for men?
701. Was the high priests job secular or religious according to this verse?
702. What is meant by offer both gifts and sacrifices?
703. Is there a difference?
704. Is this expression a common one? Cf. Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9.
705. Would sacrifices refer to the blood portion of worship?
706. What is the actual difference between the work of the prophet and priest?
707. What is significant in the expression, bear gently?
708. With what or whom was he to bear gently-the sacrifice or the sacrificer?
709. Did the prophet bear gently?
710. In what way did he have opportunity either to judge harshly or bear gently? Cf. Lev 10:8-11; Deu 12:8-13; Deu 24:8; Deu 33:10; Mal 2:7.
711. Who would be ignorant worshippers? Cf. Lev 5:17-19.
712. Were they necessarily interested in being forgiven?
713. How could one sin ignorantly? Cf. Num 15:22-29.
714. Were the ignorant and erring two different groups? Cf. Lev 6:1-7.
715. How did the high-handed sinner fare?
716. Was there a sacrifice for him?
717. What could be done with him? Cf. Num 15:30-31; Deu 17:6.
718. In what way was the priest like the worshippers?
719. Can you name instances when priests fell in their infirmities?
720. What was the priest bound to do for the people? For himself? Cf, Lev 4:3-12.
721. Did the high priest have sacrifices for special sins? Cf. Lev 4:3-12.
722. Which sacrifice came first, the one for himself or for the people? Heb 9:7; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:25.
723. Did Jesus need to make sacrifice for Himself?
724. How did a priest secure his position?
725. Could he usurp the privilege?
726. Did any men ever try? Num 16:10-11; Jud 1:11.
727. How did Uzziah meddle with the office of priest. 2Ch 26:18.
728. Did Saul dare to act as a priest? 1Sa 13:8-10.
729. What is the danger of following a false priest? Cf. .
730. Whom did God call to be priest besides Aaron? Cf. .
731. Would calling and appointing carry the same idea?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
, , .
. Syr., who is of (or from amongst) the sons of men. . Syr. stands for men; that is, in their stead. . Syr, , over the things which are of God, or which belong to him; not so properly, as we shall see. The Arabic renders , in the things that are offered unto God; a good sense of the words. And the Ethiopic is, appointed for men with (or before) God; that is, to do for them what is to be done with God. Vulg. Lat., in iis quae sunt ad Deum, in the things appertaining unto God, or which are to be done with him. So Arias, ea quae ad Deum, to the same purpose. Beza, in iis quae sunt apud Deum peragenda, in the things that are to be performed towards God; more properly than ours and the Rhemists, in things pertaining to God, for so do things innumerable, on one account or other, that are not here intended. . Syr., , oblations, offerings; a general name for all sacrifices.
, that is, , even chief or great priest. Or as the Syriac, prince or chief of the priests. The first mention of a high priest is Lev 21:10, the priest that is great among his brethren. LXX., . Jun., sacerdos qui maximus est fratrum suorum. All the males of the family of Aaron were equal, and brethren, as to the priesthood; but there was one who was the head and prince of the rest, whose office was not distinct from theirs, but in the discharge of it, and preparation for it there were many things peculiarly appropriated unto him. And these things are distinctly appointed and enumerated in several places. The whole office was firstly vested in him, the remainder of the priests being as it were his present assistants, and a nursery for a future succession. The whole nature of the type was preserved in him alone. But as in one case our apostle tells us of these high priests themselves, that by the law they were many, that is, succession one after another, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, Heb 7:23, (one single high priest had been sufficient to have represented the priesthood of Christ, but because God would have that done constantly during the continuance of that church-state, and every individual person of them died. in his season, they were to be multiplied by succession;) so because of their weakness, and the multiplied carnal services which they had to attend unto, no one man was able to discharge the whole office, there were others therefore added unto the high priest for the time being, as his assistants, which were so far also types of Christ as they were partakers of his office. But because the office was principally collated on and vested in the high priest, and because many important parts of the duty of it were appropriated unto him; as also, because the glorious vestments peculiar to the office, made for glory and for beauty, to represent the excellency and holiness of the person of Christ, were to be worn by none but him; he alone is singled out as the principal representative of the Lord Christ in this office.
And the high priest was a single person, there was but one at one time, the better to type out the office of Christ. It is true in the gospel there is mention , of the high priests that then were, Mat 2:4; Mat 16:21, which we render chief priests. So Sceva, the father of the vagabond exorcists, is said to be , Act 19:14. But these were only such as were , Act 4:6, of the stock and near kindred of him who was at present high priest, or of that family wherein at present the high priesthood was; for out of them in an ordinary course a successor was to be taken. It may be, also, that those who were the heads or chiefs of the several orders or courses of the priests were then so called. But absolutely by the law the high priest was but one at one time.
And it is of the high priest according to the law of Moses that the apostle speaks. Grotius thinks otherwise:
Non tantum legem hic respicit; sed et morem ante legem, cum ant primogeniti familiarum, aut a populis electi reges, inirent sacerdotium;
He respects not only the law, but the manner before the law, when the firstborn of the families, or kings chosen by the people, took and exercised the priesthood. But it is of a high priest distinctly concerning whom the apostle speaks; and that there were any such among the people of God, either by natural descent or the consent of many, before the law, is not true. And this supposition is contrary to the design of the apostle, who treats with the Hebrews about the privileges and priesthood which they enjoyed by virtue of the law of Moses. So he says expressly, Heb 7:11, If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. That is it whereof he speaks. And verse 28, The law maketh men high priests. He discourseth of the priests appointed by the law, that is, of Moses, and of them only.
Some expositors of the Roman church, as our Rhemists, take occasion to assert the necessity of a Christian priesthood to offer sacrifices to God, as also to dispose of all things wherein the worship of God is concerned, and to reprove kings and princes if they interpose aught therein, it being a matter wherewith they have not any thing to do. But they cannot really imagine that the apostle had the least intention to teach any such thing in this place; and therefore the most sober interpreters amongst them do confine their discourses unto the Levitical priesthood. Yea, indeed, the purpose of the apostle is to prove that all priesthood properly so called, and all proper sacrifices to be offered up by virtue of that office, were issued in the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, seeing the sole use and end of them were to represent and prefigure these in the church. And to deny them now to be passed away, or to plead the continuance of any other proper priesthood and sacrifice, is to deny that Jesus is come in the flesh; which is that spirit of antichrist, 1Jn 4:3.
, taken from among men. This expression is not part of the subject of the proposition, or descriptive merely of that which is spoken of, as if the whole should be, every high priest taken from among men; in which way and sense they are restrictive of the subject spoken of, as containing a limitation in them, and so intimate that it is thus with every high priest who is taken from amongst men., though it may be otherwise with others who are not so. But this is one of the things which is attributed unto every high priest, every one that is so absolutely; he who is so is to be taken from among men. And ex hominibus assumptus is as much as ex hominibus assumitur, is taken from amongst men; and the whole sense may be supplied by a copulative interposed before the next words, is taken from amongst men, and is ordained. This is, then, the first thing that belongs unto a high priest, and which here is ascribed unto him, he is taken from amongst men. And two things are here considerable:
1. That he is from amongst men; and,
2. That he is taken from amongst them.
1. He is , and herein two things are included:
(1.) That he is naturae humanae particeps. He is, and must be, partaker in common of human nature with the rest of mankind, or he is not, on many reasons, meet for the discharge of this office. Neither the divine nature nor angelical is capable of the exercise of it for men; and this is principally intended.
(2.) That antecedently unto his assumption unto this office he was among the number of common men, as having nothing in his nature to prefer him above them. So was it with Aaron; he was a common man amongst his brethren, yea, a mean man in bondage, before his call to office. The first of these declares what every high priest is and ought to be; the latter, what the first legal high priest actually was.
I showed before that in this description of the office of a high priest, and the application of it unto Jesus Christ, those things which are essential thereunto, and without which it could not be duly executed, are found in him, and that in a far more perfect and excellent manner than in the priests of the law; but those things which, although they were found necessarily in all that were vested with this office, yet belonged not to the office itself, nor the execution of it, but arose from the persons themselves and their imperfections, they had no place in him at all. So is it here. It was essential to the office itself that he should be partaker of human nature; and that it was so with the Lord Christ our apostle signally declares, with the reason of it, Heb 2:14 : but it was not so that he should be absolutely in the common state of all other men, antecedently to his call to office; for so the apostle declares that he was not, but he was the Son, the Son of God, Heb 5:8. So the Son was consecrated, that is, a priest, forevermore, Heb 7:28. For he was born into this world king, priest, and prophet unto his church.
2. , assumptus, or is taken, is separated from them. Being made a high priest, he is no more of the same rank and quality with them.
, , is ordained for men. is sometimes vice, or loco, in the stead, Joh 10:11; Joh 10:15; Joh 13:38; sometimes pro, only as it denotes the final cause, as to do a thing for the good of men, 2Ti 2:10. And both these senses may have place here; for where the first intention is, the latter is always included. He that doth any thing in the stead of another, doth it always for his good. And the high priest might be so far said to stand and act in the stead of other men, as he appeared in their behalf, represented their persons, pleaded their cause, and confessed their sins, Lev 16:21.
But in their behalf,or for their good and advantage, to perform what on their part is with God to be performed,is evidently intended in this place.
. Some suppose that because is, as they say, verbum medium, it may in this place have an active signification; and then the sense of it would be, that he might appoint, ordain, or order the things of God. But as it is used most frequently in a neuter or a passive sense, so in this place it can be no otherwise. So the apostle explains himself, Heb 8:3, , Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; which place expoundeth this. And two things are intended in the word:
1. Gods designation and appointment;
2. Actual consecration according to the order of the law. For so it was in the case of Aaron.
1. God gave command that he should be set apart to the office of the priesthood. Take Aaron thy brother, saith God to Moses, , from amongst the children of Israel (that is, , from among men) that he may minister unto me in the priests office, Exo 28:1. This was the foundation of his call, separation, and function.
2. He was actually consecrated unto his office by sundry sacrifices, described at large, Exodus 29. So was he ordained . Now this latter part of his ordination belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of that priesthood, that he could not be consecrated without the sacrifice of other things. But the Lord Christ, being both priest and sacrifice himself, he needed no such ordination, nor was capable thereof. His ordination, therefore, consisted merely in divine designation and appointment, as we shall see. And this difference there was to be between them who were made high priests by the law, and which had infirmity, and him who was made by the word of the oath of God, who is the Son, Heb 7:28.
. The expression is elliptical and sacred; but what is intended in it is sufficiently manifest, namely, the things that were to be done with God, or towards God, in his worship, to answer the duties and ends of the office of the priesthood, that is, to do the things whereby God might be appeased, atoned, reconciled, pacified, and his anger turned away. See Heb 2:17.
, that he may offer, the word compriseth the whole sacerdotal performance from first to last, in bringing, slaying, and burning the sacrifice, according to the law; of which see Leviticus 1-5 and our former Exercitations concerning the sacrifices of the Jews. The object of this sacerdotal action is . Interpreters are much divided about the application of these words unto the ancient sacrifices. Some think they answer and , any offering in common, and whole burnt-offerings; some and , peace-offerings and burnt-offerings; some and , the sin and trespass-offering. The most general opinion is, that by gifts all offerings of things inanimate are intended, as meats, drinks, oils, first-fruits, meal, and the like; and by sacrifices, the offerings of all creatures that were slain, as lambs, goats, doves, whose blood was poured on the altar. And this difference the words would lead us unto, the latter signifying directly the offering of things killed or slain. But our Savior seems to comprise all offerings whatever under the name or gifts Mat 5:23. And if a distinction be here to be supposed, I should think that by gifts all freewill offerings might be intended; and by sacrifices, those that were determined, as to occasions, times, and seasons, by the law. But I rather judge that the apostle useth these two words in general to express all sorts of sacrifices for sin whatever; and therefore that expression, , for sins, may refer to , gifts, as well as to , sacrifices.
Heb 5:1. For every high priest, taken from amongst men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
What is the relation of these words unto the discourse of the apostle, both in general and particular, hath been declared before. I shall pursue that only which is particular and immediate. Having therefore proposed the priesthood of Christ as a matter of great advantage and comfort unto believers, he engageth into the confirmation thereof, by declaring the nature of that office, making application of what he observes therein unto the Lord Christ, as our high priest. In this verse we have, as was said, a general description of a high priest, as his office was constituted and consummated by the law. For,
1. he is described from his original. He is one taken from among men, from amongst those for whom he is to be a priest, that so he may be one partaker of the same nature with them, Exo 28:1. He was not to bean angel, whose nature was incapable of those compassionate impressions which are required unto a due discharge of this office. Besides, the administrations of an angel amongst sinners would have been attended with dread and terror, and have taken away that spiritual boldness and confidence which a high priest is to encourage men unto. Moreover, there would not have been hereby any representation of that union between the Lord Christ and us which was indispensably necessary unto our high priest, who was to be himself both priest and sacrifice. Wherefore a high priest was to be taken from among men, and so was our Lord Christ, as hath been at large declared on Heb 2:10-16. And we are taught that,
Obs. 1. Christs participation of our nature, as necessary unto him for the bearing and discharge of the office of a high priest on our behalf, is a great ground of consolation unto believers, a manifest evidence that he is and will be tender and compassionate towards them. The reader may consult what hath been discoursed to this purpose on Heb 2:10-11, etc.
2. He is described from the nature of his office in general, he is ordained for men in things pertaining to God. There are things to be done with God on the behalf of men as sinners, and with respect unto sin, as is declared in the close of the verse. Hence arose the necessity of priests, as we have showed elsewhere. Had there been no sin, no atonement to be made with God for sin, every one in his own person should have done that which appertained unto God, or what he had to do with God. For God required nothing of any man but what he might do for himself. But now, all men being sinners, God will not immediately be treated withal by them; and besides, there is that now to be done for them which in their own persons they cannot perform. It was therefore upon the account of the interposition of Jesus Christ, with respect unto his future priesthood, that any one was ever admitted to treat with God about an atonement for sin; and this was the ground of the typical priesthood of old. Those priests were ordained for men in things pertaining to God.
Obs. 2. It was the entrance of sin that made the office of the priesthood necessary. This hath been abundantly confirmed elsewhere.
Obs. 3. It was of infinite grace that such an appointment was made. Without it all holy intercourse between God and man must have ceased; for neither,
1. were the persons of sinners meet to approach unto God, nor,
2. was any service which they could perform, or were instructed how to perform, suited unto the great end which man was now to look after, namely, peace with God.
For the persons of all men being defiled, and obnoxious unto the curse of the law, how should they appear in the presence of the righteous and holy God? Isa 33:14; Mic 6:6-7. It may be it will be said, That these priests themselves, of whom the apostle treateth in the first place, were also sinners, and yet they were appointed for men in things appertaining unto God; so that sinners may appear in such matters before the Lord.I answer, It is true, they were so. And therefore our apostle says that they were to offer for their own sins as well as for the sins of the people, verse 3; but then they did none of them officiate in that office merely in their own names and on their own account, but as they were types and representatives of him who had no sin, and whose office gave virtue and efficacy unto theirs. Again, men in their own persons had nothing to offer unto God but their moral duties, which the law of their creation and the covenant of works required of them. Now these, as is known, for many reasons were no way meet or able to make atonement for sin, the great work now to be done with God, and without which every thing else that can be done by sinners is of no consideration. God therefore appointing a new service for this end, namely, that of sacrifices, appointed also a new way, with performance by a priest in the name and behalf of others. And a most gracious appointment it was, as that on which all blessed intercourse with God and all hopes of acceptance with him do solely depend. Though the occasion was grievous, the relief is glorious.
Obs. 4. The priest is described by the especial discharge of his duty or exercise of his office; which is his offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. This is the proper and principal work of a priest, as we have at large declared in our Exercitations. Priests and sacrifices are so related as that they cannot be separated. Take away the one, and you destroy the other. And these sacrifices here are for sin; that is, offered unto God to make atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation for sin.
Obs. 5. Where there is no proper propitiatory sacrifice there is no proper priest. Every priest is to offer sacrifices for sin; that is, to make atonement. And therefore,
Obs. 6. Jesus Christ alone is the high priest of his people; for he alone could offer a sacrifice for our sins to make atonement. This our apostle designs to prove, and doth it accordingly, in this and the ensuing chapters.
Obs. 7. It was a great privilege which the church enjoyed of old, in the representation which they had, by Gods appointment, of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in their own typical priests and sacrifices. In themselves they were things low and carnal, such as could by no means expiate their sins: that is a work not to be done by the blood of bulls and goats. An expectation of that issue and effect by the mere virtue of such sacrifices, is the highest affront to the nature, rule, holiness, and righteousness of God. But this was their glory and excellency, that they typed out and represented that which should really accomplish the great and mighty work of taking up the controversy between God and man about sin.
Obs. 8. Much more glorious is our privilege under the gospel, since our Lord Jesus hath taken upon him, and actually discharged, this part of his office, in offering an absolutely perfect and complete sacrifice for sin. Here is the foundation laid of all our Peace and happiness. And this is now plainly proposed unto us, and not taught by types or spoken in parables. Their teachings of old were obscure, and therefore many missed of the mind of God in them. Hence some thought that they must trust to their sacrifices for their righteousness and pardon. Of these, some took up with them, and rested in them to their ruin. Others, more galled with their convictions, thought of other ways, and how they might outdo what God required, seeing they could not trust unto what he did so require, Mic 6:6-7. But now all things are clearly revealed and proposed unto us; for Jesus Christ in the gospel is evidently crucified before our eyes, Gal 3:1. Our way is made plain, so that wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein, Isa 35:8. The veil being removed, we all with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, 2Co 3:18. The sum of all is,
Obs. 9. What is to be done with God on the account of sin, that it may be expiated and pardoned, and that the people of God who have sinned may be accepted with him and blessed, is all actually done for them by Jesus Christ, their high priest, in the sacrifice for sin which he offered on their behalf. He was ordained , to do all things with God that were to be done for us; namely, that we might be pardoned, sanctified, and saved. This he undertook when he took his office upon him. His wisdom, faithfulness, and mercy, will not allow us to suppose that he hath left any thing undone that belonged thereunto. If any thing be omitted, as good all were so: for none besides himself in heaven or earth could do aught in this matter. He hath therefore faithfully, mercifully, fully done all that was to be done with God on our behalf. Particularly, he hath offered that great sacrifice which was promised, expected, represented, from the foundation of the world, as the only means of reconciliation and peace between God and man. So saith the text he was to do: he was to offer sacrifice for sin. How he did it, and what he effected thereby, must be declared in our progress. For the present it may suffice, that there is no more to be done with God about sin, as to atonement, propitiation, and pardon. There needs no more sacrifice for it, rune masses, no merits, no works of our own.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
The writer proceeded with the same argument as he instituted a contrast. The two essential qualifications of a priest are capacity for sympathy, and the vocation of God. These are perfectly fulfilled in Christ, who is appointed by God to Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek. His sympathy is demonstrated by the declarations concerning Him that through “prayers,” “supplications,” “strong crying,” “tears,” He entered into all human experiences, and learned obedience through the things which He suffered. It should be noted that this does not mean that He learned to be obedient, but that He entered into the experience of obedience. Through this process He became “the Author of eternal salvation.”
Having thus introduced the great subject, the writer declared his sense of the difficulty he experienced in dealing with it, because his readers were dull of hearing, having to be taught when they should be teaching, having to be fed with milk when they should be receiving solid food.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
He now (5:1-10) for the first time begins to explain the qualifications of the true .
(a) First, he must be humane as well as human:
1 Every highpriest who is selected from men and appointed to act on behalf of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, 2 can deal gently with those who err through ignorance, since he himself is beset with weakness-3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of the People.
(b) Second, he must not be self-appointed.
4 Also, it is an office which no one elects to take for himself; he is called to it by God, just as Aaron was.
The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he takes them in reverse order, beginning with (b).
5 Similarly Christ was not raised to the glory of the priesthood by himself, but by Him who declared to him,
Thou art my son,
to-day have I become thy father.
6 Just as elsewhere ( , sc. ) he says,
Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.
He then goes back to (a):
7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death; and he was heard, because of his godly fear. 8 Thus, Son though he was, he learned by ( = ) all he suffered how to obey, 9 and by being thus perfected he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 being designated by God highpriest with the rank of Melchizedek.
(dealing only with Hebrew highpriests, and only with what is said of them in the LXX) (Num 8:6 ) -passive, in the light of 7:28 ( ) and of the Philonic usage (e.g. de vit. Mosis ii., II, ). The middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic. 522 ( ), and is so taken here by some (e.g. Calvin, Kypke). But is an adverbial accusative as in 2:17, not the object of in an active sense. In , here as in 8:3 and 9:9, the writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of 1 K 8:64 ( ). The phrase recurs in Ep. Aristeas, 234 ( ), and is a generic term for sacrifices or offerings, without any distinction. The early omission of (B Db K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that should be closely connected with (ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro peccatis, vg). Instead of writing , our author departs from his favourite construction of with the infinitive and writes , in order to introduce . This, although a participial clause, contains the leading idea of the sentence. The is able to deal gently with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares their , their common infirmity or liability to temptation.
in v. 2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy. It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abrahams sorrow for the death of his wife ( , De Abrah. 44); so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of . But here it denotes gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person who is provoked and indignant-as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10, , , . Josephus (Ant. xii. 3:2) praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (), who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly Jews; Dionysius Halicarnassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529) of lacking , . And so on. The term is allied to . The sins of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated or because they are flagrant; they excite emotions of disgust, impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh (Gal 6:1). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather than excessive leniency. The objects of this are , i.e., people who sin through yielding to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind) availed. Those who sinned (10:26), not , were without the pale; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3:12, 10:26), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practically a hendiadys, for : the People err through their . Thus becomes an equivalent for (Sir 23:2 etc.), just as the noun comes to imply sin (cp. 9:7 and Jth 5:20 , with Tebt. Pap. 124:4 (118 b.c.) and 5:3-a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra declaring an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes, etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the Martyr. Pauli, 4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as .
(a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Lev 4:2, Lev 4:5:21, Lev 4:22, Num 15:22-31, Deu 17:12) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (10:26, cp. Num 12:11).
(b) The term only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23:57 and in 4 Mac 12:3 ( ), and in both places in its literal sense (Symm. Isa 61:10), as in Act 28:20. But Seneca says of the body, hoc quoque natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit (Epist. 92), and the metaphorical sense is as old as Theocritus (23:13, 14 ).
The , therefore (v. 3), requires to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the People, . This twofold sacrifice is recognized by Philo (de vit. Mosis ii., 1), who notes that the holder of the must beseech God for blessing . The regulations for atonement-day (Lev 16:6-17) provided that the sacrificed for himself and his household as well as for the People ( ). But our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between priest and People to the idea of the priests commission from God. (in v. 4) means position or office, as often, e.g. (i.e. of supervising the household slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, , ib. iii. 10, , Joseph. Ant. xx. 10. 1. (sc. ) , but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (Ce L) of into (as in v. 5). . In Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, .
(before in v. 3) has been changed to in Cc Dc K L etc. (conforming to 5:1). There is no difference in meaning (cp. , Mat 26:28 = , Mk. and Lk.), for (see 10:6, 8, 18, 26, 13:11) has taken over the sense of .
For (* A B D* 33) in v. 4, c Dc K L P 6, 1288, 1739 read the more obvious (C? syrhkl Chrys. Cyr. Alex. Procopius: ).
In v. 5 , while the term was specially applicable to the highpriestly office (cf. 2 Mac 14:7 , ), the phrase is quite general, as in the parallel Joh 8:54. The following is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan writings (Luk 1:54, Luk 1:72, Act 15:10) and in the earlier Psalter of Solomon (2:28, 40 etc.). After we must supply some words like .
The argument runs thus: We have a great , Jesus the Son of God (4:14), and it is as he is Son that he carries out the vocation of . There is something vital, for the writers mind, in the connexion of and . Hence he quotes (v. 5) his favourite text from Psa 2:7 before the more apposite one (in v. 6) from Psa 110:4, implying that the position of divine Son carried with it, in some sense, the rle of . This had been already suggested in 1:2, 3 where the activities of the Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the second quotation only mentions , it is true; but the writer drew no sharp distinction between and . In , for the writer, as 7:15 proves ( ), has a general meaning;1 Jesus has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no or succession of Melchizedek priests.
in the papyri is often a list or register; in OP 1266:24 (a.d. 98) means in the class (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal nuance, e.g. Michel 735:125f. (the regulations of Antiochus 1.), , and occasionally denoted a post or office (e.g. Tebt. P 297:8, a.d. 123).
. Some editors (e.g. A. B. Davidson, Lnemann, Peake, Hollmann) take vv. 7-10 as a further proof of (b). But the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness with which he had identified himself with men. He does this, although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of the passage. (a) Jesus being did not require to offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (b) the case of Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element in the vocation of an . As for the former point, while the writer uses in speaking of the prayers of Jesus, this is at most a subconscious echo of in vv. 1-3; there is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT , . The writer starts with his parallel, for corresponds to (v. 2); but instead of developing the idea of sympathy in an official ( .), he passes to the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline to be in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2:12f., for the express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man on earth, using , a phrase which the writer may have found in his text (A) of Job 40:22 (27) , but which was classical (e.g. Isokrates, de Pace, 46, ). had become an equivalent for , which is actually the reading here in 1 ( ). The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet de Presle et E. Eggers Papyrus Grecs du Muse du Louvre, 27:22), , though in a weakened sense. The addition of (here a cry of anguish) may be a touch of pathos, due to his own imagination,1 or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm, which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2:12) as for the early church; the words of v. 3 in that psalm would hardly suit ( ), but phrases like that of v. 6; ( ) and v. 25 ( ) might have been in his mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of the passion, at 22:44 (Epiph. Ancor. 31, ). It is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was impressed by the historical Jesus; the intense faith and courage and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualification of priests or upon the dogma of messiahs sinlessness could have produced such passages as this.
Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tears, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5:19, Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He!), especially if one sheds tears along with his prayers; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, There are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all.
In , the sense of in 12:28 and of in 11:7 shows that here means on account of (as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, on account of his reverent fear of God, pro sua reverentia (vg), because he had God in reverence (Tyndale; in honoure, Coverdale). The writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Gethsemane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus entreats God to be spared death: , (Mar 14:36). This repeated supplication corresponds to the bitter tears and cries. Then Jesus adds, , . This is his , the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of God. Such is the discipline which issues in . Compare Psa 6:8 .
(a) The alternative sense of fear appears as early as the Old Latin version (d = exauditus a metu). This meaning of (Beza: liberatus ex metu) occurs in Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 9, (Esther) . Indeed (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb are common in this sense; cp. e.g. 2 Mac 8:16 : Sir 41:3 : Wis 17:8 . But here the deeper, religious sense is more relevant to the context. In any case the answer consisted in courage given to face death The point to be emphasized is, not so much that the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it needed to be heard (A. B. Bruce, p. 186).
(b) Some (e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, 1860, 753 f., and Blass, 211) take with what follows; this was the interpretation of the Peshitto (and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear and the sufferings which he bore). But the separation of from and the necessity of introducing a before the latter phrase point to the artificiality of this construction.
In v. 8 ( being used with a participle as in 7:5, 12:17) means, Son though he was, not son though he was. The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in 12:5f., that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but although he was , which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique sense; as applied to Jesus means something special. As divine in the sense of 1:1f., it might have been expected that he would be exempt from such a discipline. is the main thread of the sentence, but attaches itself to . rather than to the preceding participles and (Chrys. Theophyl.). With a daring stroke the author adds, . The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agam. 177 f.), who describes Zeus as , and tells how (W. Headlam)-
The heart in time of sleep renews
Aching remembrance of her bruise,
And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse-
which, the poet adds, is a sort of from the gods. This moral doctrine, that brings , is echoed by Pindar (Isthm. i. 40, ) and other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 38, , : de spec. leg. III. 6, .: de somn. ii. 15, , (Gen 50:19) ). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost invariably applied to the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and deliberate offenders (Abbott, Diat. 3208a), to people who can only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term only occurs once in the LXX, at 2 S 22:36 ( , A), where it translates . The general idea corresponds to that of 10:5-9 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self-sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Php 2:6-8, that Jesus, born in human form, (sc. ) , and the conception of the of Jesus (Rom 5:18, Rom 5:19) in contrast to the of Adam. What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2:10f., is the practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men. Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevitable. Personal relations are of necessity relations into which one grows; the relation can be fully and practically constituted only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved. So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not because His will was not at every moment perfect but simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience (W. Robertson Smith, Expositor2, ii. pp. 425, 426). in v. 9 recalls and expands the remark of 2:10, that God perfected Jesus by suffering as , and the argument of 2:17, 18. The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms and . He prefers and , not on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of these terms.
Philo (de Abrah. 11) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the three things essential , .
was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo speaks of the brazen serpent as (de Agric. 22), Aeschines (in Ctesiph. 57) has , and in the de Mundo, 398b, the writer declares that it is fitting for God . is a LXX phrase (Isa 45:17), but not in the sense intended here (cp. 2:3). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God and of thus proving a saviour is remarkable. At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares that the man who is morally earnest, receiving Gods kingdom, does not prove a source of evil to anyone ( ), but proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all who obey him ( , de Abrah. 45). This refers to Abraham, but to the incident of Gen 23:6, not to that of Melchizedek; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as king, and the are the members of his household under his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by the writer means (4:3), but with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience to Christ or to God (3:18, 4:6, 11) is the practical expression of disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as Gods appointed . The writer then adds (v. 10) , in order to explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the . The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv. 5, 6, with a reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to advance. Though is not used in this sense (hail, designate) in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic writings like 2 Maccabees (1:36, 4:7, 10:9) and Josephus (e.g. c. Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not discussed till 6:20, 7:1f. The interlude between 5:10 and 6:20 is devoted to a stirring exhortation; for this interpretation of the Son as priest is a piece of which can only be imparted to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Christian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition has three movements of thought, 5:11-14, 6:1-8, and 6:9-19.
11 On this point I (, plural of authorship, as 2:5) have a great deal to say, which it is hard to make intelligible to you. For ( = etenim) you have grown dull of hearing. 12 Though by this time you should be teaching other people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary principles of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food. 13 (For anyone who is fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth; he is1 a mere babe. 14 Whereas solid food is for the nature, for those who have their faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil.) 6:1 Let us pass on then to what is mature, leaving elementary Christian doctrine behind, instead of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with faith in God, 2 with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. 3 With Gods permission we will take this step.
(i.e. on M.) . (v. 11). The entire paragraph (vv. 11-14) is full of ideas and terms current in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day. Thus, to begin with, (sc. ) is a common literary phrase for there is much to say; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm. i. 3, , and Lysias in Pancleonem, 11, , . and are separated, as elsewhere adjectives are (e.g. 2:17). For the general sense of , see Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 18, , and Dion. Halic. de Comp. viii. . occurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of Philos de Somniis i. (32, ), and Artemidorus (Oneirocr. iii. 67, ) uses it of dreams. . (explaining ) for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense (Pro 22:29 , tr. ); even in Sir 4:29, 11:12 it means no more than slack or backward (as below in 6:12). It is a common Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or the (locative) dative. With it denotes dulness. The literal sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: ), and the metaphorical sense of is illustrated by Philos remark in quis rer. div. haer. 3: , , .
Why ( , v. 12), the writer continues, instead of being teachers you still need a teacher. For with the article and infinitive ( 2 .), cp. the similar use of in OP 1488:25. In what follows, , the masculine singular, gives a better sense than , the neuter plural. Ye again have need of (one) to teach you what are the elements (sah boh); but it is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need to be taught. here means the ABC or elementary principles (see Burtons Galatians, pp. 510f.), such as he mentions in 6:1, 2. He defines them further as , where means not the OT but the divine revelation in general, so that . . corresponds to the Latin phrase prima elementa. The words simply charge the readers with backwardness. The expression, to be teachers, affirms no more than that the readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present (Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint themselves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Enchir. 51, ; , . It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle: , (Cyrop. iii. 3. 35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato, Sympos. 189d, , , and the reply given by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put questions to anybody: , (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17). Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth: quousque disces? iam et praecipe (Ep. 33:9). Thus the phrase here offers no support whatever to any theories about the readers of being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured community. The author, himself a , as he is in possession of this mature , is trying to shame his friends out of their imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. is a rhetorical variant for , due to the writers fondness for . If there is any special meaning in the larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that the writer chose it deliberately: , , , . They are responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison1 of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, e.g. ii. 16. 39, , and iii. 24. 9, , and particularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer is the sentence in de agric. 2: , , , . Our writer adopts the metaphor, as Paul had done (1Co 3:1, 1Co 3:2), and adds a general aside (vv. 13, 14) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does not use the term , and the plight of his friends is not due to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ as mature instruction, . is one whose only food ( as in 1Co 10:17 etc.) is milk; is inexperienced, and therefore unskilled, in -an ethical phrase for what moderns would call moral truth, almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i.6. 31, , ., or in M. Aurelius xi:10, xii:1. Thus, while here is not a religious term, the phrase means more than (a) incapable of talking correctly (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no doubt, the mark of a , but irrelevant in this connexion; or (b) incapable of understanding normal speech, such as grown-up people use (Riggenbach). . (v. 14). The clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Enchirid. 51, how long ( ) will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy of the very best ? You have received the precepts you ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you still wait for a teacher ( ), that you may put off amending yourself till he comes? You are a lad no longer, you are a full-grown man now ( , ). Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live . Then he adds, in words that recall Heb 12:1f.: and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious or inglorious, remember that . As Pythagoras divided his pupils into and , so our author distinguishes between the immature and the mature (cp. 1Co 2:6 , 3:1 ). In (vg. pro consuetudine) he uses much as does the writer of the prologue to Sirach ( ), for facility or practice.1 It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here, but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties are called . was a Stoic term for an organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent sense, easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jer 4:19 . The phrase may be illustrated from Galen (de dign. puls. iii:2, , and de complexu, ii.: .), being a perfect participle used predicatively, like in Luk 13:6, and above. Compare what Marcus Aurelius (iii:1) says about old age; it may come upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense of duty, . Elsewhere (ii:13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions ( ) is a blindness as serious as any inability to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimination ( ) is the mark of maturity, in contrast to childhood (cp. e.g. Deu 1:39 ). Compare the definition of in Sextus Empiricus (Hyp. Pyrrh. 3:168): .
In spite of Reschs arguments (Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxx:3. 112f.), there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to Jesus: , , .
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
522 [ 602]
B [03: 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
D [06: 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly* reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
K [018:1:1].
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.
L [020: 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
C [04: 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
[01: 2).
A [02: 4].
33 [ 48] Horts 17
P [025: 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
6 [ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
1288 [ 162]
1739 [ 78]
1 As in 2 Mac 9:18 , Ep. Arist. 69, .
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
Michel Recueil d Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel, 1900).
1 Like that of Hos 12:4, where tears are added to the primitive story (Gen 32:26) of Jacobs prayer ( ). In 2 Mac 11:6 the Maccabean army .
d (Latin version of D)
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vllig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
177 [ 106]
1 D* inserts (Mat 15:16) between and : he is still a mere babe. Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm.
2 1912 and origen read (with 462) , and omit .
sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
1 Origen (Philocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus, who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and intelligent audience. He quotes 5:12f. as well as 1Co 3:2f., arguing that in the light of them it must be admitted , , , .
Weiss B. Weiss, Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).
1 Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos nominatur (Quint. Instit. Orat. 10:1).
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Our Divinely Appointed High Priest
Heb 5:1-10
Having to act for men, our High Priest must be man, acquainted with human conditions; having to do with God, he must be appointed by God. Is there one of us that is not conscious of liability to ignorance and wandering? We all evermore need the high priesthood of Jesus.
The Aaronic priests must needs make atonement for themselves, but our Lord was without sin. See Lev 4:3. Heb 5:5 has reference to His resurrection and ascension. See Rom 1:4; Act 13:33. His priestly service dates from the completion of His mediatorial work on the Cross. No scene in our Lords life fulfills Heb 5:7 like that of the Garden, when it seemed impossible for the human body to hold out under the stress of His anguish. He feared that He would succumb before He reached Calvary. He had to yield obedience unto death in order to learn what obedience really means. Thus as to His humanity He became perfected; and if only we believe and obey, He will effect a perfect deliverance for us from all evil. There is no sin so strong, no need so intricate, that He cannot cope with it.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
As we enter chap. 5 we are reminded that the high priest was taken from among men and set apart to minister on their behalf in things having to do with God. He was to present his brethrens gifts and sacrifices for sins. Note the distinction. On the cross our Lord presented the sacrifice for sins. In Heaven now, He offers our gifts of worship and praise.
The earthly priest, because himself a man and as infirm as any of his brethren, could have compassion on the ignorant and on those who wandered from the path of rectitude. Conscious of his own failures, it was necessary that he should offer a propitiatory sacrifice for himself as well as for the people. In this we see the superiority of our great High Priest, who needed no offering for Himself, but gave Himself in love for others.
In Heb 5:4 we are reminded that no man was entitled to constitute himself a high priest. He became such by divine call, as in the case of Aaron who was chosen of God and set apart for this high office. Even so, Christ did not make Himself High Priest, but God the Father recognized Him as such when He declared in the words of Psalm 2, Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee. His Priesthood, however, was not of the Levitical order but of a different character altogether, even as it is written in Psa 110:4, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. What is really involved in this we shall see when we come to consider chapter 7. It is enough to point out here that Melchisedec was recognized as priest of the most high God centuries before the Levitical priesthood came into existence. This latter, like the legal covenant with which it was connected, came in only by the way, and had its place until the Son, who was to fulfil the Melchisedec type, should come.
In Heb 5:7-10 the Spirit again emphasizes the reality of His Manhood and His participation in all the sinless experiences of His people. In the days of His flesh, when He was here on earth in human condition, He trod the path of faith and took the place of dependence on the Father, offering up prayers and supplications, accompanied by strong crying and tears, unto Him who was able to save Him out of death. For, be it observed, He was not saved from dying nor did He ever pray to be saved from death, nor did He fear death. He came into the world to die, for that very purpose; but He was brought up from death, being raised by the power of God. What a testimony those tears were to the reality of His Manhood! Three times we read of His weeping. He wept at the grave of Lazarus as He contemplated the awful ravages that death had made, tears of loving sympathy. He wept as He looked upon Jerusalem and His prophetic soul saw the tribulations through which the devoted city must pass. And He wept in Gethsemanes garden as His holy soul shrank from drinking the cup of divine indignation against sin, when He should hang upon the cross. While the cup could not be averted, nevertheless He was heard for His piety, that is, not as some have said, in the removing of that which He feared, but rather because of His godly fear, His reverence for the Fathers will. And thus He who is the Eternal Son who never knew what subjection meant, became Man, and as He trod the pilgrim path of suffering and rejection down here, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. It is not that His will had to be subdued, but that from the moment when He assumed humanity He entered into new experiences, and He who had always commanded learned practically what obedience meant.
And thus being perfected as the Captain of Salvation, according to Heb 2:10, which we have already considered, He has become the Author of eternal salvation unto all them who follow Him in the obedience of faith, having been saluted of God in resurrection as High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
How carefully the Holy Ghost guards against the least suggestion of defilement in His nature while insisting upon the reality of His humanity. Great indeed is the mystery of godliness, for He, the Holy One, has been manifested in flesh. And now as the exalted Priest, He enters into all the sorrows of His people, sympathizing with them in all their infirmities. He does not sympathize with our sins, and indeed, we would not wish Him to, but He does feel for us in all our weakness and is waiting to supply needed strength for every trial.
Section B. Heb 5:11-14; Heb 6:1-20
Warning Against Apostasy. Safety Only in Resting upon the Word of God
We are now to consider one of those portions of the writings of our beloved brother Paul, as Peter calls him, wherein are some things hard to be understood, which those that are ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction. Probably there is no part of the Word of God that has stumbled immature and uninstructed Christians like that which is before us. Therefore the need of examining it with the utmost care.
The closing part of Heb 5:11-14, is plain enough. Immediately upon bringing in the name of Melchisedec the apostle declares: Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. The truth of the Melchisedec priesthood of our Lord Jesus would be most unpalatable to Jewish tastes, and difficult of apprehension where one was under legalistic bondage. We have only to consult the book of Acts, particularly in connection with Pauls last visit to Jerusalem, to realize how backward thousands of Hebrew believers were in the years immediately preceding the destruction of the Holy City and the manifest setting aside of the temple ritual. Those who, for the time that had elapsed since their conversion, ought to have been well able to teach others, were themselves needing instruction in the most elementary truths of the Word of God. They had not even grasped the distinction between Israels hopes which are earthly, and those of the Church which are heavenly. Neither had they realized the transitory and shadowy character of the Levitical economy in contrast with the permanency of the Christian revelation. They were ignorant of the first principles of the oracles of God, still requiring milk and unable to digest strong meat. They were babes in the truth when they should have been mature believers. The time had come to insist upon the setting aside of Judaism and going on to the full truth of Christianity. And so it is to this great step they are called as the sixth chapter opens.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Heb 5:1-10
Christ, as Son of man, called and perfected to be our High Priest.
I. The Jewish priesthood suffered from two essential defects, and was thus only a type and shadow of our Lord. (1) In the first place, the priests were as sinful as the people whom they represented. (2) The mediator ought not merely to be a perfect and sinless man, he ought also to be Divine, in perfect and full communion with God, so that he can impart Divine forgiveness and blessing. Only in the Lord Jesus, therefore, is the true mediation. And now that He has come and entered into the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest, the word priest in the sense of sacerdotal mediator dare never be used any more.
II. The two qualifications of the Aaronic high priest, that he was from among men, and that he was appointed by God, were fulfilled in a perfect manner in the Lord Jesus. (1) The Aaronic high priest could have compassion on his fellow sinners, knowing and feeling his own infirmities. But this compassionate, loving regard for the sinner can exist in perfection only in a sinless one. The purer and higher the character, the quicker its penetration, and the livelier its sympathy. (2) Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High Priest. This is Christ’s glory, even as it is the reward of His suffering, that in Him we draw near unto the Father, and that from Him we receive the blessings of the everlasting covenant. He rejoices to be our High Priest. God called Him to the Priesthood. The glory of Christ is the result of His obedience, and the fruit of the experience of earth through which He went is His perfect sympathy with us, and His all-sufficient grace, which is able to uphold us in every trial, and to carry us safely through all our conflicts, and present us unblamable in body, soul, and spirit before the Father.
A. Saphir, Expository Lectures on the Hebrews, vol. i., p. 253.
References: Heb 5:1-11.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 36. Heb 5:2.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiv., No. 1407.
Heb 5:7
Irreverence.
“Was heard,” the Greek text says, “from His reverence.”
I. Irreverence is the not fearing, the not being awed into silence, the not bending of the knee, of the soul before Him in whom we live and move and have our being. And we see this evil spirit everywhere. We have seen it in the open profaneness of the scoffer at holy things. We have seen it in the insolent defiance of the “busy mocker,” who asks, “Who is the Lord?” and “Where is the promise of His coming?” We can trace it, if we will look for it, in the lurking-dens of the heart, in the chambers of the imagery. Every movement of the mind concerning Providence, concerning duty, concerning revelation, is an irreverence if God is not remembered in it.
II. Whence comes this irreverence? It is easy to tell of some particular instances which assist, if they do not create, the irreverence of which we are speaking. (1) The first of these is levity. “They made light of it,” says the Gospel. There was nothing which they could not twist into a subject for jesting. (2) A second ingredient in irreverence is vanity. A man must be humble who would be devout. The first condition of reverence is humility. Where this is not, vainly shall we look for the prayer, vainly for the acceptance, of Him who was heard in that He feared. (3) A third of these counteractions of reverence is excitement.
III. The battle against irreverence is one of detail. It is only by attention to particulars that it can be won. (1) Be reverent in worship. (2) Be reverent in speech. It is bad to have bad thoughts; it is worse to utter them. Worse, because then they infect others. Worse, because then we use speech, which is man’s glory, for the very purpose of doing God dishonour. (3) Be reverent, finally, in thought. There is a grace which we sometimes fear is dying out-could any grace quite die out?-in the Church of this latter day; and this is the grace of meditation. It is out of such communing that reverence springs, the worship of reverence and the speech of reverence, and the soul of reverence too. Without it there is no root to our religion; the growth is all outward; the world scorches it; “in the time of temptation it falls away.”
C. J. Vaughan, University Sermons, p. 145.
References: Heb 5:7.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 84; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 97; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 92; G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 204.
Heb 5:7-8
The Humiliation of the Eternal Son.
The chief mystery of our holy faith is the humiliation of the Son of God to temptation and suffering, as described in this passage of Scripture.
I. The text says, “Though He were a Son.” Now, in these words, “the Son of God,” much more is implied than at first sight may appear. We have, perhaps, a vague general notion that they mean something extraordinary and supernatural; but we know that we ourselves are called, in one sense, sons of God in Scripture. Moreover, we have heard, perhaps, that the angels are sons of God. In consequence, we collect just this much from the title as applied to our Lord, that He came from God, that He was the well-beloved of God, and that He is much more than a mere man. But when the early Christians used the title, “the Son of God,” they meant, after the manner of the apostles when they used it in Scripture, all we mean in the creed, when, by way of explaining ourselves, we confess Him to be God from God, Light from Light, Very God, or True God, from True God.
II. The text goes on to say, “Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.” Obedience belongs to a servant, but accordance, concurrence, cooperation, are the characteristics of a Son. Christ took on Him a lower nature, and wrought in it towards a will higher and more perfect than it. His suffering, temptation, and obedience must be understood not as if He ceased to be what He had ever been, but having clothed Himself with a created essence, He made it the instrument of His humiliation: He acted in it, He obeyed and suffered through it. Before He came on earth He had but the perfections of a God; but afterwards He had also the virtues of a creature, such as faith, meekness, self-denial. Before He came on earth He could not be tempted of evil; but afterwards He had a man’s heart, a man’s tears, and a man’s wants and infirmities. He possessed at once a double assemblage of attributes, Divine and human. Till we contemplate our Lord and Saviour God and man as a really existing being, external to our minds, as complete and entire in His personality as we appear to be to each other, as one and the same in all His various and contrary attributes, “the same yesterday, today, and for ever,” we are using words which profit not.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. iii., p. 156.
References: Heb 5:7-9.-R. S. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, p. 353. Heb 5:7-10.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1927.
Heb 5:8
Suffering the School of Obedience.
I. In His wisdom and power, God has laid even upon sorrow the destiny of fulfilling His purposes of mercy. In the beginning sorrow was the wages of sin, penal and working death; by the law of Christ’s redemption it is become a discipline of cleansing and perfection. God permits it still to abide in His kingdom, but He has reduced it to subjection. It is now changed to be a minister, not more of His severity than of His mercy. It is the discipline of saints, and the safest, though the austerest, school of sanctity; and that because suffering, or, as we are wont to say, trial, turns our knowledge into reality. When pain searches into the body or the spirit we feel as if we had awoke up to know that we had learned nothing really until now. All general truths speak to us with a particular meaning, and speak to us with a piercing emphasis.
II. Sufferings so put our faith on trial as to strengthen and confirm it. They develop what was lying hid in us, unknown even to ourselves. And therefore we often see persons, who have shown no very great tokens of high devotion, come out under the pressure of trials into a most elevated bearing. This is especially true of sickness and affliction. Not only are persons of a holy life made to shine with a more radiant brightness, but common Christians, of no note or visibleness, are changed to a saintly character. They wrestle with their trial, and will not let it go without a blessing; and thereby the gifts which lie enwrapped in a regenerate nature are unfolded into life and energy.
III. Once more: nothing so likens us to the example of Christ as suffering. The sorrows of the holiest minds are the nearest approaches to the mind of Christ, and are full of a meaning which is dark to us only from its exceeding brightness. And therefore, when we look at the sufferings of pure and holy minds, let us rather stand in awe, as being called to behold, as it were, a shadow of our Redeemer’s sorrows. Even with bleeding hearts and deep-drawn prayers for their consolation, let us try to believe that God is endowing them with surpassing tokens of love, and with pledges of exceeding glory.
H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. i., p. 287.
References: Heb 5:8.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 89. Heb 5:9. -Ibid., Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1172; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. i., p. 143. Heb 5:10.-J. Edmund, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 200. Heb 5:11-14.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 37.
Hebrews 5:11-6:3
Growth in Grace and Knowledge.
I. The comparison between a newly-converted man and a babe is, like all comparisons, imperfect. For, in one sense, a Christian is born by the Holy Ghost full-grown, as Adam came into the world a perfect man. The babe in Christ learns very easily and very rapidly. He delights in the Word; he is humble and tender; he does not resist truths which condemn the flesh and correct our waywardness; he is unworldly, heavenly-minded, and nine-tenths of the Bible become clear when we are willing to deny ourselves, and take our cross and follow Jesus.
II. It is not that there is a higher truth or life for the older Christians. There are no doctrines more profound than those which are preached when Christ’s salvation is declared, and to which they who are more advanced are admitted, as to an esoteric wisdom. All our progress consists in learning more fully the doctrine which at first is preached unto us. The strong meat, the doctrine of Christ’s high priesthood in Heaven, is also milk, pure and nourishing, simple, and only received by the childlike heart; whereas pride and ambition often call speculative and unprofitable discussions strong meat, though they are of no use to the spiritual man, but minister only unto strife and the exaltation of the flesh.
III. The Christians were to show (1) repentance from dead works and faith towards God. (2) The doctrine of baptism and of the laying on of hands is given. (3) Intimately connected is the doctrine of resurrection and eternal judgment. The germ of all truth is contained in these elementary doctrines. There is a simplicity which is the result of full and profound knowledge, of varied experience and conflict; a simplicity which is the indication of abundance and depth, which is the result of meditation, prayerfulness, and a humble walk with God.
A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. i., p. 278.
References: Heb 5:12-14.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 282. Heb 5:14.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix., p. 506; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 301. Heb 5:11-14.-Homilist, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 515.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 5
1. What the High Priest is and represents (Heb 5:1-4)
2. The fulfillment in Christ made High Priest (Heb 5:5-10)
3. The spiritual condition of the Hebrew-Christians (Heb 5:11-14)
Heb 5:1-4
In developing the priesthood of Christ and showing how it excels the earthly priesthood and is more glorious than the priesthood of Judaism, the principles of priesthood of the levitical system are first stated. Upon this follows the comparison of the priesthood of Christ with that of Aaron. The transcendent priesthood of Christ is thus established by this contrast. These opening verses have nothing to do with our Lord. They show how the high priest was taken from among men and being merely a man who was to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant, himself clothed with infirmity, he was obliged not alone to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, but also for himself. This can, of course, never apply to the Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as He is sinless. He therefore cannot be meant in these introductory words of this chapter. And the earthly priests did not take this honor to themselves. Gods call was necessary.
Heb 5:5-10
How the priesthood, foreshadowed in Aaron, was first of all fulfilled in Christ is the theme of this section. Here we have His call to be priest. So Christ also hath not glorified Himself to be made an high priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee (Psa 2:1-12). As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec (Psa 110:1-7). His call from God is to be King-Priest. The second psalm reveals Him as Son of God, King to be enthroned and to rule over the nations, and He is priest after the order of Melchisedec. This name is here mentioned for the first time. His Melchisedec priesthood the Spirit of God unfolds fully in the seventh chapter. The call of Him is according to the eternal purposes of God. He came to offer Himself as the sacrificial Lamb on the cross. This was indicated when He went into Jordan, baptized by John. It was then that the Fathers voice was heard declaring His sonship. He had to pass through death and rise again to be the priest after the order of Melchisedec.
His suffering and death are therefore next mentioned in these verses: Who in the days of His flesh having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him out of death and having been heard for His godly fear, though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. These words refer chiefly to the portal of the cross, Gethsemane. There He prayed with strong crying and tears, alone with His Father in deepest agony, fallen on His face, and His sweat became as great drops of blood falling down on the ground. He went into all the anguish of death, deprecating the cup He had to drink, yet in meek and perfect submission. What a terrible weight was there upon His holy soul! And He was heard for His godly fear. He was saved, not from dying, for that would have left man in his sins and unredeemed; He was saved out of death. His prayer was answered by His resurrection. it was in that agony that He learned obedience. Though Son of God, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. Having come to obey and to suffer (which as Son of God was unknown to Him), He obeyed in everything and submitted to everything. He did not save Himself, but drank the cup and died the sinners death.
What He is in resurrection, the results of His sacrificial death, are next stated. And being made perfect, He became, unto all that obey Him, author of eternal salvation; being saluted (or welcomed by God) of God as high priest after the order of Melchisedec. In the second chapter we saw that the captain of our salvation had to be made perfect through sufferings (Heb 2:10). Here we meet the same statement, that He has been made perfect. It means the completeness of His work through sufferings, in resurrection and heavenly glory. And through this finished work in which He was perfected as Saviour, He also became unto all that obey Him (all who believe on Him and own Him thus as their Saviour) the author of eternal salvation. Returning to glory, God saluted, or welcomed Him as priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:11-14
Here another parenthesis begins which closes with the end of the sixth chapter. The seventh chapter resumes the instructions concerning Melchisedec and the priesthood of Christ. Their spiritual state was that of babes as still under the ordinances and requirements of the law. They clung to Judaism and could not fully break loose from the shadow things of their system. They were dull of hearing and while they ought to have been teachers (having believed in Christ) there was need of teaching them again what are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God. They needed milk and were not fit for the solid food. They had not gone on in the gospel, into that maturity which the Holy Spirit has revealed as to the believers standing and perfection in Christ. As long as they were occupied with ordinances they were but infants and in danger of apostasy.
Ritualistic Christendom today corresponds to the state of many of these Hebrew-Christians of the first century, only ritualism is worthy of greater condemnation. The fearful evil of ritualism (Romish and so-called Protestant) is that it takes and imitates Jewish forms and ordinances and through these things sets aside and corrupts true Christianity. It is the bondage of the flesh.
(We may observe that there is no greater hindrance to progress in spiritual life and intelligence than attachment to an ancient form of religion, which, being traditional and not simply personal faith in the truth, consists always in ordinances, and is consequently carnal and earthly. Without this people may be unbelievers; but under the influence of such a system piety itself–expressed in forms–makes a barrier between the soul and the light of God; and these forms which surround, preoccupy, and hold the affections captive, prevent them from enlarging and becoming enlightened by means of divine revelation. Morally (as the apostle here expresses it) the senses are not exercised to discern both good and evil Synopsis of the Gospel.)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
The Typical Priesthood of Aaron
In the first four chapters of this epistle, the Holy Spirit has shown us the superiority of our Lord Jesus Christ over the angels, over Moses, and over Joshua. All these were highly venerated by the Jews. Perhaps the only thing more highly venerated by them was their sabbath observance. In the fourth chapter, he displayed Christs superiority over that as well, showing us that Christ is the true Sabbath and that the sabbath rest of faith in him is indescribably better than the observance of legal sabbath days.
In the chapter before us we see the superiority of Christ as our great High Priest over Aaron and all the Levitical priest of the legal dispensation. This seems to have been in the back of his mind all along. I say that because he has mentioned Christs priesthood twice before (Heb 2:17-18; Heb 4:14-15).
Only One Priest
The Holy Spirits purpose, throughout this epistle, is to show us that the Lord Jesus Christ is the sinners only access to God. He is the only priest there is between God and man. In fact, he is the only Priest there ever was between God and man. All the priests of the Old Testament were only types and pictures of him. All the pretended priests of all religious orders since the end of the Mosaic age are impostors. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Priest by whom sinners may draw near to God and God draws near to sinners.
When God gave the law to Moses at Mt. Sinai, he instituted an earthly, human priesthood, a priesthood by which sinners could approach him, worship him, and offer gifts and sacrifices to him. The Lord decreed that these priests must be descended from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. Therefore, it is referred to as the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
There was one other divinely ordained priesthood mentioned in the Old Testament, that of Melchizedek. You will remember him from Genesis 14. It was this man, Melchizedek, who brought bread and wine to Abraham and blessed him, to whom Abraham paid tithes. This was done long before any law was given by God concerning either the priesthood or tithes.
That fact is important because, in Hebrews 5, the Holy Spirit shows us that the Lord Jesus Christ is, like Melchizedek, a priest in every way superior to Aaron. In Heb 5:1-4, he gives us a description of Aarons priesthood and shows us how it was a type and picture of our Lords priesthood.
A Man
Every typical high priest under the law was a man. He was a common man, taken out from among them (Exo 28:1). He was ordained and invested with this great office by that special anointing with oil ordained by God. He was made a priest that he might represent the people of the chosen nation in things pertaining to God.
The high priest presided over Israel in all matters of worship in the name of God, appeared before God in their stead, presented their gifts and sacrifices to God, and blessed them in Gods name. Gods high priest stood between God and men. The Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest. We must never attempt to go to God except through Christ. We cannot expect any mercy or favor from God except through Christ.
Israels high priest was a just a man. All the priests of the Old Testament were weak and sinful men. Yet, they were compassionate, men who understood and sympathized with the people in their ignorance and in their transgressions of the law. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became a man and knows our frame (Heb 4:15; Psa 103:14).
A Sinful Man
When the high priest brought a sin-offering and made atonement for the people, he first had to offer an atonement for his own sin, and then for the people. The priests were sinners, too. As such, they needed mercy. Israels high priest even had to make atonement for the holy things (Exo 28:37-38). Our Lord Jesus Christ is different. He had no sin (Heb 7:27).
Divinely Appointed
No man volunteered for the office of high priest, but was called to it (Heb 5:4-5). The office of high priest was an office of the highest honor. It involved the work of representing the people before God. Only those men who were appointed and ordained of God were allowed to function as priests in Israel. Any who dared, like Uzziah the king, to take the honor to themselves would suffer grave consequences and be brought to public shame.
Even Christ himself did not take this high and holy office unto himself. Neither did he receive it from men. He did not acquire it by family heritage, because he was of the tribe of Judah. He was not, as a man, of the Levitical, priestly, order.
Our Lord was made a Priest. God the Father made him our High Priest. The Father appointed him to the office, anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows and sent him to execute it (Joh 8:54).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
sins
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
every: Heb 10:11, Exo 28:1-14, Exo 29:1-37, Lev 8:2
is ordained: Heb 8:3
for men: Heb 2:17, Num 16:46-48, Num 18:1-3
both: Heb 8:3, Heb 9:9, Heb 10:11, Heb 11:4, Lev 9:7, Lev 9:15-21
Reciprocal: Exo 40:15 – everlasting Lev 6:20 – the offering Neh 12:30 – themselves Rom 15:17 – in Heb 3:1 – and Heb 7:28 – the law maketh
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE EARLY PART of chapter 5 continues this subject. The high priests of old represented men and acted for them in things relating to God. But then acting for men they had to be compassionate and sympathetic towards men. Hence they were taken from amongst men, being of the family of Aaron. Had God instituted an holy angel to act as high priest on Israels behalf there might have been great gain Godward, as regards the accuracy and fidelity with which all priestly functions were carried out; but there would have been great loss manward, as regards such a matter as compassion on the ignorant. He who acts for men must understand mankind in an experimental way; and this is a thing pre-eminently true of Christ as we have just seen.
In Aarons case he had, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. In this we again find contrast and not comparison. Christ is indeed an offering priest, for it says later on, it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer (Heb 8:3). But when we read on yet further in the Epistle we shall discover that Christ, through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). There is all the difference in the world between Aaron offering FOR himself and Christ offering HIMSELF.
Aaron was also typical of Christ in the fact that he was called into the priestly office by God. Yet though Christ was called of God like Aaron He has not been called after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedec. He who said in Psa 2:1-12, Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee (and this was quoted in Heb 1:5), said also in Psa 110:1-7, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. If at this point you refer to the psalm you will see that this was said in connection with Christ coming forth from death in resurrection, and being exalted to the right hand of God.
In verses Heb 5:7-9 however we go back to the days of His flesh; that is, the days when He was upon earth before He died. Then was the great moment in the garden of Gethsemane, when He came face to face with the sorrows of death, and His cries were heard. He was heard in that He feared, or, for His piety. His personal perfections as Man demanded that He be heard. His cry was that He should be saved out of death-for the force of the word here is out of rather than from. He was not saved from death but He was heard and saved out of it by resurrection and by Jehovah saying to Him, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.
Going into death and being saved out of it, two great things were achieved, as presented to us in verses Heb 5:8-9. First, He learned obedience. Let us understand what this means. Far be the thought that there was ever the smallest taint of disobedience with Him. The fact is, that previous to His incarnation He had ever been in the place of supreme glory, where it was His to command. Having become Man He experienced what it was to obey. We believe we are right in saying that King George VI. was in early life a sailor. Going through that naval training, he learned the obedience which is necessary for the smooth running of the whole naval machine.
When we speak of King George learning naval obedience we do not for one moment mean to infer that he started with an insubordinate and disobedient spirit, when as a young prince he became a midshipman. We mean rather to emphasize that he has acquired his naval knowledge not by the study of books but by actual experience. In just that way the Lord Jesus, though the Son of God, has learned obedience by human suffering.
The second thing achieved was on our behalf. His time of suffering and testing came to its close. He was obedient even to death-the death of the cross. Death was the supreme test and there He was perfected: that is, being ever perfect Himself, there His course of obedience came to its glorious finish and climax. But then it was exactly at that point that He effected propitiation, and thereby became the Author of eternal salvation. Not now a deliverance such as that of Israel out of Egypt, which though very wonderful was only for a time but a deliverance for eternity.
And that eternal salvation is received by those that obey Him. The value of faith was so strongly stressed in Heb 3:1-19, and the beginning of Heb 4:1-16, that we might have supposed that it would have read, them that believe. Why does it say, them that obey Him? The obedience is of course the obedience of faith, but the point is that we should realize that the One who asks obedience from us is the One who has learned obedience Himself. In obedience the Son of God worked out eternal salvation, and that salvation is ours when we come under obedience to Him. Can we not see how divinely fitting this is? He only asks from us that obedience which He has perfectly rendered Himself.
In verse Heb 5:10 we revert to the great fact established in verse Heb 5:6. The verses that come between are evidently intended to impress us with the qualifications of our High Priest. Melchizedec is a mysterious personage who appears for one moment in Gen 14:1-24 and then vanishes. Yet he was priest of the Most High God. The One whom he typified is infinitely greater than he-the Son of God, who assumed Manhood, endured suffering, learned obedience, and by death itself became the Author of an eternal salvation to all that obey Him. To ALL that obey HIM-notice! If you obey Him and I obey Him, then we are included. Salvation is ours!
At this point the writer calls a halt to his flow of thought, and a lengthy digression ensues. Melchizedec was so important a type of Christ that there were many things to be said on the subject, and the theme was not an easy one. It required some depth of spiritual understanding if it was to be intelligently received. The thought of this fact very definitely raised the question of the spiritual state of these Hebrew believers, and of ourselves.
In the closing verses of our chapter the writer gently yet firmly upbraids his Hebrew readers because they were still but babes as to their understandings when they ought to have been like full-grown men. If we make spiritual growth our spiritual senses are exercised, we acquire spiritual habits, and we become able to assimilate the strong meat, or, solid food, of the truth in its wider and deeper aspects. If we do not grow, though we may have received the word of righteousness yet we become unskilled in it. We may even slip so far back that we need to be taught over again the simplest elements concerning foundation truth.
Thus it was with these early Hebrew believers. They doubtless were hindered by their old Jewish associations. Their tendency was to cling to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism, and this made it very difficult for them to enter upon the simplest elements of the gospel. This may not be exactly our trouble, but we are very likely to be hindered by the elements of the world, and more particularly by the elements of that particular form of WORLDLY RELIGION in which we may have been brought up. Let us search and see if this be so; for if it is we too shall be like stunted trees in the garden of the Lord.
Let us also accept the warning of these verses to the effect that if we do not go on, the tendency for us is to go back. If we are not on the up grade, we shall get on the down grade. If we do not advance, we shall decline. We are in a scene of motion, and we shall not succeed in standing still.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Heb 5:1. The superiority of the system of Christ over that of Moses continues to be the subject of this book. The discussion is especially formed around the priesthoods, making comparison to show wherein they are alike as well as where they differ. This and a number of verses following will deal (generally) with many of the points in which they are similar. The high priests of the Mosaic system were men–human beings–who were ordained (appointed) to act on behalf of the nation’s relation to the things of God. These priests acted in these things by offering the gifts and sacrifices for their sins. The two words are much alike in many respects. The first means the offerings that were made voluntarily, consisting of money or fruits that could be used for the living of the priests or the maintenance of the temple. The second has reference to animals that were to become victims on the altar; the blood of some of these was taken by the high priest into the most holy place.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 5:1. For resumes the subject of discussion (see Heb 4:15), and gives a reason why Christ should possess the qualities here described (Heb 5:5).
Every priest. The reasoning is suggested by the case of the Aaronic priesthood, and refers in detail to that; but the words are applicable to all priesthoods (i.e to all who act for others in things pertaining to God).
Taken as he is from among men affirms part of the quality of a priest, and is so regarded by most commentators: others render the expression, as apparently does the English Version, when taken (i.e. every merely human priest); and suppose that there is a contrast between human priests and the Son of God. But the former is the juster view, for the writer goes on to claim for Christ also the same human qualities in a higher degree (Heb 5:7, etc.).
Is ordained; properly, is appointed; ordained even as Aaron was [ordained], misleads. Ordination in any technical sense is not here, but Divine appointment simply.
For men, i.e on behalf of, not in the stead of. This last is indeed a possible meaning of the preposition in certain combinations (He was made a curse for us, etc.), but is not in the word itself, nor is it appropriate here.
In things pertaining to God; literally, things Godward, our interests and business in relation to Him.
Both gifts and sacrifices for sins are naturally the offerings or gifts of the law other than sin offerings and the sacrifices; for sins belonging to the last only (see the same combination in Heb 8:3 and Heb 9:9), and not, as Alford supposes, to both. It is true, however, that the sacrifices were also gifts, the victim being the property of the offerer, and sometimes only gifts, and not properly sacrifices (for sin); while the gift was sometimes of the nature of a sacrifice. Both the ideas are blended in the work of our Lord, who gave Himself for us. On the other hand, we are said, without any reference to sin-offering, to present our bodies living sacrifices (Rom 12:1). The fact is that the old Homeric meaning of the word to sacrifice () was to burn wine, etc., in the fire to the gods; its secondary meaning, to slay in sacrifice. From that one root came a double set of derivativesincense, to burn incense, altar of incense (Thyine wood, Thus, etc.); and to sacrifice, to offer sacrifice, altar of sacrifice, etc.; and hence sacrifice is often and naturally used in the New Testament in the figurative sense, especially in St. Paul (Eph 5:2; Php 4:18).To offer is the technical word common in this Epistle, but Alford says it is never found in St. Paul. The noun, however, is found (Rom 15:16; Eph 5:2), though appropriately with another verb present, give, either because the sense is figurative (see above), and the ordinary verb would be too sacrificial, or because in the last passage he wants to call attention to the fact that Christ is offerer as well as victim.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
CHRIST AND MELCHISEDEC
It has already become evident to the careful reader that the author of this epistle is particularly desirous to bring out the comparison between the priesthood of Christ and that of Aaron. He approached it at the close of chapter 2 (Heb 2:17-18), and was on the point of making the comparison (Heb 3:1) when he was led into the digression about Moses (Heb 3:2-6), and then Joshua (Heb 3:4-11). But he returns to it again at the close of chapter 4 (see Heb 4:14-16), and at the beginning of chapter 5 clears the way for its discussion by the dictum that Christ was a priest. This is necessary to be proven before he can advance, and he proves it in two ways. Christ was a priest in that he possessed our human nature with its capacity for sympathy (Heb 5:1-3), and in that He received the divine appointment to that office as Aaron did (Heb 5:4-10). His appointment however, was after another order than Aaron that of Melchisedec (Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10), of whom he will speak later after a digression of warning and encouragement.
TEACHING ABOUT APOSTASY
This digression covers Heb. 5:12-6:29, and consists of an explanation as to why they should be so seriously tempted to apostatize (Heb 5:11-14). Pauls readers had become dull of hearing, spiritually deaf to the appeals of the Gospel. They had been in the faith long enough to become teachers of others, and yet they themselves needed teaching again, even in the A-B-C of the Scripture. They were still babes in Christ, as indicated by their lack of experience in the word. The offset to this, or the remedy for their situation, was to grow in grace and divine knowledge (Heb 6:1-3). To leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ does not mean to discard the foundation of the Gospel but rather to build upon it. Perfection refers not to sinlessness but to full growth in the knowledge of Christ. Repentance for dead works means those not wrought for Gods glory. Faith towards God was so primary that once experienced it was inconsistent to think of its being laid again. The doctrine of baptisms may mean washings, ablutions, after the purifying of the Jews. Laying on of hands was a symbolic act among the Jews connected with prayer and invoking the divine benedictions. Note that the resurrection of the dead with eternal judgment, which some Christians in these days affect to doubt, was considered a primary doctrine of the New Testament church. The six particulars here named were fundamental, and yet as Dr. Saphir says, they did not set before these Hebrew Christians with sufficient fullness the truth of which they stood in need to keep them from apostasy, and to strengthen them in their sore temptation.
The peril of their situation is set forth in Heb 6:4-8. Some think these present the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns back from Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, but who never experienced real faith. But we differ, and hold the opinion that a true believer is meant. It is not said however, that such an one will be lost, indeed the opposite is shown to be the case (Heb 6:9), but this warning is given to keep him from being lost.
Their encouragement in the premises follows (Heb 6:9-20). They were bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit, let them thus continue in well-doing (Heb 6:10-12). Their salvation was secured by the divine promise confirmed by the divine oath (Heb 6:12-18). Nay more, they had laid hold upon the hope, which as an anchor of the soul had entered into that which is within the veil. Jesus Himself was their hope, and He had entered there an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
MELCHISEDEC A TYPE
We are now brought back again to Melchisedec, who is described and compared with Christ (Heb 7:1-3). For his historical record see Gen 14:17-20. He is a type of Christ in his office as a king-priest (see Zec 6:12-13); in his name, king of righteousness (Isa 11:5); and in his location, king of Salem, i.e., peace (Isa 11:6-9). Also in the fact that he had neither beginning of days nor end of life. This last does not mean that it was literally so in his case, but that so far as the record went it appeared so. (Compare here Joh 1:1; Rom 6:9; and Heb 7:23-25.) After this description and comparison the inspired writer shows the superiority of his order to that of Aaron in seven particulars (Heb 7:4-24): Abraham gave him tithes (Heb 7:4-6), he blessed Abraham (Heb 7:6-7); he was an undying priest, i.e., so far as the record goes he did not see death (Heb 7:8); the unborn Levi (or Levitical priesthood) paid him tithes in the person of Abraham (Heb 7:9-10); the permanence of his priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the whole Levitical law (Heb 7:11-19); His priesthood was founded on an oath (Heb 7:20-22); it was intransmissible, not being vacated by death (Heb 7:23-24). The whole argument is summed up in Heb 7:25-28.
QUESTIONS
1. What seems to be the chief purpose of the author?
2. Indicate his approaches to it.
3. In what two ways is Christ shown to be a priest?
4. Name four main divisions of the digression in this case.
5. What is the meaning of these words or phrases: perfection, repentance for dead works, the doctrine of baptisms?
6. What is the object of the warning in Heb 6:4-6?
7. In what ways is Melchisedec a type of Christ?
8. Name the seven particulars in which his order shows superiority to that of Aaron.
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Observe here, The apostle describes an high priest serveral ways.
1. By his original, He is taken from amongst men: that is, of the same nature with themselves, otherwise, he had not been capable of those compassionate impressions which are required to the due discharge of his office. This Christ’s participation of our nature was necessary to the discharge of his office as High Priest, and a manifest evidence that he will be tender and compassionate towards, then whose nature he sustains and bears.
2. He is described by the general nature of his office, he is ordained for men in things pertaining to God; that is, he was to act and negotiate, for the good of sinful men, in things wherein they have to do more immediately with Almighty God; particularly to offer gifts, oblations, and sacrifices for their sins.
Where note, That it was the entrance of sin that made the office of the priesthood necessary: Had it not been for sin, everyone might have gone to God in his own person, but now God will not be immediately treated with by any, but through the interposition of a Mediator; and he having first made an atonement for sin.
3. The high priest is here described by the exercise of his office, and the special discharge of his duty, which is to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, that is, to give satisfaction and make atonement for sins.
Here note, That the light of nature dictates to us, that something ought to be offered unto God, in acknowledgement of his supreme dominion; and because men are guilty of sin, and God essentially just, sacrifices must be offered, and a priest ordained to offer those sacrifices for the averting of his wrath and procuring of his favour: But by what sacrifices God will be atoned, and by whom, and in what manner they must be offered, not the law of nature, but the light of Scripture, divine revelation, must teach us: Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men; that is, instituted and appointed of God, for the service of men in things pertaining to God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
The Priests Under the Law of Moses
The priests under Moses’ law, could have a compassionate feeling for all those who were straying ignorantly from the path of righteousness because they understood their weaknesses and were, therefore, aware of them. The “ignorant” would include those who sinned unknowingly, while the “going astray” erred out of weakness. In commenting on this passage, Fudge reminds us that there is no sacrifice for presumptuous sins ( Num 15:30-31 ). The High Priests under Moses’ law were surrounded by others’, as well as their own, sins. Even Aaron fell prey to sin ( Heb 5:2 ; Exo 32:24 ).
The sins that surrounded the High Priest of old, both his and the people’s, caused him to have to make an offering ( Lev 9:7 ; Lev 16:6 ). One qualification of every High Priest was that of being “called of God as was Aaron” ( Heb 5:3-4 ; Exo 28:1 ; Psa 105:26 ). “And the man who claims this honor for himself as did Kora ( Num 16:1-50 ), though sustained by the highest human authority, is really not a High Priest, but an usurper ( Act 23:5 ).” (Milligan, p. 154).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Heb 5:1. The priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God, and the pardon procured for sinners thereby, together with the many happy effects of the pardon thus procured, being matters of the greatest importance to mankind, the apostle in this chapter, and in what follows to Heb 10:19, hath stated at great length the proofs by which they are established. And it was very proper that he should be copious, not only in his proofs of these important subjects, but also in his comparison of the priesthood of Christ with the Levitical priesthood, that while he established the merit of the sacrifice of Christ, he might show the inefficacy of the Levitical atonements, and of all other sacrifices whatever. For as the unbelieving Jews, and probably many of those who believed, did not acknowledge his apostleship, St. Paul knew that his affirmation of these matters would not be held by them as sufficient evidence. His proof of the priesthood of Christ he begins in this chapter, in the course of which he shows, that whatever was excellent in the Levitical priesthood, is in Christ, and in a more eminent manner. And whatever excellence was wanting in those priests, is in him. For Or now; every high-priest As if he had said, To show that Christ is a real High-Priest, I will describe the designation, the duties, and the qualifications of a high-priest, by which it will appear that all the essential parts of that office are found in him; taken from among men Being, till he is taken, of the same rank with them; is ordained Appointed, set apart for that office; for men For their benefit; in things pertaining to God To bring God near to men, and men to God; that he may offer both gifts Out of things inanimate; and sacrifices Of animals; to atone for sins Gifts, or freewill-offerings, as distinguished from sacrifices for sins, were expressions of gratitude to God for his goodness in the common dispensations of his providence. And because the priests offered both kinds, Paul speaks of himself, (Rom 15:16,) as exercising the priesthood according to the gospel, by offering the Gentiles in an acceptable manner, through the sanctification of the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Hebrews Chapter 5
The epistle then develops the priesthood of the Lord Jesus, comparing it with that of Aaron; but, as we shall see, with a view to bring out the difference rather than the resemblance between them, although there is a general analogy, and the one was a shadow of the other.
This comparison is made in Heb 5:1-10. The line of argument is then interrupted, though the ground of argument is enlarged and developed, till the end of chapter 7, where the comparison with Melchizedec is pursued; and the change of law, consequent on the change of priesthood, is stated, which introduces the covenants and all that relates to the circumstances of the Jews.
A priest then as taken from among men (he is not here speaking of Christ, but of that with which he compares Him) is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he is able to feel the miseries of others because he is himself compassed with infirmity, and offers therefore for himself as well as for the people. Moreover no one takes this honour to himself, but receives it, as Aaron did, being called of God. The epistle will speak farther on of the sacrifice-here of the person of the priest, and of the order of the priesthood.
So that Christ glorified not Himself to become a High Priest. The glory of His Person, manifested as man on the earth, and that of His function, are both of them plainly declared of God: the first, when He said, Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee (Psa 2:1-12); the second, in these words, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. (Psa 110:1-7) Such then in both personal and official glory is the High Priest , the expected Messiah, Christ.
But His glory (although it gives Him His place in honour before God, and consequent on redemption, so that He can undertake the peoples cause before God according to His will) does not bring Him near to the miseries of men. It is His history on earth which makes us feel how truly able He is to take part in them. In the days of his flesh, that is , here below, He went into all the anguish of death in dependence on God, making His request to Him who was able to save Him from it. For, being here in order to obey and to suffer, He did not save Himself. He submitted to everything, obeyed in everything, and depended on God for everything.
he was heard because of His fear. It was proper that He who took death on Himself, as answering for others, should feel its whole weight upon His soul. He would neither escape the consequences of that which He had undertaken (compare chapter 2), nor fail in the just sense of what it was thus to be under the hand of God in judgment. His fear was His piety, the right estimation of the position in which sinful man was found, an what must come from God because of it. For Him however to suffer the consequences of this position was obedience. And this obedience was to be perfect, and to be tried to the utmost.
He was the Son, the glorious Son of God. But thought this was so, He was to learn obedience (and to Him it was a new thing), what it was in the world, by all that He suffered. And, having deserved all glory, He was to take His place as the glorified Man-to be perfected; and in that position to become the cause of eternal salvation (not merely temporal deliverances) to them that obey Him; a salvation which taken in consequence of His work of obedience, saluted by God as High Priest after the order of Melchizedec.
That which follows to the end of chapter 6 is a parenthesis which refers to the condition of those to whom the epistle is addressed. They are blamed for the dullness of their spiritual intelligence, and encouraged at the same time by the promises of God; the whole with reference to their position as Jewish believers. Afterwards the line of instruction with regard to Melchizedec is again resumed.
For the time, they ought to have been able to teach: nevertheless they needed that some one should teach them the elements of the oracles of God-requiring mild instead of meat.
We may observe that there is no greater hindrance to progress in spiritual life and intelligence than attachment to an ancient form of religion, which, being traditional and not simply personal faith in the truth, consists always in ordinances, and is consequently carnal and earthly. Without this people may be unbelievers; but under the influence of such a system piety itself-expended in forms-makes a barrier between the would and the light of God: and these forms which surround, preoccupy, and hold the affections captive, prevent them from enlarging and becoming enlightened by means of divine revelation. Morally (as the apostle here expresses it) the senses are not exercised to discern both good and evil.
But the Holy Ghost will not limit Himself to the narrow circle and the weak and futile sentiments of human tradition, nor even to those truths which, in a state like this, one is able to receive. In such a case Christ has not His true place. And this our epistle here develops.
Milk belongs to babes, solid food to those who are of full age. This infancy was the souls condition under the ordinances and requirements of the law. (Compare Gal 4:1, seqq.) But there was a revelation of the Messiah in connection with these two states-of infancy and of manhood. And the development of the word of righteousness, of the true practical relationships of the soul to God according to His character and ways, was in proportion to the revelation of Christ, who is the manifestation of that character, and the center of all those ways. Therefore it is that, in Heb 5:12-13 the epistle speaks of the elements, the beginning , of the oracles of God, and of the work of righteousness; in Heb 6:1, of the word of the beginning, or of the first principles, of Christ.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
Heb 5:1-3. Every highpriest taken from among men is ordained for men. He is to officiate in all the hallowed services of the sanctuary, to offer the mincha, or oblations and gifts of thanksgiving, and sacrifices for sin, that the congregation might be set right with God. He must be perfect in body, and pure in mind: he must offer sacrifices for his own sin, and then for the sins of the people. He must be a prophet to instruct the ignorant, to reclaim those that are out of the way, and pray for the people. He must be a holy man, arrayed with the mitre, the ephod, the pectoral, and splendid robes, the better to designate the glory of which he was a figure. He must not be self-appointed, but taken from among men, and consecrated to the service of God.
Heb 5:4. No man taketh this honour to himself. In the Bangorian controversy, this text has been pressed to prove an uninterrupted succession of bishops from Christ to the present time! Bossuet has done more; he asserts an uninterrupted succession from Adam to Christ, and from Christ to us. In this manner dignified men amuse themselves. Suffice to say, that in Biblia Magna, not one of the learned critics have attempted to force any such gloss on this text. In what respects is G. Faber called of God, as was Aaron? Yet this person while a boy, unchristianised half the protestant world in a sermon before the university of Oxford, as having no gospel, and no sacraments for want of episcopasy!
Heb 5:5. So also Christ glorified not himself, but was designated of the Father to be the prophet, the priest, and prince of the whole human kind. Psa 2:7; Psa 110:4. In all these, and in every view, Christ was superior to Aaron, and to all his race. They were taken from the common mass of men, but Christ was nominated of the Father. Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. Thy throne, oh God, is for ever and ever. These declarations have no relation to the resurrection of Christ, farther than as a link in the chain of our salvation: the whole scene is anterior to his rising from the tomb.
The highpriest was to offer gifts and sacrifices. The words are plural, that the number might in some degree supply the defects, as the two goats adumbrated the death and the life of Christ better than one could do. But Christ by the one offering of himself on Calvary, once for all, hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified: they need no other sacrifice.
Aaron was a priest, chosen from among men, that he might have compassion on the ignorant. When sinners pray without a mediator, God will hide his face; one, and only one, must be heard for the people. But Christ ever liveth to make intercession; he prays with all the glory of his person, and the worth of his sacrifice. And being partaker of our infirmities, we can come boldly to the throne of grace through him.
We may farther observe, Aaron was a priest succeeded by others; but Christ has an unchangeable priesthood. The Lord has thus constituted him with an oath: Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec.
Heb 5:7-8. And was heard in that he feared. properly signifies reverence, piety, and obedience. So our apostle defines it in the next words, saying, though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience. It is also said, he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He offered up strong cries and tears, in the garden and on the cross, as it had been foretold. Psalm 22, 69. 88, 89. Through his obedience we obtain righteousness and eternal life.
Heb 5:10-14. After the order of Melchizedec, of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. See on Gen 14:18-20. And who but Paul could have said these things to the saints in Jerusalem? Who but Paul could have told the Hebrews that they were yet in a state of infancy, having need to be taught the first principles of the mysteries of godliness, and to be fed with milk? How futile are the socinian efforts to get rid of this most christian epistle, and to palm it upon some less conspicuous person. They have even the effrontery to say that it was written, like Peters letters, to the jews scattered abroad through proconsular Asia. Others contend that it was written to the jews in Spain, forgetful surely that he thanks them for having had compassion on him in his bonds. Oh reader, never, never give up Paul, and with him, all revelation, for their dry philosophy.
REFLECTIONS.
As the pearly drops of dew in a morning, irradiated with the rising sun, bespangle all the fields, so this epistle shows us the whole Leviticum irradiated with the glory and grace of the gospel. The foremost character in that ritual is the highpriest, a figure of Christ; who once softened Alexander in his career of conquest, and often turned away the wrath of God by the oblation of incense, and the sprinkling of blood. But this august character, sinful in himself, and imperfect in his service, could find no more than a mystical glory and temporary lustre with the Lord. The purity of the divine nature required an approach of perfection in the priesthood. Hence David in the spirit made a transition from Aaron to Christ, and saw him seated at the Fathers right hand, with his enemies under his feet; and a priest for ever unto God, after the order of Melchizedec, not of Aarons but of Judahs house. He resembled Aaron in tenderness, being touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
Our great Highpriest had compassion on the ignorant, and such as were out of the way; and his sole mission was to seek and to save the lost. He offered up strong cries and tears in the days of his flesh, more especially in the garden, and on the cross; and now he is entered into heaven to make intercession, and solicit our salvation on the ground of right. His oblation was not a bird, or a beast, but his own body, as a lamb without spot or blemish to redeem us to God. Oh how great is his glory, how high his service, and how great his worth. Well does the apostle gently reprove the Hebrews for being yet only as babes, who knew little of these adorable mysteries of our redemption.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Heb 5:1-10. The writer now approaches his main argument, that Christ is our all-sufficient High Priest. But before considering in detail the nature of Christs priestly ministry, he shows that He possesses in a supreme degree the two fundamental attributes of a High Priest. Since the duty of a High Priest is to act as mediator between God and man, he must, in the first place, be Divinely appointed (Heb 5:1), not arrogating the office to himself, but selected by God as His representative. In the second place, he must be taken from among men, and so be capable of a fellow-feeling with erring human nature (Heb 5:2). This second qualification is recognised in the Levitical law which requires him to offer sacrifice for himself as well as for the people (Heb 5:3). The first onethat he should be appointed by Godfinds expression in the law that he must be descended from the chosen stock of Aaron (Heb 5:4). It has been shown already that Christ, who shared our human weakness, possesses the one attribute of a High Priest; He also partakes of the other. For He was declared by God Himself to be His Son, so that all presumption on His own part is out of the question; and though not of the stock of Aaron, He belonged to a higher order of priesthood, the true significance of which is presently to be set forth (Heb 5:5 f., the quotations are taken from Psa 2:7; Psa 110:4). How little His priesthood had to do with any arrogant claim of His own is evident from His earthly life, and especially from His agony in Gethsemane. In the light of that episode we can see how He was inspired solely by a spirit of absolute obedience. He prayed to God, who was able to deliver Him from death, and His prayer was heard; yet He submitted His will to Gods will. Although Son of God, He endured the appointed suffering, and so disciplined Himself to full obedience, with the result that He became a perfect High Priest, the mediator of a perfect salvation. His calling was wholly of God, who made Him a unique High Priest, of the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:7-10).
Heb 5:7. heard for his godly fear: another interpretation is possible, He was heard so as to be delivered from His feari.e. God so far granted His prayer as to free Him from the fear of death, though not from death itself. But the translation of the RV is more in keeping with the thought of the passage. He was heard because He put the will of God before His own It seems to be suggested that an escape from death was offered Him in answer to His prayer, but that He refused it and chose the way of obedience.
With the words a priest after the order of Melchizedek the writer at last reaches his main theme; but he pauses before commencing it in order to make room for a solemn admonition (Heb 5:11 to Heb 6:20). He asks himself whether his readers will be able to understand the high spiritual doctrine which he proposes to impart to them. In spite of the long period that has elapsed since their conversion they are still backward, in need of instruction in the mere elements of religious truth (Heb 5:12). Those who are still children in regard to things Divine can make nothing of the profounder Christian teaching. It makes its appeal to those whose higher perceptions have been fully awakened by diligent use (Heb 5:14).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
“For every High Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” The apostle of course refers to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons, which is typical of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus, and first noted are some definite comparisons. Being ordained for men in things pertaining to God indicates a provision from God’s hand to care for man’s interests as regards his relationship with Cod. The offering of gifts and sacrifices for sins was the chief work of the high priest. These things are preeminently true of Christ. But comparison ends here, for Aaron’s priesthood was for earth alone and the offering of his sacrifices only of a temporary formal value; while in contrast Christ’s priesthood is eternal, and the value of His work eternal.
“Who can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way.” is we know blessedly true of our Lord, and infinitely more so than any earthly priest. But here again comparison ends, for of Aaron and his family it is said: “he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.” Aaron was to sympathize with the people because his nature was the same, and his offerings were as necessary for himself as for them. The sympathy of our Lord is rather the result of His omniscient wisdom and of His lowly humiliation in voluntary suffering and death, – entering into our circumstances in pure grace. Wondrous contrast indeed! And His sympathy is more full and pure than could be that of the most tenderhearted son of Aaron.
“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” It is God exclusively who decides who is fitted for this place of holy mediation between God and man. Man has not an iota of choice in this appointment. In human affairs, it is common that both sides in reference to any discussion, must agree as to a mediator, but in this matter God alone can be trusted to make the proper appointment, and He reserves this to Himself.
“So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee.” This appointment too is fully of God, but it is not mere external appointment. The very announcement by God at His birth, declaring the proper Personal glory of His Son, implies that in Person He is essentially God’s High Priest. There is nothing similar to this in Aaron. No personal attributes had the slightest bearing on his priesthood, which was continued by mere natural succession.
Here however we must distinguish between official appointments and that which our Lord is by nature. Some have insisted that Christ was not an high priest on earth, assuming this from Ch. 8:4. But there he speaks of official priesthood, which on earth was confined to the sons of Aaron. In this the Lord Jesus could have no part. Yet our present verse is plain to the effect that in Person He was priest by the very fact of His incarnation. When God announced Him as His Son, this was actually glorifying Him as High Priest. But it was not yet official appointment, which must be necessarily of a character far higher than Aaronic priesthood,- not earthly, but heavenly.
This is now referred to in verse 6, which is the actual official announcement of His High Priesthood: “Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” This is a quotation from Psa 110:4, which must have awakened the wonder of any godly Jew who read it. For Melchisedec was a priest long before Aaron, and though only briefly mentioned in history (Gen 14:1-24), yet the evident approval of God was upon that history: he was “priest of the Most High God.” Here was an order independent of Aaron, and previous to Aaron, yet an order that had no place in the nation Israel on earth. Wonderful indeed is the reason for this, for this man was typical of, not an earthly, but a heavenly priesthood, which is fully entered into by our Lord only in His resurrection.
For verses 8 and 9 most beautifully show that in His earthly path He assumed no official place whatever, but rather a place of lowliest humiliation: “Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him Who was able to save Him from (or ‘out of’) death, and was heard in that He feared. Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.”
All of this is the blessed moral proof of His Person as One fully qualified for an eternal Priesthood. The verses are transcendently lovely in showing that He was really (if not officially) the High Priest of God, for He offered up prayers and supplications, – a true priestly work. Indeed, Heb 7:27 also speaks of His sacrifice on Calvary as a Priestly work: “He offered up Himself,”-not a work required because of official position, but the willing outflow of His own nature of pure love and grace.
But further, was not all His earthly path one of godly preparation and proof as regards His qualifications for an eternal priesthood? His ability to take the lowest place in suffering, in faithful dependence upon the living God, even unto death, has marvelously proven Him worthy of the highest exaltation, worthy to receive, beyond the reach of death, an unchangeable priesthood.
Thus, He was saved “out of death,” not saved from dying, but in resurrection saved out of that state to which His unselfish devotion had willingly descended. His prayers were heard because of His unswerving piety and devotion to God, and He was raised from the dead in righteousness. None other could fulfill such blessed qualifications: this is the Priest we need, Him whose intercession with God can never fail, He who has learned in experience what obedience really means, – learned this by the things which He suffered. “Though He were a Son,” and therefore in a place of dignity and glory, accustomed to command, yet He has taken the place of Servant, learning experimentally the true character of obedience, in suffering; and moreover an obedience exquisitely perfect. Wonderful grace! wonderful condescension on the part of the Lord of Glory!
And having been perfected, became to all that obey Him Author of eternal salvation; addressed by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.” This will be seen to compare with Ch. 2:10: “perfected through sufferings” This experience in suffering was necessary to qualify Him perfectly as the Author of eternal salvation; and in resurrection this preparatory rigorous experience is seen to have been perfectly completed in every respect. His accomplishing of eternal salvation too is on behalf of “all that obey Him” His obedience is the pattern of theirs. This includes all believers. It does not mean that they obey Him in every detail, but rather that, in submission of heart they yield to Him “the obedience of faith:” it is in other words the proper character of every believer to obey. Certainly a believer ought to be true to character in everything; but this is his character.
Verse 10 therefore is the definite salutation of God in appointing Him to His present exalted place of High Priest, an eternal appointment according to the order of Melchisedec. Here is an office unchangeable, not passing to another, never to be shared with another, and hence in infinite contrast to the office of Aaron.
“Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.” The very brevity of Melchisedec’s history (in Gen 14:1-24) and the lone comment of Psa 110:4 (“Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec”) should surely have stirred the exercise of every godly Jew with desire to know the reason for this. And ought not every Scripture stir our own hearts with longing to know the mind of God in it? But just as it was hard to interpret these things to the Hebrews, so often we find interpretation too difficult. And why? Simply because of dullness of hearing.
The apostle will go on to speak of Melchisedec in ch. 7; but first he must deal with this affliction that so prevents our glad reception of the precious truth of God. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (or solid food). Among many of the Gentiles to whom Paul preached there had been far more healthy response and growth than among Jewish believers in their own land. Earthly aspirations and national pride were no small hindrance to spiritual growth: the mind set in the wrong direction will have its dulling effect upon sight and hearing. At least they ought to have been able to teach fundamental principles of the grace of God, but had relapsed to a point of needing such teaching themselves. Let saints of God take this to heart today, and he prepared for the “solid food” of the Word of God.
“For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food belongeth to them who are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” It should be only briefly that we are confined to elementary principles, as a babe must be for a time confined to milk. Not that we should ever lose our taste for “the sincere milk of the Word” (1Pe 2:2), for even the simplest things require constant exercise and spiritual digestion; but there must be the addition of good solid food to produce proper growth and strength. This calls for skill in the use of the Word of God, and healthy exercise of the senses in discerning between principles of good and evil. It is no mere mental stimulus or progress, but a moral and spiritual condition that is not dormant, but subject to the stirring of soul-exercise.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 1
The meaning is, that every human high priest is ordained for the service and benefit of men in respect to their religious duties.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
4 Christ’s Sufferings and Call to Priesthood
(Heb 5:1-10)
The apostle has shown us the sphere in which the priesthood of Christ is exercised – the House of God – and the circumstances of His people which require His priestly service – the wilderness journey. Now he unfolds to us the sufferings that Christ passed through in view of His priestly service and the call to the priestly office.
(Vv. 1-4). To develop the blessedness of the priesthood of Christ, the apostle refers in these verses to the Aaronic priesthood as setting forth general principles as to priestly service. At the same time he shows by contrast the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron.
We must definitely recognise that these four verses refer, not to Christ and His heavenly priesthood, but to Aaron and the earthly priesthood. The apostle calls attention to the person of the earthly priest, the work of the priest, the experiences of the priest, and the appointment of the priest.
As to his person, the high priest is taken from among men. This is in striking contrast with the priesthood of Christ. Truly Christ is Man, but He is much more. The writer has borne witness, and will yet do so, that the Christ who is our High Priest is none less than the Eternal Son.
As to His work, the earthly priest is established for man in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, and exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and the erring. Here there is the shadowing forth of the priestly service of Christ. As the High Priest He acts on behalf of men – the many sons that He is bringing to glory – to keep them from failing and maintain them in a practical walk with God. Christ has offered gifts and sacrifices for sins to bring His people into relationship with God, and having accomplished the great work that removed their sins, He now exercises His priestly work in intercession, sympathy and succour on behalf of His ignorant and erring people.
As to the personal experiences of the earthly priest, we read, He himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Here there is partial analogy, and definite contrast, to the priesthood of Christ. It is true that, in the days of His flesh, Christ was found in circumstances of weakness and infirmity; but, in contrast with Aaron, His was sinless infirmity, therefore it could not be said that for Himself He offered for sins.
As to the appointment of the earthly priest, No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Here again there is an analogy, as we are at once reminded, to the priesthood of Christ. No one can truly take the place of priest, in any sense of the word, that is not called of God. The intense solemnity of neglecting this great truth is seen in the judgment that overtook Korah and those associated with him, who sought to establish themselves in the priesthood without being called of God. Jude warns us that in Christendom there will be many who in like manner will appoint themselves priests without the call of God, and will perish in the gainsaying of Core (Num 16:3; Num 16:7; Num 16:10; Jud 1:11).
Here, then, we have the character of the earthly priesthood according to the mind of God, and not as illustrated in the history of failing Israel, which ends with two wicked men filling the place of high priest at the same time, and conspiring together to crucify their Messiah.
(Vv. 5, 6). With verse 5 the writer passes to speak of Christ as High Priest. He brings before us the greatness of His Person as called to be a Priest, the experiences He passed through in order to take the position of Priest, and the appointment of God to this place of service.
The glory of His Person. Christ, who is called to be our great High Priest, is truly taken from among men to exercise His priesthood on behalf of men. Nevertheless, in Manhood He is recognised as the Son: Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee. It is this glorious Person – the One who is truly God and truly Man, and in whom Godhead and Manhood are perfectly expressed – who is appointed Priest according to the word, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. As to the character of this order of priesthood, the apostle will have more to say. Here Psa 110:4 is quoted to show not only the greatness of the Priest but the dignity of the priesthood.
(Vv. 7, 8). In the verses that follow, we learn the experiences that Christ passed through in order that He might exercise His priestly service. How necessary that He should be the glorious Person that He is – the Son – to exercise the High Priesthood in heaven. But more was needed. If He is to succour His people through their wilderness journey, He Himself must enter into the sorrows and difficulties of the way. At once, then, the apostle recalls the days of His flesh when He took part in our infirmities, trod the path that we are treading, faced the same temptations that we have to meet, and was encompassed with like infirmities. The writer especially refers to the closing sufferings of the Lord, when the enemy, who, as one has said, at the outset had sought to seduce Jesus by offering Him the things that are agreeable to man (Luke 4), was presenting himself against Him with terrible things (J.N.D.). In Gethsemane the enemy sought to turn the Lord from the path of obedience by pressing upon Him the terror of death. In the presence of this assault the Lord acts as the perfect Man. He did not exercise His divine power and drive the devil away or save Himself from death; but as the perfectly dependent Man He found His resource in prayer, and thus met the trial and overcame the devil. Nevertheless, His very perfection as Man led Him to feel the terror of all that was before Him and to express His feelings in strong crying and tears. He met the trial in perfect dependence upon God who was able to save Him out of death.
In all this sore trial He was heard because of His piety, which brought God into every circumstance by dependence and confidence in Him. He was heard inasmuch as He was strengthened in physical weakness, and enabled in spirit to submit to taking the cup from the Father’s hand. Thus He overcame the power of Satan, and though He were Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. We have to learn obedience because we have a wicked will: He because He was God over all, who from eternity had ever commanded. We oftentimes learn obedience by the suffering we bring upon ourselves through disobedience: He learned obedience by the suffering entailed through His obedience to the will of God. He learned by experience what it cost to obey. No suffering, however intense, could move Him from the path of perfect obedience. Another has said, He submitted to everything, obeyed in everything, and depended upon God for everything (J.N.D.).
The sufferings to which the apostle refers were in the days of His flesh, not the day of His death. At the cross He suffered under the wrath of God, and there He must be alone. None can share or enter into His atoning sufferings. In the Garden He suffered from the power of the enemy, and there others are associated with Him. We can in our little measure share these sufferings when tempted by the devil, and so doing we have all the sympathy and support of the One who has suffered before us.
(Vv. 9, 10). Moreover, not only was He heard in the Garden, but, having suffered, He is also heard in resurrection and is made perfect in glory. He takes His place as the glorified Man, according to His own words, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today, and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected (Luk 13:32). Nothing could add to the perfection of His Person, but having passed through the sufferings of the days of His flesh, having accomplished the work of the cross, and having been raised and glorified, He is perfectly fitted to exercise His service on behalf of the many sons on their way to glory. Being perfected, He is addressed by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec. In incarnation He is called to take up the Melchisedec priesthood (verse 5); when risen and perfected in glory, He is addressed as having taken up the calling (verse 10, N.Tn.).
5 The Spiritual Condition of the Hebrew Believers
(Heb 5:11 – Heb 6:20)
The great object of the apostle in this portion of the Epistle is to develop the blessed character of the priesthood of Christ. Having referred to the Melchisedec priesthood to show by analogy the dignity of the priesthood of Christ, the apostle breaks off the thread of his discourse to resume it again at the beginning of Hebrews 7.
In these parenthetical verses the apostle refers to the spiritual state of those to whom he is writing. Their dull condition of soul exposed them to a serious difficulty and a grave danger. The difficulty was that they were unable to interpret the Old Testament figures. This is referred to in Heb 5:11 to Heb 6:1-3. The danger was that in their low condition some might give up the profession of Christianity and turn back to Judaism. This danger is developed in Heb 6:4-8. The remaining verses of the parenthesis express the apostle’s confidence and hope concerning those to whom he is writing (Heb 6:9-20).
The Hindrance to Spiritual Intelligence
(Heb 5:11-14; Heb 6:1-3)
(Vv. 11-13). Those to whom the apostle was writing were not simply ignorant of the truth, nor young in the faith – things that would not necessarily make it difficult to understand the teaching of Scripture. The real difficulty was they had become dull of hearing. Their spiritual growth had been arrested. The time had come when they should have been teachers. Alas! they needed to be again taught the elementary truths of the beginning of the oracles of God.
They had become such as had need of milk instead of solid food. The apostle does not at all slight the use of milk; but he says, If milk is the proper diet, it is a clear proof that the soul is spiritually a babe, needing to be established in the righteousness of God.
(V. 14). The stronger food – the full truth of Christianity into which the apostle desires to lead us – belongs to the full-grown Christian, the one who is established in the position in which the righteousness of God has placed him as a son before God. Such, instead of being dull of hearing, have their senses exercised to distinguish both good and evil.
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
5:1 For {1} every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things [pertaining] to God, {2} that he may offer both {a} gifts and {b} sacrifices for sins:
(1) The first part of the first comparison of Christ’s high priesthood with Aaron’s: Other high priests are taken from among men, and are called after the order of men.
(2) The first part of the second comparison: Others though weak, are made high priests, to the end that feeling the same infirmity in themselves which is in all the rest of the people, they should in their own and the peoples name offer gifts and sacrifices, which are witnesses of common faith and repentance.
(a) Offering of things without life.
(b) Beasts which were killed, but especially in the sacrifices for sins and offences.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
To qualify for the high priesthood in Israel one had to be a man. He also had to stand between God and people as their representative before Him. His services included presenting gifts (offerings) of worship and sacrifices for sin.
"Although it would be natural to distinguish between dora, ’gifts’ (i.e., peace and cereal offerings), and thysiai, ’sacrifices’ (i.e., the sin and trespass offerings), in later statements in the OT all sacrifices pertain to the procuring of atonement and the removal of sin (cf. Eze 45:15-17). The bloody offerings for the Day of Atonement are in the foreground of the discussion of the sacrificial ministry of the Levitical high priest here and elsewhere in Hebrews (cf. Heb 7:27; Heb 10:4; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:26)." [Note: Lane, p. 116.]
Exo 28:1; Exo 28:3; Exo 29:1 stressed that the high priest was appointed for God, but in this verse the writer said that he was appointed for men. Both statements are true.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
6
CHAPTER IV.
THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST.
“Having then a great High-priest, Who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high-priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need. For every high-priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron. So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a High-priest, but He that spake unto Him,
Thou art My Son, This day have I begotten Thee:
as He saith also in another place,
Thou art a Priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.
Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and having been heard for His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became unto all them that obey Him the Author of eternal salvation; named of God a High-priest after the order of Melchizedek.”– Heb 4:14-16; Heb 5:1-10 (R.V.)
The results already gained are such as these: that the Son, through Whom God has spoken unto us, is a greater Person than the angels; that Jesus, Whom the Apostle and the Hebrew Christians acknowledge to be Son of God, is the representative Man, endowed, as such, with kingly authority; that the Son of God became man in order that He might be constituted High-priest to make reconciliation for sin; and, finally, that all the purposes of God revealed in the Old Testament, though they have hitherto been accomplished but partially, will not fall to the ground, and will remain in higher forms under the Gospel.
The writer gathers these threads to a head in Heb 4:14. The high-priest still remains. If we have the high-priest, we have all that is of lasting worth in the old covenant. For the idea of the covenant is reconciliation with God, and this is embodied and symbolised in the high-priest, inasmuch as he alone entered within the veil on the day of atonement. Having the high-priest in a greater Person, we have all the blessings of the covenant restored to us in a better form. The Epistle to the Hebrews is intended to encourage and comfort men who have lost their all. Judaism was in its death-throes. National independence had already ceased. When the Apostle was writing, the eagles were gathering around the carcase. But when all is lost, all is regained if we “have” the High-priest.
The secret of His abiding for ever is His own greatness. He is a great High-priest; for He has entered into the immediate presence of God, not through the Temple veil, but through the very heavens. In Heb 8:1 the Apostle declares this to be the head and front of all he has said: “We have such an High-priest” as He must be “Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” He is a great High-priest because He is a Priest on a throne. As the representative Man, Jesus is crowned. His glory is kingly. But the glory bestowed on the Man as King has brought Him into the audience-chamber of God as High-priest. The kingship of Jesus, to Whom all creation is subjected, and Who sits above all creation, has made His priestly service effectual. His exaltation is much more than a reward for His redemptive sufferings. He entered the heaven of God as the sanctuary of which He is Minister. For if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, seeing that He is not of the order of Aaron, to which the earthly priesthood belongs according to the Law.[64] But Christ is not entered into the holy place made with hands, but into the very heaven, now to be manifested before the face of God for us.[65] The Apostle has said that Christ is Son over the house of God. He is also High-priest over the house of God, having authority over it in virtue of His priesthood for it, and administering His priestly functions effectually through His kingship.[66]
The entire structure of the Apostle’s inferences rests on the twofold argument of the first two chapters. Jesus Christ is a great High-priest; that is, King and High-priest in one, because He unites in His own person Son of God and Son of man.
One is tempted to find an intentional antithesis between the awe-inspiring description of the word of God in the previous verse and the tender language of the verse that follows. Is the word a living, energising power? The High-priest too is living and powerful, great and dwelling above the heavens. Does the word pierce to our innermost being? The High-priest sympathises with our weaknesses, or, in the beautiful paraphrase of the English Version, “is touched with a feeling of our infirmities.” Does the word judge? The High-priest can be equitable, inasmuch as He has been tempted like as we are tempted, and that without sin.[67]
On the last-mentioned point much might be said. He was tempted to sin, but withstood the temptation. He had true and complete humanity, and human nature, as such and alone, is capable of sin. Shall we, therefore, admit that Jesus was capable of sin? But He was Son of God. Christ was Man, but not a human Person. He was a Divine Person, and therefore absolutely and eternally incapable of sin; for sin is the act and property of a person, not of a mere nature apart from the persons who have that nature. Having assumed humanity, the Divine person of the Son of God was truly tempted, like as we are. He felt the power of the temptation, which appealed in every case, not to a sinful lust, but to a sinless want and natural desire. But to have yielded to Satan and satisfied a sinless appetite at his suggestion would have been a sin. It would argue want of faith in God. Moreover, He strove against the tempter with the weapons of prayer and the word of God. He conquered by His faith. Far from lessening the force of the trial, His being Son of God rendered His humanity capable of being tempted to the very utmost limit of all temptation. We dare not say that mere man would certainly have yielded to the sore trials that beset Jesus. But we do say that mere man would never have felt the temptation so keenly. Neither did His Divine greatness lessen His sympathy. Holy men have a wellspring of pity in their hearts, to which ordinary men are total strangers. The infinitely holy Son of God had infinite pity. These are the sources of His power to succour the tempted,–the reality of His temptations as He was Son of man, the intensity of them as He was Son of God, and the compassion of One Who was both Son of God and Son of man.
Our author is wont to break off suddenly and intersperse his arguments with affectionate words of exhortation. He does so here. It is still the same urgent command: Do not let go the anchor. Hold fast your profession of Christ as Son of God and Son of man, as Priest and King. Let us draw nearer, and that boldly, unto this great High-priest, Who is enthroned on the mercy-seat, that we may obtain the pity which, in our sense of utter helplessness, we seek, and find more than we seek or hope for, even His grace to help us. Only linger not till it be too late. His aid must be sought in time.[68] “Today” is still the call.
Pity and helping grace, sympathy and authority–in these two excellences all the qualifications of a high-priest are comprised. It was so under the old covenant. Every high-priest was taken from among men that he might sympathise, and was appointed by God that he might have authority to act on behalf of men.
1. The high-priest under the Law is himself beset by the infirmities of sinful human nature, the infirmities at least for which alone the Law provides a sacrifice, sins of ignorance and inadvertence.[69] Thus only can he form a fair and equitable judgment[70] when men go astray. The thought wears the appearance of novelty. No use is apparently made of it in the Old Testament. The notion of the high-priest’s Divine appointment overshadowed that of his human sympathy. His sinfulness is acknowledged, and Aaron is commanded to offer sacrifice for himself and for the sins of the people.[71] But the author of this Epistle states the reason why a sinful man was made high-priest. He has told us that the Law was given through angels. But no angel interposed as high-priest between the sinner and God. Sympathy would be wanting to the angel. But the very infirmity that gave the high-priest his power of sympathy made sacrifice necessary for the high-priest himself. This was the fatal defect. How can he bestow forgiveness who must seek the like forgiveness?
In the case of the great High-priest, Jesus the Son of God, the end must be sought in another way. He is not so taken from the stock of humanity as to be stained with sin. He is not one of many men, any one of whom might have been chosen. On the contrary, He is holy, innocent, stainless, separated in character and position before God from the sinners around Him.[72] He has no need to offer sacrifice for any sin of His own, but only for the sins of the people; and this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law makes mere men, beset with sinful infirmity, priests; but the word of the oath makes the Son Priest, Who has been perfected for His office for ever.[73] In this respect He bears no resemblance to Aaron. Yet God did not leave His people without a type of Jesus in this complete separateness. The Psalmist speaks of Him as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and concerning Christ as the Melchizedek Priest the Apostle has more to say hereafter.[74]
The question returns, How, then, can the Son of God sympathise with sinful man? He can sympathise with our sinless infirmities because He is true Man. But that He, the sinless One, may be able to sympathise with sinful infirmities, He must be made sin for us and face death as a sin-offering. The High-priest Himself becomes the sacrifice which He offers. Special trials beset Him. His life on earth is pre-eminently “days of the flesh,”[75] so despised is He, a very Man of sorrows. When He could not acquire the power of sympathy by offering atonement for Himself, because He needed it not, He offered prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears to Him Who was able to save Him out of death. But why the strong cries and bitter weeping? Can we suppose for a moment that He was only afraid of physical pain? Or did He dread the shame of the Cross? Our author elsewhere says that He despised it. Shall we say that Jesus Christ had less moral courage than Socrates or His own martyr-servant, St. Ignatius? At the same time, let us confine ourselves strictly to the words of Scripture, lest by any gloss of our own we ascribe to Christ’s death what is required by the exigencies of a ready-made theory. “Being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly; and His sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.”[76] Is this the attitude of a martyr? The Apostle himself explains it. “Though He was a Son,” to Whom obedience to His Father’s command that He should lay down His life was natural and joyful, yet He learned His obedience, special and peculiar as it was, by the things which He suffered.[77] He was perfecting Himself to be our High-priest. By these acts of priestly offering He was rendering Himself fit to be the sacrifice offered. Because there was in His prayers and supplications, in His crying and weeping, this element of entire self-surrender to His Father’s will, which is the truest piety,[78] His prayers were heard. He prayed to be delivered out of His death. He prayed for the glory which He had with His Father before the world was. At the same time He piously resigned Himself to die as a sacrifice, and left it to God to decide whether He would raise Him from death or leave His soul in Hades. Because of this perfect self-abnegation, His sacrifice was complete; and, on the other hand, because of the same entire self-denial, God did deliver Him out of death and made Him an eternal Priest. His prayers were not only heard, but became the foundation and beginning of His priestly intercession on behalf of others.
2. The second essential qualification of a high-priest was authority to act for men in things pertaining to God, and in His name to absolve the penitent sinner. Prayer was free to all God’s people and even to the stranger that came out of a far country for the sake of the God of Israel’s name. But guilt, by its very nature, involves the need, not merely of reconciling the sinner, but primarily of reconciling God. Hence the necessity of a Divine appointment. For how can man bring his sacrifice to God or know that God has accepted it unless God Himself appoints the mediator and through him pronounces the sinner absolved? It is true, if man only is to be reconciled, a Divinely appointed prophet will be enough, who will declare God’s fatherly love and so remove the sinner’s unbelief and slay his enmity. But the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that God appoints a high-priest. This of itself is fatal to the theory that God needs not to be reconciled. In the sense of having this Divine authorization, the priestly office is here said to be an honour, which no man takes upon himself, but accepts when called thereunto by God.[79]
How does this apply to the great High-priest Who has passed through the heavens? He also glorified not Himself to become High-priest. The Apostle has changed the word.[80] To Aaron it was an honour to be high-priest. He was authorized to act for God and for men. But to Christ it was more than an honour, more than an external authority conferred upon Him. It was part of the glory inseparable from His Sonship. He Who said to Him, “Thou art My Son,” made Him thereby potentially High-priest. His office springs from His personality, and is not, as in the case of Aaron, a prerogative superadded. The author has cited the second Psalm in a previous passage[81] to prove the kingly greatness of the Son, and here again he cites the same words to describe His priestly character. His priesthood is not “from men,” and, therefore, does not pass away from Him to others; and this eternal, independent priesthood of Christ is typified in the king-priest Melchizedek. Before He began to act in His priestly office God said to Him, “Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” When He has been perfected and learned His obedience[82] by the things which He suffered, God still addresses Him as a High-priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
FOOTNOTES:
[64] Heb 8:4.
[65] Heb 9:24.
[66] Cf. Heb 10:21.
[67] Heb 4:15
.
[68] eukairon (Heb 4:16).
[69] Heb 5:1-2.
[70] metriopathein.
[71] Lev 16:6.
[72] Heb 7:26.
[73] Heb 7:28.
[74] Heb 5:10-11.
[75] Heb 5:7.
[76] Luk 22:44. The genuineness of the verse is not quite certain.
[77] Cf. Joh 10:18.
[78] apo ts eulabeias (Heb 5:7).
[79] Heb 5:4.
[80] timn (Heb 5:4); edoxasen (Heb 5:5).
[81] Heb 1:5.
[82] tn hypakon (Heb 5:8).