Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 5:4
And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron.
4. this honour ] i.e. this honourable office. We have here the second Qualification for Priesthood. A man’s own caprice must not be the Bishop which ordains him. He must be conscious of a divine call.
but he that is called of God ] Rather, “but on being called by God,” or “when he is called by God.” Great stress is laid on this point in Scripture (Exo 28:1). Any “stranger that cometh nigh” i.e. that intruded unbidden into the Priesthood was to be put to death (Num 3:10). The fate of Korah and his company (Num 16:40), and of Uzziah, king though he was (2Ch 26:18-21), served as a terrible warning, and it was recorded as a special aggravation of Jeroboam’s impiety that “he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi” (1Ki 12:31). In one of the Jewish Midra-shim, Moses says to Korah “if Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him; “but God gave it to him.” Some have supposed that the writer here reflects obliquely upon the High Priests of that day alien Saddu-cees, not descended from Aaron (Jos. Antt. xx. 10) who had been introduced into the Priesthood from Babylonian families by Herod the Great, and who kept the highest office, with frequent changes, as a sort of apanage of their own families the Boethusim, the Kantheras, the Kamhits, the Beni-Hanan. For the characteristics of these Priests, who completely degraded the dignity in the eyes of the people, see my Life of Christy ii. 330, 342. In the energetic maledictions pronounced upon them in more than one passage of the Talmud, they are taunted with not being true sons of Aaron. But it is unlikely that the writer should make this oblique allusion. He was an Alexandrian; he was not writing to the Hebrews of Jerusalem; and these High Priests had been in possession of the office for more than half a century.
as was Aaron ] The original is more emphatic “exactly as even Aaron was” (Numbers 16-18). The true Priest must be a divinely-appointed Aaron, not a self-constituted Korah.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And no man taketh this honor to himself – No one has a right to enter on this office unless he has the qualifications which God has prescribed. There were fixed and definite laws in regard to the succession in the office of the high priest, and to the qualifications of him who should hold the office.
But he that is called of God as was Aaron – Aaron was designated by name. It was necessary that his successors should have as clear evidence that they were called of God to the office, as though they had been mentioned by name. The manner in which the high priest was to succeed to the office was designated in the Law of Moses, but in the time of Paul these rules were little regarded. The office had become venal, and was conferred at pleasure by the Roman rulers. Still it was true that according to the Law, to which alone Paul here refers, no one might hold this office but he who had the qualifications which Moses prescribed, and which showed that he was called of God. We may remark here:
(1) That this does not refer so much to an internal, as to an external call. He was to have the qualifications prescribed in the Law – but it is not specified that he should be conscious of an internal call to the office, or be influenced by the Holy Spirit to it. Such a call was, doubtless, in the highest degree desirable, but it was not prescribed as an essential qualification.
(2) This has no reference to the call to the work of the Christian ministry, and should not be applied to it. It should not be urged as a proof-text to show that a minister of the gospel should have a call directly from God, or that he should be called according to a certain order of succession. The object of Paul is not to state this – whatever may be the truth on this point. His object is, to show that the Jewish high priest was called of God to his office in a certain way, showing that he held the appointment from God, and that therefore it was necessary that the Great High Priest of the Christian profession should be called in a similar manner. To this alone the comparison should be understood as applicable.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Heb 5:4-6
No man taketh this honour unto himself.
The ministerial calling from God
A calling is most requisite in all things we take in hand, especially in the ministry. Who will meddle with the sheep of a man unless he be called to it? and shall we meddle with Christs sheep without a calling? As for our calling.
1. It is of God. We have Gods seal to our calling, because He hath furnished us in some measure with gifts for it.
2. We are called by the Church, which, by imposition of hands representing Gods hand, hath separated us to this office. Let every one be assured of his calling. A lamentable thing to consider, what a number of intruders there be that have thrust themselves into this holy calling. In Jeroboams time every one that would consecrate himself became one of the priests of the high places. Shall we have them to make cloth that have no skill in clothing? Will any make him his shepherd that knows not what belongs to sheep? And wilt thou deliver Christs sheep into the hands of a blind and ignorant shepherd? Wilt thou have him to build thy house that hath no skill in building? Wilt thou make him the schoolmaster of thy child that hath no learning? But any is good enough for the ministry. If men did look as well to the charge as to the dignity of the office; if Onus were as well considered as Bonus, men would not make such haste to it as they do. They watch over the souls of the people, as they that must give an account. The day of taking in our profits is sweet, but the counting day will be terrible, when Christ will require every lost sheep at our hands. Therefore let none take this honour to himself, but see that he be called of God, as Aaron was. (W. Jones, D. D.)
Order in ecclesiastical institution
In human doings and human productions we see everywhere manifestations of order. Well-ordered stones make architecture; well-ordered social regulations make a constitution and a police; well-ordered ideas make good logic; well-ordered words make good writing; well-ordered imaginations and emotions make good poetry; well-ordered facts make science. Disorder, on the ether hand, makes nothing at all, but un-makes everything. Stones in disorder produce ruins; an ill-ordered social condition is decline, revolution, or anarchy; ill-ordered ideas are absurdity; ill-ordered words are neither sense nor grammar; ill-ordered imaginations and emotions are madness; ill-ordered facts are chaos. (J. S. Blackie.)
The ministerial office
I. Here let us first learn THAT BOTH IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MAN WITHOUT A CALLING TO TAKE UPON HIM THE MINISTRY; NEITHER YET ANY CALLING OUGHT TO BE, WHICH IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF GOD: for, seeing the ministry is honourable, and he is justly honoured that executeth it faithfully, how can I exalt myself, but of right I ought again to be brought low, and instead of glory, have shame? For what do I in this but rob Christ of His glory, who is Head of His Church, and appointeth ministers whom He will, who ruleth in the house of Jacob, and ordaineth officers at His own pleasure? If in an earthly kingdom subjects would presume to take offices at their own choice, were it not extreme confusion, utter reproach and shame unto the prince? How much more to bring this confusion into the Church of Christ?
II. THE SECOND THING TO BE LEARNED IN THESE WORDS IS THAT WE HAVE ALL SUCH A CALLING AS WE MAY BE SURE IT IS OF GOD; FOR WE MUST BE CALLED OF GOD, AS AARON WAS. No minister ought to be called in the Church but he whose calling may be known to be of God. Hereof I may first conclude, touching the person of the minister: that because in all places, by the prophets, by the apostles, by our Saviour Christ, God always requireth that His ministers be of good report, well grounded in faith, able to teach His people; therefore if ignorant men, and not able to teach, be chosen unto this office, I dare boldly affirm it, their calling is not allowed of God. Now, touching the office whereunto God appointeth the ministers of His gospel, is it not this: to preach His Word, and minister Sacraments? Other governors of His Church, are they not for the peoples obedience unto this Word, and for provision of the poor? (E. Deering, B. D.)
Of the honour and function of the high priest
It here declareth that the high priests function was an honourable function, which is thus manifested.
1. The solemn manner of inaugurating, or setting them apart thereto Exo 29:1).
2. His glorious apparel (Exo 28:1-43.).
3. The great retinue that attended him: as all sorts of Levites, together with sundry inferior priests (Num 3:9; Num 8:19).
4. The liberal provision made for him out of the meat-offerings, sacrifices, firstfruits, tenths, and other oblations (Lev 2:3; Lev 5:13; Lev 7:6; Deu 18:3).
5. The difficult cases that were referred to him.
6. The obedience that was to be yielded to him.
7. The punishment to be inflicted on such as rebelled against him Deu 17:8-10, &c.).
8. The sacred services which they performed, as to be for men in things pertaining to God: to offer up what was brought to God (verse 1), and to do other particulars set clown (Heb 2:11). In such honourable esteem were high priests, as kings thought them fit matches for their daughters 2Ch 22:11).
9. The west principal honour intended under this word was that the high priest, by virtue of his calling, was a kind of mediator between God and man. For he declared the answer of the Lord to man, and offered up sacrifices to God for man. (W. George.)
Of the honour of the ministerial calling
1. Their Master is the great Lord of heaven and of earth. If it be an honour to be an especial minister of a mortal king, what is it to be the minister of such a Lord?
2. Their place is to be in the room of God, even in His stead–ambassadors for Him (2Co 5:20).
3. Their work is to declare Gods counsel (Act 20:17).
4. Their end is to perfect the saints (Eph 4:12).
5. Their reward is greater than of others (Dan 12:3). Thus hath the Lord honoured this function that it might be the better respected, and prove more profitable. Ministers in regard of their persons are as other men, of like passions with them, and subject to manifold infirmities, which would cause disrespect were it not for the honour of their function. (W. George.)
Divine designation
I. IT IS AN ACT OF SOVEREIGNTY IN GOD, TO CALL WHOM HE PLEASETH UNTO HIS WORK AND ESPECIAL SERVICE; AND EMINENTLY SO WHEN IT IS UNTO ANY PLACE OF HONOUR AND DIGNITY IN HIS HOUSE.
1. Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction.
2. Because, antecedently unto their call, there is nothing of merit in any to be so called, nor of ability in the most, for the work whereunto they are called. What merit was there, what previous disposition unto their work, in a few fishermen about the Lake of Tiberias, or Sea of Galilee, that our Lord Jesus Christ should call them to be His apostles, disposing them into that state and condition, wherein they sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel? So was it ever with all that God called in an extraordinary manner (see Exo 4:10-11; Jer 1:6; Amo 7:15-16). In His ordinary calls there is the same sovereignty, though somewhat otherwise exercised. For in such a call there are three things
(1) A providential designation of such a person to such an office, work, or employment.
(2) It is a part of this call of God when He blesseth the endeavours of men to prepare themselves with those previous dispositions and qualifications which are necessary unto the actual call and susception of this office. And hereof also there are three parts
(a) An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with His designation of them unto their office.
(b) An especial blessing of their endeavours for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities, in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom.
(c) The communications of peculiar gifts unto them, rendering them meet and able unto the discharge of the duty of their office, which in an ordinary call is indispensably required as previous to an actual separation unto the office itself.
3. He ordereth things so as that a person whom He will employ in the service of His house shall have an outward call, according unto rule, for his admission thereinto. And in all these things God acts according to His own sovereign will and pleasure. And many things might hence be insisted on. As
(1) That we should have an awful reverence of, and a holy readiness to comply with, the call of God; not to run away from it, or the work called unto, as did Jonah, nor to he weary of it because of difficulty and opposition which we meet withal in the discharge of our duty, as it sundry times was ready to befall Jeremiah (Jer 15:10; Jer 20:7-9), much less to desert or give it over, on any earthly account whatever; seeing that he who sets his hand to this plough and takes it back again is unworthy of the kingdom of heaven.
(2) That we should not envy nor repine at one another, whatever God is pleased to call any unto.
(3) That we engage into no work wherein the name of God is concerned without His call; which gives a second observation, namely, that
II. THE HIGHEST EXCELLENCY AND UTMOST NECESSITY OF ANY WORK TO BE DONE FOR GOD IN THIS WORLD WILL NOT WARRANT OUR UNDERTAKING OF IT, OR ENGAGING IN IT, UNLESS WE ARE CALLED THEREUNTO.
III. THE MORE EXCELLENT ANY WORK OF GOD IS, THE MORE EXPRESS OUGHT OUR CALL UNTO IT TO BE.
IV. IT IS A GREAT DIGNITY AND HONOUR TO BE DULY CALLED UNTO ANY WORK, SERVICE, OR OFFICE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD. (John Owes, D. D.)
Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest
Christ, as Son of Man, called and perfected to be our High Priest
Twice already the apostle has referred to Christ as our High Priest, and he now enters on the development of the central theme of his Epistle–Christ a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. But in order to explain the priesthood on which Christ entered after His death and resurrection, and of which not Aaron but Melchizedek was the type, it is necessary for him to show how the Lord Jesus fulfilled all that was typified of Him in the Levitical dispensation, and possessed in perfection all the requirements which, according to Divine appointment, were needed in the high priest, and which could not be possessed in perfection by sinful men like the Aaronic priests. In the first place, the priests were as sinful as the people whom they represented. It was on account of sin that Israel felt the need of a mediator. But Aaron and the priests were only officially holy; they were not in reality spotless and pure. Hence they had to offer sacrifices for their own sins and infirmities, as well as for those of the people. Secondly, the mediator ought not merely to be 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. He who loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, hath made us kings and priests unto God. 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. But in considering these two points, we are struck not merely by the resemblance between the type and the fulfilment, but also by the contrast.
1. Aaron was chosen from among men to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Jesus was true man, born of a woman and made under the law; He became in all things like unto His brethren. But whereas the Jewish high priest had to offer for himself, as he was a sinner, the Lord was harmless and undefiled, pure and spotless. His mediation was therefore perfect. The Aaronic high priest was able to have compassion on the ignorant and on them that were out of the way, knowing and feeling his own infirmities and transgressions, and knowing also the love of God, who desireth not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn and live. But this compassionate regard for the sinner can exist in perfection only in a sinless one. This appears at first sight paradoxical; for we expect the perfect man to be the severest judge. And with regard to sin, this is doubtless true. God chargeth even His angels with folly. He beholds sin where we do not discover it. He setteth our secret sins in the light of His countenance. And Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, like the Father, has eyes like a flame of fire, and discerns everything that is contrary to Gods mind and will. But with regard to the sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect holiness, is the most merciful, compassionate, and considerate Judge. Beholding the sinful heart in all, estimating sin according to the Divine standard, according to its real inward character, and not the human, conventional, and outward measure, Jesus, infinitely holy and sensitive as He was, saw often less to shock an,t pain Him in the drunkard and profligate than in the respectable, selfish, and ungodly religionists. Again, He had come to heal the sick, to restore the erring, to bring the sinner to repentance. He looked upon sin as the greatest and most fearful evil, but on the sinner as poor, suffering, lost, and helpless. He felt as the Shepherd towards the erring. Again, He fastened in a moment on any indications of the Fathers drawing the heart, of the Spirits work:
2. The high priest is appointed by God. No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. The high priesthood of Christ is identified here with His glory. Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest. Blessed truth, that ,he glory of Christ and our salvation are so intimately connected, that Christ regards it as His glory to be our Mediator and Intercessor! This is Christs glory, even as it is the reward of His suffering, that in Him we draw near to 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 calling of Jesus to the high priestly dignity is based on His Sonship. Because Jesus is Son, He is the Prophet, perfectly revealing God; because He is Son, He is the true Sacrifice and Priest; for only the blood of the Son of God can cleanse from all sin, and bring us nigh unto God; and only through Christ crucified and exalted can the Fathers love and the Spirits power descend into our hearts. Here the comparison and contrast between the Lord and Aaron ends. The apostle now enters on that which is peculiar to our Saviour Jesus. The types and figures of the old covenant could not be perfect and adequate; for that which is united in Christ had necessarily to be severed and set forth by a variety of figures. The priests offered not themselves, but animals. Now the obedience, the conflict, the faith, the offering of the will as the true, real, and effective Sacrifice could not possibly be symbolised. Nor could any single symbol represent how Jesus, by being first the Sacrifice, became thereby the perfect, compassionate, and merciful High Priest. Christ was the victim on the Cross. The Son of God, according to the eternal counsel, came into the world to be obedient even unto death. Lo, I come to do Thy will. His obedience was characterised throughout by such continuity, liberty, and inward delight, that we are apt to forget that aspect of His life on which the apostle dwells when he says, that though Christ was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. Real and great were His difficulties, temptations, and sorrows; and from the prayers and complaints ascribed to Messiah in the psalms and prophets, we can understand somewhat of the burden which weighed on His loving and sensitive heart, and the constant dependence with which He leaned on the Father, and obtained from Him light and strength. Jesus believed; He lived not merely before, but by the Father. Thus is Jesus the Author and Finisher of faith. He went before the sheep. He is the forerunner. He has experienced every difficulty, and last, d every sorrow. He knows the path in all its narrowness. (A. Saphir.)
Christ glorified not Himself
As the Pope doth, who will needs be styled Pontifex Maximum, the greatest high priest. Pope Hildebrand especially, whom, when no man would advance to Peters chair, he gad up himself. Said he, Who can better judge of me than myself? (J. Trapp)
The difference between the priesthood and the high priesthood of Christ
I. The priest and the high priest did not minister in the same PLACE. AS a priest, Christ ministered on earth; as high priest, He ministers in heaven.
II. The priest and the high priest did not perform the same WORK.
1. As priest, Christ sacrificed Himself.
2. As high priest, He
(1) entered heaven by His own blood;
(2) intercedes on our behalf with the Father.
III. The priest and the high priest did not appear in the same DRESS. Christ as a priest was made like unto His brethren: wore the simple dress of humanity. Christ as high priest of eternity is clothed with all the glories of immortal life.
IV. The priest and the high priest did not occupy the same POSITION. The one was a sub-officer, the other the supreme judge of the land and the president of the Sanhedrin. Christ as High Palest is the highest officer in the kingdom of God. (H. Marries.)
Christ not a self-elected, but a God-appointed priest
At length the priesthood of Christ, already three times alluded to, is taken up in earnest, and made the subject of an elaborate discussion, extending from this point Heb 10:18. The writer begins at the beginning, setting forth first of all that Christ is a legitimate priest, not a usurper; one solemnly called to the office by God, not self-elected. The chief thing in his mind here is the call or appointment; the sympathy is referred to, in connection with its source, personal infirmity, as explaining the need for a call, so as to suggest the question, Who, conscious of the infirmity which is the secret of sacerdotal mildness, would dream of undertaking such an office without a Divine call? Jesus assuredly undertook the office only as called of God. He was called to the priesthood before His incarnation. He came to the world under a Divine call. And during the days of His earthly life His behaviour was such as utterly to exclude the idea of His being a usurper of sacerdotal honours. All through His incarnate experiences, and especially in those of the closing scene, He was simply submitting to Gods will that He should be a priest. And when He returned to heaven He was saluted High Priest in recognition of His loyalty. Thus from first to last He was emphatically One called of God. What is said of the sympathy that becomes a high priest, though subordinate to the statement concerning his call, is important and interesting. First, a description is given of the office which in every clause suggests the reflection, How congruous sympathy to the sacerdotal character! The high priest is described as taken from among men, and the suggestion is that, being a man of like nature with those for whom he transacts, he may be expected to have fellow-feeling with them. Then he is further described as ordained for men in things pertaining to God, the implied thought being that he cannot acquit himself satisfactorily in that capacity unless he sympathise with those whom he represents before God. Lastly, it is declared to be his special duty to offer sacrifices of various sorts for sin, the latent idea being that it is impossible for any one to perform that duty with any earnestness or efficiency who has not genuine compassion for the sinful. Very remarkable is the word employed to describe priestly compassion. It does not signify to feel with another, but rather to abstain from feeling against him; to be able to restrain antipathy. It is carefully selected to represent the spirit which becomes a high priest as a mean between two extremes. On the one hand, he should be able to control the passions provoked by error and ignorance, anger, impatience, disgust, contempt. On the other hand, he must not be so amiable as not even to be tempted to give way to these passions. Ignorance and misconduct he must not regard with unruffled equanimity. It is plainly implied that it is possible to be too sympathetic, and so to become the slave or tool of mens ignorance or prejudices, and even partaker of their sins–a possibility illustrated by the histories of Aaron and of Eli, two high priests of Israel. The model high priest is not like either. He hates ignorance and sin, but he pities the ignorant and sinful. The ignorant for him are persons to be taught, the erring sheep to be brought back to the fold. He remembers that sin is not only an evil thing in Gods sight, but also a bitter thing for the offender; realises the misery of an accusing conscience, the shame and fear which are the ghostly shadows of guilt. The character thus drawn is obviously congenial to the priestly office. The priests duty is to offer gifts and sacrificies for sin. The performance of this duty habituates the priestly mind to a certain way of viewing sin: as an offence deserving punishment, yet pardonable on the presentation of the appropriate offering. The priests relation to the offender is also such as demands a sympathetic spirit. He is not a legislator, enacting laws with rigid penalties attached. Neither is he a judge, but rather an advocate pleading for his client at the bar. Neither is he a prophet, giving utterances in vehement language to the Divine displeasure against transgression, but rather an intercessor imploring mercy, appeasing anger, striving to awaken Divine pity. But the special source to which sacerdotal sympathy is traced is the consciousness of personal infirmity. For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. The explanation seems to labour under the defect of too great generality. A high priest is no more human in his nature and experience than other men–why, then, should he be exceptionally humane? Two reasons suggest themselves. The high priest was officially a very holy person, begirt on all sides with the emblems of holiness, copiously anointed with oil, whose exquisite aroma typified the odour of sanctity, arrayed in gorgeous robes, significant of the beauty of holiness, required to be so devoted to his sacred calling and so dead to the world that he might not mourn for the death of his nearest kin. How oppressive the burden of this official sanctity must have been to a thoughtful, humble man, conscious of personal infirmity, and knowing himself to be of like passions and sinful tendencies with his fellow-worshippers! Another source of priestly benignity was, I imagine, habitual converse in the discharge of duty with the erring and the ignorant. The high priest had officially much to do with men, and that not with picked samples, but with men in the mass; the greater number probably being inferior specimens of humanity, and all presenting to his view their weak side. He learned in the discharge of his functions to take a kindly interest in all sorts of people, even the most erratic, and to bear with inconsistency even in the best. The account given of priestly sympathy prepares us for appreciating the statement which follows concerning the need for a Divine call to the priestly office (Heb 10:4). No one, duly impressed with his own infirmities, would ever think of taking unto himself so sacred an office. A need for a Divine call is felt by all devout men in connection with all sacred offices involving a ministry on mens behalf in things pertaining to God. The tendency is to shrink from such offices, rather than to covet and ambitiously appropriate them. Having stated the general principle that a Divine call is necessary as an inducement to the assumption of the priestly office, the writer passes to the case of Jesus Christ, whom he emphatically declares to have been utterly free from the spirit of ambition, and to hare been made a high priest, not by self-election, but by Divine appointment. It is difficult to understand, at first, why the text from the second Psalm, My Son art Thou, is introduced here at all, the thing to be proved being, not that Messiah was made by God a Son, but that He was made a Priest. But on reflection we perceive that it is a preliminary hint as to what sort of priesthood is signified by the order of Melchizedec, a first attempt to insinuate into the minds of readers the idea of a priesthood belonging to Christ altogether distinct in character from the Levitical, yet the highest possible, that of one at once a Divine Son and a Divine King. On further consideration, it dawns on us that a still deeper truth is meant to be taught; that Christs priesthood is coeval with His sonship, and inherent in it. From the pre-incarnate state, to which the quotations from the Psalter refer, the writer proceeds to speak of Christs earthly history: Who, in the days of His flesh. He here conceives, as in a later part of the Epistle he expressly represents, the Christ as coming into the world under a Divine call to be a priest, and conscious of His vocation. He represents Christ as under training for the priesthood, but training implies previous destination; as an obedient learner, but obedience implies consciousness of His calling. In the verses which follow (7, 8) his purpose is to exhibit the behaviour of Jesus during His life on earth in such a light that the idea of usurpation shall appear an absurdity. The general import is: Jesus ever loyal, but never ambitious; so far from arrogating, rather shrinking from priestly office, at most simply submitting to Gods will, and enabled to do that by special grace in answer to prayer. Reference is made to Christs Sonship to enhance the impression of difficulty. Though He was a Son full of love and devotion to His Father, intensely, enthusiastically loyal to the Divine interest, ever accounting it His meat and drink to do His Fathers will, yet even for Him so minded it was a matter of arduous learning to comply with the Fathers will in connection with His priestly vocation. For it must be understood that the obedience here spoken of has that specific reference. The aim is not to state didactically that in His earthly life Jesus was a learner in the virtue of obedience all round, but especially to predicate of Him learning obedience in connection with His priestly calling–obedience to Gods will that He should be a priest. But why should obedience be so difficult in this connection? The full answer comes later on, but it is hinted at even here. It is because priesthood involves for the priest death (Heb 10:7), mortal suffering (Heb 10:8); because the priest is at the same time victim. And it is in the light of this fact that we clearly see how impossible it was that the spirit of ambition should come into play with reference to the priestly office in the case of Christ. Self-glorification was excluded by the nature of the service. The verses which follow (9, 10) show the other side of the picture: how He who glorified not Himself to be made a priest was glorified by God; became a priest indeed, efficient in the highest degree, acknowledged as such by His Father, whose will He had loyally obeyed. Being perfected, how? In obedience, and by obedience even unto death, perfected for the office of priest, death being the final stage in His training, through which He became a Pontifex consummatus. Being made perfect in and through death, Jesus became ipso facto author of eternal salvation, the final experience of suffering, by which His training for the priestly office was completed, being at the same time His great priestly achievement. The statement that through death Jesus became ipso facto author of salvation, is not falsified by the fact that the essential point in a sacrifice was its presentation before God in the sanctuary, which in the Levitical system took place subsequently to the slaughtering of the victim, when the priest took the blood within the tabernacle and sprinkled it on the altar of incense or on the mercy-seat. The death of our High Priest is to be conceived of as including all the steps of the sacrificial process within itself. Lapse of time or change of place is not necessary to the accomplishment of the work. The death of the victim, the presentation of the sacrificial blood–all was performed when Christ cried . Translated into abstract language, Heb 10:10 supplies the rationale of the fact stated in Heb 10:9. Its effect is to tell us that Christ became author of eternal salvation because He was a true High Priest after the order of Melchizedec: author of salvation in virtue of His being a priest, author of eternal salvation because His priesthood was of the Melchizedec type–never ending. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. This honour] undoubtedly signifies here the office, which is one meaning of the word in the best Greek writers. It is here an honourable office, because the man is the high priest of God, and is appointed by God himself to that office.
But he that is called of God, as was Aaron.] God himself appointed the tribe and family out of which the high priest was to be taken, and Aaron and his sons were expressly chosen by God to fill the office of the high priesthood. As God alone had the right to appoint his own priest for the Jewish nation, and man had no authority here; so God alone could provide and appoint a high priest for the whole human race. Aaron was thus appointed for the Jewish people; Christ, for all mankind.
Some make this “an argument for the uninterrupted succession of popes and their bishops in the Church, who alone have the authority to ordain for the sacerdotal office; and whosoever is not thus appointed is, with them, illegitimate.” It is idle to employ time in proving that there is no such thing as an uninterrupted succession of this kind; it does not exist, it never did exist. It is a silly fable, invented by ecclesiastical tyrants, and supported by clerical coxcombs. But were it even true, it has nothing to do with the text. It speaks merely of the appointment of a high priest, the succession to be preserved in the tribe of Levi, and in the family of Aaron. But even this succession was interrupted and broken, and the office itself was to cease on the coming of Christ, after whom there could be no high priest; nor can Christ have any successor, and therefore he is said to be a priest for ever, for he ever liveth the intercessor and sacrifice for mankind. The verse, therefore, has nothing to do with the clerical office, with preaching God’s holy word, or administering the sacraments; and those who quote it in this way show how little they understand the Scriptures, and how ignorant they are of the nature of their own office.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This connecteth the last thing describing the typical Levitical priesthood, their call to it.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself; not any person whatsoever hath or can lawfully take to himself the honourable office of a high priest, so as to be the author or end of it. Many have usurped this office, and others have distributed it contrary to Gods law, whose priesthood, offerings, and ministry are no true ones, especially where men are self-officiating, corruptly managing of it, as Elis sons and Jeroboams priests, or self-benefiting by it, 1Sa 2:13, &c.; Mic 3:11. This was so honourable an office as it was united to the princedom in Melchisedec and Jethro.
But he that is called of God, as was Aaron; he that is according to Gods law, (the Author of this priesthood, its work and success), qualified in himself, separated from others, and actually honoured by God with it, he onght to take this office and execute his work in it to Gods glory, depending on him for his blessing. Aaron is the particular instance of the Divine call to this office. God separated his tribe, family, and person for his service in the room of the first-born: God qualified him for it, entailed the high priesthood to his seed and offspring with the subordinate priesthood. He solemnly consecrated him by Moses, confirmed him in his work by fire from heaven at his first sacrifice, and vindicates his own call of him to it by the blossoming rod, and destroying the rivals with him for it, Exo 28:29,30; Num 16:35; 17:5.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. no manof any other familybut Aaron’s, according to the Mosaic law, can take to himself theoffice of high priest. This verse is quoted by some to prove the needof an apostolic succession of ordination in the Christian ministry;but the reference here is to the priesthood, not the Christianministry. The analogy in our Christian dispensation would warnministers, seeing that God has separated them from the congregationof His people to bring them near Himself, and to do the service ofHis house, and to minister (as He separated the Levites, Korah withhis company), that content with this, they should beware of assumingthe sacrificial priesthood also, which belongs to Christ alone. Thesin of Korah was, not content with the ministry as a Levite, he tookthe sacerdotal priesthood also. No Christian minister, as such, isever called Hiereus, that is, sacrificing priest. AllChristians, without distinction, whether ministers or people, have ametaphorical, not a literal, priesthood. The sacrifices which theyoffer are spiritual, not literal, their bodies and the fruit of theirlips, praises continually (Heb13:15). Christ alone had a proper and true sacrifice to offer.The law sacrifices were typical, not metaphorical, as theChristian’s, nor proper and true, as Christ’s. In Roman times theMosaic restriction of the priesthood to Aaron’s family was violated.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And no man taketh this honour to himself,…. That is, the honour of the priesthood: the office of the high priest was a very honourable one; it was a peculiar honour to Aaron, and his sons, to be separated unto it; their instalment into it was very grand and solemn; at that time they were anointed with oil, and clothed with glorious garments, and sacrifices were offered for them; they had an honourable maintenance assigned them, and a large retinue of priests and Levites to attend them; great respect and reverence were shown them: but their principal honour lay in the work they performed; in representing the whole body of the people; in offering gifts and sacrifices for them; in blessing them; and in the resolution of difficult cases brought unto them; in all which they were types of Christ, the high priest. Now no man might take this honourable office upon himself, or intrude himself into it, or obtain it by any unjust method, or in any other way than by a call from God; nor did any man dare to do it, until of late, when some got into it of themselves, and were put in by the Roman governors, and even purchased it of them a: so Joshua ben Gamla became an high priest b; and some have thought the apostle has some respect to these wicked practices, and tacitly reproves them, as what ought not to be: for no one ought to be in this office,
but he that is called of God, as [was Aaron]; whose call was immediately from the Lord, and was unquestionable: Moses was ordered to separate him, and his sons, from the children of Israel, and install them into this office; they were destroyed by fire, or swallowed up by the earth, that disputed his call; and this was confirmed by a miracle, by his dry rod budding, blooming, and bringing forth almonds: and the apostle instances in him, because his call was so remarkable and authentic; and because he was the first high priest of the Jews, and from whence the rest descended, who were lawful ones.
a T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 2. Bartenora in Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. & Maimon. in ib. sect. 3. b Misn. Yebamot, c. 6. sect. 4. & Gloss. in T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 18. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Taketh the honour unto himself ( ). Dative case of personal interest (). The priest was called of God. This is the ideal and was true of Aaron. The modern minister is not a priest, but he also should be a God-called man and not one who pushes himself into the ministry or into ecclesiastical office.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The high priest must be divinely called. One thus compassed with infirmity would shrink from such an office unless called to it by God. He that is called [] . The A. V. follows T. R., oJ kaloumenov. The article should be omitted. Rend. but being called by God (he taketh it), as did Aaron.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And no man taketh this honor unto himself,” (kai ouch heautin tis lambanei ten timen) “And no one takes or receives this honor (position of honor) to himself,” None imposes himself into this office or position of honor, just because he wants to be there, for reasons of pride, prestige, etc. Uzziah imposed himself into the priesthood and was struck with leprosy for it the rest of his life, 2Ch 26:16-21; Joh 3:27. Only the called of God are to take upon themselves positions of Divine service.
2) “But he that is called of God,” (alla kaloumenous hupo tou theou) “But he who has been called by (the undergirding support of) God,” God called Israel to be his witnessing agency from Moses to Christ, then called, sanctified the tribe of Levi to oversee holy things, and the Aaronic family line for priests, Exo 20:1; Korah attempted to take over the priesthood and he and 250 who followed him were slain, Num 16:24-35; Num 16:40.
3) “As was Aaron,” (kathosper kai Aaron) “Even just as Aaron was,” Exo 28:1-3; Num 16:5; Num 16:36-40; 1Ch 23:13.
Like Aaron and Moses the man of God, the shepherd of his flock, must have a quality of humility and compassion like that of their Lord, Mat 9:36, set forth in the following story:
“HE UNDERSTOOD”
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 thee, and drove thee from me, and I didn’t understand; now thou art faint and weary from the long, hard way, thy powers are exhausted; how then couldest 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, saying: “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.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. And no man, etc. There is to be noticed in this verse partly a likeness and partly a difference. What makes an office lawful is the call of God; so that no one can rightly and orderly perform it without being made fit for it by God. Christ and Aaron had this in common, that God called them both; but they differed in this, that Christ succeeded by a new and different way and was made a perpetual priest. It is hence evident that Aaron’s priesthood was temporary, for it was to cease. We see the object of the Apostle; it was to defend the right of Christ’s priesthood; and he did this by showing that God was its author. But this would not have been sufficient, unless it was made evident that an end was to be put to the old in order that a room might be obtained for this. And this point he proves by directing our attention to the terms on which Aaron was appointed, for we are not to extend them further than God’s decree; and he will presently make it evident how long God had designed this order to continue. Christ then is a lawful priest, for he was appointed by God’s authority. What is to be said of Aaron and his successors? That they had as much right as was granted them by the Lord, but not so much as men according to their own fancy concede to them.
But though this has been said with reference to what is here handled, yet we may hence draw a general truth, — that no government is to be set up in the Church by the will of men, but that we are to wait for the command of God, and also that we ought to follow a certain rule in electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own humor. Both these things ought to be distinctly noticed for the Apostle here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; nay, he denies that the office which men appoint without God’s command is lawful and divine. For as it appertains to God only to rule his Church, so he claims this right as his own, that is, to prescribe the way and manner of administration. I hence deem it as indisputable, that the Papal priesthood is spurious; for it has been framed in the workshop of men. God nowhere commands a sacrifice to be offered now to him for the expiation of sins; nowhere does he command priests to be appointed for such a purpose. While then the Pope ordains his priests for the purpose of sacrificing, the Apostle denies that they are to be counted lawful priests; they cannot therefore be such, except by some new privilege they exalt themselves above Christ, for he dared not of himself to take upon him this honor, but waited for the command of the Father.
This also ought to be held good as to persons, that no individual is of himself to seize on this honor without public authority. I speak now of offices divinely appointed. At the same time it may sometimes be, that one, not called by God, is yet to be tolerated, however little he may be approved, provided the office itself be divine and approved by God; for many often creep in through ambition or some bad motives, whose call has no evidence; and yet they are not to be immediately rejected, especially when this cannot be done by the public decision of the Church. For during two hundred years before the coming of Christ the foulest corruptions prevailed with respect to the priesthood, yet the right of honor, proceeding from the calling of God, still continued as to the office itself; and the men themselves were tolerated, because the freedom of the Church was subverted. It hence appears that the greatest defect is the character of the office itself, that is, when men of themselves invent what God has never commanded. The less endurable then are those Romish sacrificers, who prattle of nothing but their own titles, that they may be counted sacred, while yet they have chosen themselves without any authority from God.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) But he that is called.The true reading requires, when he is called. Not unto himself doth any man take the honour, but when . . .
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Taketh unto himself Who-so, like the sons of Korah or like King Uzziah, assumes the office without divine warrant, is a usurper. The rabbies say that “Moses said to Korah and his associates, ‘If Aaron my brother took the priesthood to himself, you made insurrection against him rightly; but truly God gave it to him.’”
Called of God, as was Aaron Aaron, first in the long line of high priests, was elected by the divine Voice. Exo 28:1; Exo 29:4; Lev 8:1, etc.; Num 3:10, and Num 3:16-18. Until the time of Herod the line remained almost unbroken; but by him the office was unlawfully bestowed, and finally ceased just before the destruction of Jerusalem, after continuing through nearly sixteen centuries. Its divine perpetuity was fixed by our great High Priest.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And no man takes the honour to himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.’
And finally he is God-appointed. It is not something that a man can choose to do himself, his appointment comes from God, for he has to act towards God and it is finally to God that he is responsible. This is of course the ideal of priesthood. The later earthly priesthood had manifested few of these characteristics, apart from artificially. The writer is portraying priesthood at its best.
‘When he is called of God.’ It is a divine calling which comes from God and which he cannot refuse. He is in that position simply because God required it; and because God required it, He had no choice in the matter.
‘As was Aaron.’ Aaron, the brother of Moses, was appointed ‘the priest’ in accordance with God’s instructions to Moses (Exo 28:1 following).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The High Priest Must be Ordained by God – The second point in proving Jesus Christ is qualified to become our Great High Priest is that the high priest must be ordained by God (Heb 5:4-10). Jesus qualifies because He was made a high priest by God. Heb 5:4-10 explains that Jesus His prayers were heard because of His reverence for God, which was why He was obedient in suffering on the Cross, and it was why He was ordained a high priest. Since Jesus Christ was of tribe of Judah, and not of Levi, the priestly tribe, the writer of Hebrews is explaining why Jesus meets these requirements of being our High Priest.
Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
Heb 5:4
Exo 28:1, “And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.”
Korah was not called and was judged for attempting to take this honour upon himself (Num 16:6; Num 16:40).
Num 16:5, “And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.”
Num 16:40, “To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.”
King Saul also took the office of the priest upon himself, and he paid the penalty for this sin (1Sa 13:9).
1Sa 13:9, “And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.”
King Uzziah also offered incense upon the altar and was struck with leprosy (2Ch 26:16-21).
Note Joh 3:27, “John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.”
Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
Heb 5:5
Joh 8:54, “Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:”
Heb 5:5 “but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee” – Comments – Heb 5:5 quotes from Psa 2:7, which shows the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Psa 2:7, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
Psa 2:7 is quoted earlier in Heb 1:5 and also in Act 13:33.
Heb 1:5, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
Act 13:33, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:6
Heb 5:6 “ Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec” – Comments – Heb 5:6 is a quote from Psa 110:4:
Psa 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”
“Melchizedek” The most thorough discussion of the person Melchizedek is in chapter 7 of Hebrews. Gen 14:18-20 says that he was the King of Salem (considered to be Jerusalem). Also:
1. He was priest of the Most High God.
2. He blessed Abraham.
3. Abraham gave tithes of all to him.
“after the order of Melchizedek” That is, “according to the nature of,” or “just like” Melchizedek. Compared to the Levitical order, this order was not only of a higher rank, but also of an entirely different nature. The order of Melchisedec was according to an endless life (Heb 7:16), no father, no mother, no genealogy, no beginning nor end of days.
Heb 7:16, “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”
Heb 5:5-6 Comments The Use of Two Old Testament Prophecies in Juxtaposition David notes that Psa 2:7 and Psa 110:4 have never been used together in juxtaposition prior to the writing of the epistle of Hebrews. [214]
[214] David L. Allen, “Class Lecture,” Doctor of Ministry Seminar, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 25 July to 5 August 2011.
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;
Heb 5:7
Heb 5:7 “when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears” Comments – This act of Jesus offering prayers and supplications unto God paints an image for the readers of this epistle of a Jewish priest entering the Temple offering the daily prayers of the people. We see Zechariah doing this priestly duty in Luk 1:5-25.
Perhaps the most moving prayer that Jesus ever prayed was in the Garden of Gethsemane. Illustration: God’s heart is moved when we pray most intensely and sincerely (Psa 34:18, Isa 66:2).
Psa 34:18, “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.”
Isa 66:2, “For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”
Heb 5:7 “unto Him that was able to save Him from death” – Comments – It was possible for God to save Jesus from the Cross, but it was not God’s will (Mat 26:39). Jesus knew God’s will. Note Mat 26:53.
Mat 26:39, “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Mat 26:53, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
Jesus not only died physically, but he was temporarily forsaken by God, thus a spiritual death. Note:
Psa 16:10, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
Act 2:27, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
Act 13:35, “Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”
Mat 27:46, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”
Mar 15:34, “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”
Eph 4:9-10, “(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)”
Heb 13:20, “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,”
1Pe 3:19, “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;”
1Pe 4:6, “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”
It was not possible for Jesus to be held by the power of death:
Act 2:24, “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”
Heb 5:7 “and was heard in that he feared” – Comments – God heard His prayers.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:8
Php 3:10-11, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Heb 5:7-8 Comments Jesus’ Prayer for Deliverance God the Father heard Jesus’ prayer to be delivered from the suffering of Calvary. God could have delivered Him from this cruel death; yet, God’s will was for Jesus to suffer on the Cross. In a similar manner, Job committed himself into God’s hands with a confession to trust Him even though He slay him (Job 13:15).
Job 13:15, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.”
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Heb 5:9
Heb 5:9 Scripture Reference – Note:
Isa 45:17, “But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation : ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”
Heb 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:10
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Heb 5:4. But he that is called of God, Called of God means a particular designation or appointment to the dignity of high-priest; such a one as Aaron had, Exo 30:30. They therefore misapply this text, who would argue from it the necessity of a peculiar appointment made by man to the administration of an office in the Christian church. How right soever such designations may be, this text has no relation to such matters, but is only intended to prove, that Christ was as eminently and as clearly designed and appointed by God to be a high-priest as Aaron was. In this respect, then, an equality of Christ to Aaron is proved: afterwards the infinite superiority of Christ, even in this respect, will be shewn.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 5:4 . The second necessary qualification : to be no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same.
] Progress, not from Heb 5:3 , nor yet from Heb 5:1 , in such wise that , Heb 5:4 , should form a paronomasia with , Heb 5:1 (Bhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, Maier), but from Heb 5:1-3 .
And not to himself does any one take the honour (here under consideration), i.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority. Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb . p. 187: ,
] sc . , he receives it. The here to be supplied has consequently what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hofmann, and Woerner another notion than the before placed. This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in German, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself.
] sc . . These words still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis.
Aaron and his descendants were, according to Exo 28:1 ; Exo 29:4 ff., Lev 8:1 ff., Num 3:10 ; Num 3:16-18 , called by God Himself to the high-priesthood. Comp. Bammidbar rabba , sec. 18, fol. 234. 4 (in Schttgen and Wetstein): Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicumque igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra ipsum Deum surgit. Not until the time of Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10. 5; Winer, Bibl. Realwrterb . I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. That, however, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others conjecture, the author intended by the words of Heb 5:4 at the same time to indicate that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
III
He possesses moreover this character by His being called of God to this office, and that as antitype of Melchisedec.
Heb 5:4-10.
4And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that [in that he]5 is called ofGod, as [just as, ]6 was [also] Aaron7. 5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day haveI begotten thee; 6as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever afterthe order of Melchisedec; 7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up [offering 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 [and being hearkenedto from his pious reverence]; 8though he were [was] a Son, yet learned he [om. he]obedience by [from] the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became10the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;8 Called [being saluted ] of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
[Heb 5:4. , and not for himself, , emphatic in position. (omitting ), but being called=as being called, or, on the ground that he is called..: , as according as; , precisely, or, just according as.
Heb 5:5. scil. .
Heb 5:7. , both entreaties and supplications., offering up, or, by offering up; not, when he had offered up, nor, having offered up, being hearkened to. , from (=on account of) his reverent fear, filial fear: Moll, Frmmigkeit, piety: others, aus der Gottesfurcht.K.].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Heb 5:4. And none taketh upon himselfjust as also Aaron.The particle carries back , and connects it with , the principal verb of the period (Heb 5:1), and introduces the second leading qualification demanded in the high-priest, viz., the fact of his being Divinely called,a qualification realized at the very inauguration of the high-priesthood, in the case of Aaron. Bhme, Bleek and Bisping assume without sufficient ground in a paronomasia with , Heb 5:1. The , honor, restricted by the article, refers not indefinitely to any position of honor whatever, but refers to the special honor here in question, that of the high-priesthood; and again is not here a collective term for Aaron and his descendants, but Aaron, the individual person, standing as a model and example for all subsequent high-priests, by whom, in common with their head and progenitor, the office was originally held during life, the office alternating between the families of the two sons of Aaron, Eleazer and Ithamar. In a Midrash published by Schttgen and Wetstein, Moses says to the troop of Korah: If Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him. But God gave it to him, and he who rebels against Aaron, rebels against God. To which Korah says in reply: Think ye that I claim to take the dignity for myself? I simply demand that it pass to us all in rotation. Under the Roman dominion, appointments to and removals from the priesthood were made at pleasure, without reference to the descent of the candidate from Aaron. The text, however, gives no warrant to our imagining (with Chrys., cum., Theoph., etc.) an allusion by the author to this state of things. , precisely according as, entirely as. does not of necessity involve the idea of usurpation (Luk 19:12). But if a Divine call and personal choice of the position are placed in contrast, then the latter is really usurpationa fact which Hofm. fails to perceive.
Heb 5:5. Thus also Christ glorified not himself, etc.Hofm. (Schriftb. II., 1, 282; 2 Ed. II., 1, 398) says: It was no act of self-glorification by which the Royal Mediator of salvation became High-Priest; it was on the path of sorrow and suffering that He attained to that glory in which He is now a High-Priest after the order of Melchisedec. But this contrast of and anticipates the subsequent discussion. The same is true if we refer the passage to Christs royal dignity, whether we find the allusion to it in or in . The is but an equivalent to the of Heb 5:4 (Bl., etc.), and the term is selected because Jesus Christ is regarded here not in His person, but in His character of Messiah, who, as Anointed One, is seated at the right hand of God.
But he who said to him, etc., as also in another passage.The two citations do not express the same idea; nor is the former adduced to prove that Christ is also a High-Priest (Schlicht., Grot., Steng., Ebr., etc.), but simply to call to mind the relation previously unfolded, that, viz., which the God who has bestowed this priestly dignity on Christ, sustains as Father to this Anointed One. The second citation from Psa 110:4 proceeds to define the priestly position of Jesus, already repeatedly alluded to in a general way, by its special feature, alleging, viz., that its true type is to be found not in Aaron, but Melchisedec. The essential import of the statement is subsequently unfolded. signifies neither order of succession (Schultz), nor rank, but position, quality, mode, or kind, for which Heb 7:15 has . Him whom God, in the words, My Son art Thou, declares to be His world-ruling Anointed One, He also, in His words, Thou art a Priest, declares to be an eternal Priesttwo closely united and kindred utterances of Gods prophetic word in the Psalms (Del.).
Heb 5:7. Who in the days of his fleshsuffered.The refers back to the subject , to which the Aor. belongs, and of which the contemporaneous circumstances, or the way and manner of learning, are denoted by the Aor. Part. and . The phrase, in the days of His flesh, i.e, of His human life on earth, is contrasted with His perfected state, mentioned Heb 5:9, and belongs to the main verb, . To answers , with an intended assonance. From that which (not in general: by the fact that) He suffered ( with , as Mat 11:29 : , or , Mat 24:32 [Mat 24:32 has , which would be the more regular construction with things; with persons, though the usage is by no means invariableK.]) He learned His (the Art. being specific) obedience. To put in parenthesis the clause, , and thus (with Abresch, Dind., Heinr., Steng., etc.) carry the over to as its first principal verb, is totally inadmissible. For can never be constructed with a finite verb which here would be [i.e, although, as being a Son, He learned, etc., which would require , or some combination with ]. But neither is the clause, , to be connected, as by Chrys. and Theoph., with . For the particle points to some apparent inconsistency between the clause in which it stands (although being a Son) and the main declaration with which it stands connected. Yet no such inconsistency can be found between the relation of Son and the fact of His being hearkened to (rather the reverse), but it does seem inconsistent with the leading thought of the period which points to Jesus Christs humiliation and to His possession as Man of the first requisite of a high-priest, mentioned Heb 5:1-3 (just as Heb 5:5-6, declare His possession of that second requisite mentioned Heb 5:4). The learning of obedience is a mark of humanity; and even in this fact of the actual development of Jesus, would the actual state and condition of the Son of God, have disclosed itself But here the question is not of that actual condition, viz., of Christs essential likeness to and equality with humanity, by virtue of the incarnation. That matter has been previously disposed of. The question is now of His fitness for being a High-Priest, and this by virtue of His sympathy with the weaknesses of men. The emphasis, therefore, rests not on , learned (Del.), but on the whole closely connected phrase, .
Heb 5:7. Offering up supplicationsand being hearkened to, etc.With (which at Job 40:20 is also connected with ) or [or ], is originally to be supplied, the word thus properly denoting by ellipsis the olive branch, which was borne in the hands of a suppliant who was imploring help or protection [Soph., d. Tyr., l. 3]: whence arose then the signification of earnest entreaty=, . It is uncertain whether (Theophil., Bl., De W., Bisp., etc.), we are to assume, in respect to the verbal coloring of these clauses, a reference to Psalms 22, 116. There certainly is none to the loud praying of the Jewish high-priest on the annual day of atonement (Braun, Bhme, etc.); most probably [I think certainlyK.] reference is here made to the prayer in Gethsemane, and reference in the plural nouns to its successive repetitions. The added clause, with strong outcry ( ), leads Calv., Schultz, Stein, etc., to regard the language as referring, along with these prayers, to the loud crying of Jesus on the cross; Cajetan, Este., Calov, and Strauss, refer the whole exclusively to this latter, and Klee confines it even to the loud outcry with which Jesus died. These applications of the passage are by no means (with De W.) to be regarded as unsuited to the context,9 they are rather very natural, inasmuch as the struggling of Jesus with that suffering of death which was inseparable from His Messianic office, and which had long been present to His thought, was not limited to His agonizing supplications in Gethsemane; and the two Aorist participles are not to be resolved by after that, viz., after that He had offered, etc., (De W., Hofm.), but in that (viz., in that He offered, or by offering). The words allude, however, preminently, to the suffering in Gethsemane; and we have here, perhaps, given us, in close accordance with the account of Luk 22:39-46, a scene of evangelical history resting upon tradition, which has also found its way even into the text of some recensions of Luke himself. For according to Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), the mention of tears is found . Moreover, Luk 19:41, and Joh 11:35, show the Lord weeping; while again, on the other hand, the of Jesus in the garden (Luk 22:44), is not without example in the record of His life, Joh 12:27. We may imagine that the picture here drawn sustains a relation to the Gospel narrative like that which Hos 12:5 sustains to the wrestling of Jacob at the Jabbok, Gen 32:26 (Bhme, Del.). Since elsewhere in our Epistle (Heb 9:14; Heb 11:4), as in the classics, is connected with the Dative, it is most natural not to make (with Ln.) dependent on the verb, but on . The mere expression admits indifferently of being referred to deliverance from peril of death (Theod., Calv., Bengel, etc.) and to rescuing out of death itself (c., Calov, Este., etc.); for which reason Michael., Bl., and others, unite the two. [But most assuredly erroneously. For what our Saviour prayed for, was not to be snatched from death after He had experienced it, but rescued from its impending approach. It was to be saved from that hourto be delivered from drinking that cupto evade the terrible scene whose black shadow was now thrown over His soul, that He prayed, and this was denied Him. Still, as His prayer was made in entire resignation to His Fathers will, He was hearkened to, approved and accepted in it, even though a literal compliance with it could not be accorded to Him. He was hearkened to, in that an angel was sent to strengthen Him; in that His death was accepted in all its atoning import, and in that He received the full reward of His suffering; that agonizing prayer being only an additional and fuller proof of the depth of His temptations, and the completeness of His resignation.K.]. We cannot from this decide in regard to the sense of the words Jesus was heard . We are hardly to interpret this of His being freed from fear, (Ambros., Grot., and many, following the Itala exauditus a metu), which Calvin and Schlichting understand, of the object of the fear, viz., death. This interpretation would be allowed, indeed, by the , and, moreover, has, in fact, the meaning of fear (Wis 17:8; 2Ma 8:16). It can, as appears from Sir 4:1; Sir 4:3, pass over into the signification of a fearful holding back, and of shuddering at the contact and infliction of the ; whence Hofm. understands it of Jesus recoiling from death; and Tholuck, after Aretius, explains it of shrinking, shuddering, detrectatio, and reminds us of the , if it is possible, of the prayer in Gethsemane. But means assuredly in general, only thoughtfulness, precaution, foresight, the right taking hold and grasping of a thing. Thus the fundamental idea points not to fear of danger, but to fear of injury, which, in the sphere of religion, is conscientiousness in dealing with our relation to God, and with the duties which spring from it. Thus this word stands at Luk 2:25; Act 2:5; Act 8:2; Act 22:12 (Lachm.); and so our author uses it Heb 11:7; Heb 12:28. For this reason we should also prefer the rendering of Luther after the Vulgate, pro sua reverentia; and so with all the Greek interpreters, Bl., Ln., Del., etc. The preposition points not to the object, but to the ground of the hearing [i.e, not being hearkened to so as to be delivered from the thing feared: but hearkened to from=in consequence of His filial reverence]; and is used as at Luk 19:3; Luk 23:41; Act 12:14; Act 20:9; Act 22:11.
[I have explained above the force of correctly interpreted by the author being hearkened to from, i.e, in consequence of his pious reverence. He was hearkened to none the less now than when as at John 11. He said, I know that thou hearest me always. His prayer was couched in such a perfect spirit of resignation, that He was heard in it none the less approvingly, notwithstanding that the specific thing prayed for was not, and could not be granted. And it was only the most dreadful suffering and temptation that could have wrung out, even from the human weakness of the Saviour (and even with this all important qualification), the prayer, the granting of which would of course have nullified the entire purpose of the Saviours incarnation.K.].
Hofm. regards the offering of prayers and tears as a sacrificial act, and places it, as standing connected with human weakness, in express parallel with the , which, in the case of the high-priest, must, of necessity, precede his bringing the offerings on behalf of the congregation (of course with the distinction which exists between the weakness of the sinful high-priest, and that of the sinless Saviour). But this idea, which Del. takes unnecessary pains to refute, is expressly contradicted by the passage Heb 7:27.
Heb 5:9. And being perfected, etc.The , Act 6:7 : Rom 1:5, is the condition of the attainment of salvation, of which Christ, in His , is the author to them that obey Him. On both sides, alike in Saviour and saved, the moral character of the relation is strongly emphasized, and at the same time, the , to all, brings out the universality of the design of this salvation, as the term eternal (), designates its nature, Isa 45:17; while its realization among men demands, on the one side, the perfection of the life of Christ, and on the other, the imitation of His life. The connecting point of these ideas, lies in the fact that Christ has not otherwise been perfected, and elevated to the participation of Divine glory on the throne of the Heavenly Majesty, than by the voluntary offering of His life, morally perfected amidst temptations and sufferings. Thus He has become not merely a priestly king, but a high-priest after the order of Melchisedek, and as such He is not so much prophetically designated by God in Psa 110:4 (where we have barely ), but solemnly greeted on His arriving at perfection, as shown by the Aor. Part., , which expresses an act contemporaneous with the . The author thus says that the prophecy has been fulfilled, and so fulfilled that yet a new feature, that of the High-Priesthood, is to be conceived as jointly included (Hofm.).
[The reader will notice some verbal allusions and contrasts in this passage, not unworthy of attention. Christ prayed to Him who was able to save () Him from a momentary death,for such a ,yet did not receive it, but passing through it, became the author of an eternal to His people. Again He submitted to this death in , obedience, to His Fathers will, and thus became , to all who obey Him, the author, etc. Thus the saving from physical death which He prayed for, is contrasted with the eternal saving which He bestows on His people; and the obedience which led Him to submit to that death, is paralleled with the obedience which enables them to reap its fruits in eternal salvation.K.].
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. For the legitimate exercise of an office, personal fitness, is not sufficient; there is demanded for it especially a regular call, which has its origin in God, and in times of disorder and convulsion, receives and finds in God its restablishment. The modes of calling may therefore be very various, and it is specially necessary to distinguish the forms, which, in times of great national convulsion, God has instituted for promoting the objects of His kingdom, from those which, in definite social relations and spheres of life, are established by virtue of human laws, on behalf of right and justice, for the attainment of specific ends.
2. That, however, under all circumstances, we are to proceed in accordance with the Scripture, and that, even in unwonted cases, God, as a God of order, proceeds according to recognized laws, and in harmony with His holy revelation, is clear from the example of Jesus Christ, and the relation of His high-priesthood to that of Aaron and Melchisedek. All three are ordained of God for definite periods and circumstances; and the Holy Scripture discloses perfectly their mutual relations, so far as they are important to the history of redemption. The Aaronic priesthood, with its legal, hereditary succession and Levitical character, is expressly designated as simply an intervening and preparatory stage. The union of the priestly and kingly offices in Melchisedec, appearing as an insulated fact, and without the precincts of the covenant people, is stripped of its apparently purely accidental character, and elevated to a type of that which, within the sphere of the covenant people, was, in the person of the Messiah, to stand forth in closest connection with the history of salvation. But Jesus, although Son of God, has still, in no self-willed and arbitrary manner, taken this dignity to Himself, but in the way which had been previously announced, has been placed in it by the Father.
3. True preparation for an office which is to subserve the honor of God and the salvation of men, is acquired not by amplitude of knowledge and of skill, but by learning of obedience, by which the whole person is prepared to be a willing and capable instrument for the Divine counsels. In this way Jesus Himself has been perfected, and for this reason draws all who believe in Him into the fellowship of His conflicts and His victories, of His sufferings and His blessedness.
4. The hardest thing to conceive is that the sufferings of the pious, and among them again those of the Son of God, lie within the sphere of the Divine counsels, and possess a healing and saving power. And the hardest thing to render is obedience, which not only abides by and accomplishes the will of God amidst sufferings, but in the sufferings themselves, shall perceive and prove the Divine will as a will of love, and to evince and maintain the harmony of our personal will with the will of God, by a free reception of the destined and allotted suffering.
5. As principal auxiliaries in this conflict of faith and suffering, we have given to us the certainty of the hearing of prayer, the consoling assurance of our ultimate personal perfection, and the power of communion with Jesus Christ. For Christ is to us, not merely an example and pattern, but to them that obey Him, He is the author of eternal salvation, after having been Himself perfected. His perfection refers, on the one hand, to His office of high-priestly Mediator; for, after that He had become obedient unto the death of the cross (Php 2:8), He passed into His state of exaltation in which His merits should retain an everlasting efficacy. But this perfection of His career, dependent on the fulfilment of His calling, presupposes, on the other hand, that complete unfolding of His personal character, which was dependent upon His actual humanity. Faith in the concrete unity of the life of the God-man, requires the application of the idea of development to His entire personality, after the example of Luk 2:52. But faith in His sinlessness excludes every thought of moral deficiency, and of a gradual triumph over it by the process of development. His learning of obedience, denotes not a transition from disobedience to obedience, but the practical power and depth of His personal experience of that which is connected with human life.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Christ is High-priest by virtue of His suffering of death; He is a high-priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, by virtue of His exaltation upon the throne of God,The priesthood of Christ is partly an office committed to Him, partly a calling obtained and won upon the path of suffering.In accordance with a divine calling, we are to deem no service, and no sacrifice too heavy, and are in this to take Christ as our pattern and our helper.The school of suffering, in which we learn obedience, is the longest and severest; but is productive of the richest fruits.Our way to glory and eternal blessedness, leads through suffering which God ordains after the example, and through the help of Jesus Christ.No period of life is secure from suffering; no rank and condition form a protection against it; no virtue and no merit are secure against it; but it serves to the children of God as a means of discipline in piety, and aids in time to the perfecting of our life for eternity.Prayers and tears are an aid to willing obedience.Only those sufferings which resemble Christs conflict of suffering, can comfort, purify and save.
Starke:Observe how deeply Christ was humiliated, how zealously He prayed, how obedient He proved Himself. Do thou also learn from Him, this zeal in prayer, this obedience in suffering.Our prayers and thanksgivings are also offerings, yet not propitiatory; but prayer and thank-offerings, that we may evince our faith and thankfulness of heart.Jesus, since He was the Son of God, and still took upon Himself sufferings, to which he might undoubtedly have remained superior, proves thus that He suffered not from compulsion, but with the most perfect willingness.Christ renders those blessed who are obedient to Him. No others become partakers of His salvation.The offering of the Lord Jesus on the tree of the cross is the grand feature of the atonement made on our behalf, and of all the glory connected therewith.
Rieger:If in our human hearts there can be wrought by the Spirit of God groanings which are not to be uttered, oh, then, what prayers must the Eternal Spirit, through whom our great High-priest offered Himself to His God, have called forth in Him: What sanctifying of God, of His name, counsel and will; what justifying of His judgments; what a piercing to the depths of His love; what appeal to His omnipotence; what subjection to His sovereign decree; what submission under all that was outwardly most painful and ignominious, and what a tenacious hold by hope on all that is most glorious, were united, together in this prayer!For this reason was the suffering of Jesus so mighty to expiate the sins of the whole world, because, in His suffering He so justified, in the prayer of His willing spirit, the judgment of God upon sin, and yet was not to be drawn away from His trust in Him who had placed Him in this office.Dread, fear, is the sharpest sting in suffering. This the Saviour was unable to escape particularly for the sake of needful sympathizing with us. There He experienced how weak one might be amidst entire willingness of spirit, so long as one is in the flesh; now He knows also what it is to be heard.Jesus had already previously evinced so much willing, joyful obedience in His heroic course from the Father, through the world, to the Father; but now He learned what is the deepest element in all obedience, viz: that in suffering two separate wills come into conflict with each other, of which the one must be subjected to the other; the will of the flesh and the will of the spirit.Christ now devotes just as much fidelity to the carrying out and perfecting of our salvation, as He did formerly to the obtaining of it.Weakness of the flesh becomes sinful when it would subdue the willingness of the spirit; but if we cry to God in prayer, so that we are heard and delivered from it, it becomes the appropriate discipline under which we learn and practice obedience.
Hahn:Christ knows from experience what belongs to a happy emerging from trial and suffering. Now He most sympathizingly pleads our cause with His Father.The will and calling of the Father are clear from the fact; 1, that the Father Himself, as it were, schooled His Son thereto in the days of His flesh; 2, that the Father Himself perfected Him and made Him the pledge and surety of our salvation.
Heubner:Tears are a sign of strong, fervent, earnest prayer, and prayer a sign of the holy nature of tears.Christ must be to us a consolation and a source of quickening that we may not withdraw ourselves from the school of God.Sufferings lead to perfection, and produce the most blessed fruits.None, least of all the priest, should push himself forward into office.He who arrogates to himself honor is not worthy of it.The Divine call ensures an honorable office.Because God calls, we must serve.Christ is appointed of God; His dignity, His right, are founded upon Gods ordination.The Divine Sonship of Christ was the first ground of His priestly dignity. To this God has borne witness in His word.
Stein:Called long since by the Father to be High-priest, the Son proves in His human lowliness that he is able worthily to fulfil such a, calling.He who pushes himself forward prematurely is led by empty honor; an office which is administered in a Christian manner and spirit brings with it true honor.
Hedinger:Personally tried, ready to believe, willing to help; all these united thou hast in thy Saviour.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
Ver. 4. And no man taketh, &c. ] Or if he do, he shall smoke and smart for it, as did Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah and Uzziah, &c. In physicis aer non facit seipsum ignem, sed fit a superiori, as Aquinas noteth upon ft, is text. No man might come uncalled to the king of Persia upon pain of death. What then shall become of such as come without a call to the King of heaven? Christ would not let the devil preach him,Mar 1:13Mar 1:13 , quia extra vocationem, as one well notes, because he had no calling to such an office.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 10 .] Second requisite: divine appointment .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
4 .] And (couples to Heb 5:1 , of which the subsequent verses have been epexegetical) none taketh ( , not altogether perhaps without an allusion to above, Heb 5:1 . So in Xiphilinus Galb. p. 187, , ) the office (of the high priesthood: so , Herod. ii. 59, ( ), : see other examples in Bleek. Josephus uses it frequently of the high-priestly office: e. g Antt. iii. 8. 1, ) to himself (dat. commodi: and carrying the stress of the sentence, although the construction of with both clauses must be somewhat zeugmatic: it must have rather a more active sense in the case where he takes it to himself, than in that where he only receives it, being called by God. This is denied by Delitzsch, but I see not how we can altogether escape it. The construction with in the one case necessarily throws a different tinge over the verb than when it is understood with ) but ( only when ) called by God (with the of the rec. text, it would be, ‘ but only he who is called by God ’), as indeed was Aaron (see Exo 28:1 ; Exo 29:4 ; Lev 8:1 ; Num 3:10 ; but especially Numbers 16-18. Schttgen quotes from the Rabbinical Bammidbar Rabba, 18, fol. 234, “Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: Si Aaron frater meus sibimetipsi sacerdotium sumsit ( = ) recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis: jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit,” &c.
This divine ordinance of Aaron and his sons to be high priests endured long in the Jewish polity: but long before this time the rule had been disturbed: Jos. Antt. xx. 10. 5, relates, , , , , , . Some of the early Commentators, e. g. c., Thl., Primas., imagine that an allusion to this irregularity is here intended: , , , c. But, though even Bleek imagines such an allusion may have been in the Writer’s mind, it seems I own to me very improbable).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
no man = not (Greek. ou) any (Greek. tis) one.
unto = to.
he that is. The texts omit.
called = when called.
as, &c. = even as Aaron also was. Compare Exo 28:1. Num 3:10; and contrast Num 16:1-40.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4-10.] Second requisite: divine appointment.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 5:4. , and) The apostle here commences a discussion on the actual (very) priesthood of Christ.-, any) Levitical priest.- , honour) The priesthood is an honour. Its synonym is , glory, Heb 5:5.-, Aaron) received it by being called.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of a high priest. But these alone are not sufficient actually to invest any one with that office; it is required, moreover, that he be lawfully called thereunto. The former make him meet for it, and this gives him his right unto it. And in the application of the whole unto Jesus Christ, this is first insisted on, Heb 5:5.
Heb 5:4. , , . [2]
[2] The article before is omitted by Griesbach, SchoIz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most other modern critics. Ed.
Heb 5:4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
There is no difficulty in the rendering of these words, and consequently very little difference among translators. The Syr. and Vulg. Lat. read honor absolutely, without taking notice of the article , which is here emphatical, this honor; the honor of the priesthood. And for himself, the Syriac reads, to his own soul; by an idiom of speech peculiar to the eastern languages.
The words may be taken as a negative universal proposition, with a particular exception subjoined. No man taketh this honor to himself but only he who is called. He that is called taketh this honor to himself, or he that hath right so to do, namely, to possess and exercise the office of a high priest. Or they may be resolved into two disjunctive propositions: the one universally negative, without exception or limitation, No man taketh this honor unto himself; the other particularly affirmative, He that is called of God, he doth so, or he receiveth this honor. Thus there is an opposition expressed between a mans taking this honor unto himself and his receiving of it on the call of God. Or we may yet more plainly express the meaning of the apostle. Having laid down the qualifications necessary unto him who was to be a high priest, he declares what is required for his actual investiture with this office. And this he expresseth,
1. Negatively he is not to assume this honor to himself:
2. Positively, he is to be called of God; which he exemplifies in the instance of Aaron, as was Aaron.
, any one doth not take; that is, no man doth. And is not here simply sumo, to take; but assumo, to take upon, to take to him: or as it sometimes signifies, prehendo, corripio, unduly to take, by laying hold of any thing. No man taketh, that is, according to the law, according to divine institution. It was not the law that men should so do. Men might do otherwise, and did do otherwise, both as to the office and exercise of the priesthood. So did king Uzziah as to the exercise of it, 2Ch 26:16. And at the time of the writing of this epistle, as also for many years before, there had been no lawful order or call observed in those who possessed the office of the high priesthood among the Jews. Some invaded it themselves, and some were intruded into it by foreign power. And both Chrysostom and OEcumenius suppose that our apostle in this place doth reflect on that disorder. His principal intention is plainly to declare how things ought to be, by the law and constitution of God. No man doth; that is, no man, ought so to do, for it is contrary to the law and the order appointed of God in his church. See Numbers 18. Gods institution in the Scripture is so far the sacred rule of all things to be done in his worship, that whatever is not done by virtue thereof, and in conformity thereunto, is esteemed as not done, or not at all done to him. But, . This is the object of the act prohibited: The honor; this honor whereof we treat. here intends either the office itself or the dignity of it. The office itself may be called honor, because it is honorable. So also is the word used, Heb 3:3. No man taketh this honourable office upon him of his own head, of himself, without warrant, call, and authority from God.If only the dignity of the office be intended, then it is, No man arrogateth so much to himself, so sets up or advanceth himself, as to set himself out for an high priest.I judge the office itself is first intended, yet not absolutely, but as it was honorable, such as men would naturally desire and intrude themselves into, had not God set bounds to their ambition by his law. So did Korah; for which he was first rebuked and afterwards destroyed, Num 16:9-10, etc. And this office was exceeding honorable, on a twofold account:
1. From the nature of it: wherein there was,
(1.) An especial separation unto God, Exodus 28;
(2.) An especial appropinquation or drawing nigh unto him, Leviticus 16;
(3.) The discharge of all peculiar divine services. These things made the office honorable, a high honor unto them that were duly vested with it. For what greater honor can a mortal creature be made partaker of, than to be peculiarly nigh unto God?
2. Because God required that honor should be given both unto the office and person vested with it. For this end partly was he to be adorned with garments made for beauty and for glory, and had power given him to rule in the house of God, 1Sa 2:30. But even in general, it is a great honor, on any account, to be made nigh unto God.
, but he that is called of God. The called one of God, he hath, he receiveth, he is made partaker of the honor of this office. He is the high priest whom God calls. And this call of God is the designation of a man unto an office or employment. He doth, as it were, look on a person among others, and calls him out to himself, as Exo 28:1. It compriseth also the end of the call, in the collation of right, power, and trust, whatever is necessary unto the due exercise of that whereunto any one is called; for Gods will and pleasure is the supreme rule of all order and duty. And this call is here exemplified in the instance of Aaron: even as was Aaron.
, even as Aaron, in like manner as Aaron. And the note of similitude is regulated either by the word called, or by the subject of the instance, Aaron. If by the former, no more is intended but that he must have a call of God, as Aaron had. The comparison proceeds no farther but unto the general nature of a call. A call he must have, but the especial nature of that call is not declared. But if the note of comparison be regulated by the instance of Aaron, then the especial manner and nature of the call intended is limited and determined: He must be called of God as was Aaron;that is, immediately and in an extraordinary way. And this is the sense of the words and place.
It may be objected, If this be so, then all the high priests who succeeded Aaron in the Judaical church are here excluded from a right entrance into their office; for they were not immediately called of God unto their office, as Aaron was, but succeeded one another by virtue of the law or constitution, which was only an ordinary call.Ans. It doth not exclude them from a right entrance into their office, but it doth from being considered in this place. They had that call to their office which God had appointed, and which was a sufficient warranty unto them in the discharge of it. But our apostle disputes here about the erection of a new priesthood, such as was that of Christ. Herein no ordinary call, no law-constitution, no succession, could take place, or contribute any thing thereunto. The nature of such a work excludes all these considerations. And he who first enters on such a priesthood, not before erected nor constituted, he must have such a call of God thereunto. So had Aaron at the first erection of a typical priesthood in the church of Israel. He had his call by an immediate word of command from God, singling him out from among his brethren to be set apart unto that office, Exo 28:1. And although in other things which belonged unto the administration of their office, the Lord Christ is compared to the high priests in general, executing their office according to the law, wherein they were types of him, yet as unto his entrance into his office upon the call of God, he is compared with Aaron only.
This being the proper design of the words, the things disputed by expositors and others from this place, about the necessity of an ordinary outward call to the office of the priesthood, and, by analogy, unto the ministry of the gospel, though true in themselves, are foreign unto the intention of this place; for the apostle treats only of the first erection of a priesthood in the persons of Aaron and Christ, whereunto an extraordinary call was necessary. And if none might take on him the office of the ministry but he that is called of God as was Aaron, no man alive could do so at this day.
Again, the note of similitude expresseth an agreement in an extraordinary call, but not in the manner of it and its special kind. This is asserted, that the one and the other had an immediate call from God, but no more. But as unto the especial kind and nature of this immediate call, that of Christ was incomparably more excellent and glorious than that of Aaron. This will be manifest in the next verses, where it is expressed and declared. In the meantime we shall consider the call of Aaron, as our apostle doth the ministry of Moses, Hebrews 3, declaring wherein indeed it was excellent, that so the real honor of the call of Christ above it may appear:
1. He was called of God, by a word of command for his separation unto the office of the priesthood: Exo 28:1,
Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, that he may minister unto me in the priests office.
His sons were also mentioned, because provision was herein made for succession. This made his call extraordinary, he was called of God. But,
(1.) This command was not given by a word from God immediately unto himself. God doth not say unto him, Thou art my priest; this day have I called thee.But it is Moses to whom the command is given, and with whom the execution of it is intrusted. So that,
(2.) He is in his call put as it were in the power of another; that is, of Moses. To him God says, Take unto thee Aaron thy brother; Be thou unto him in the room of God, and act towards him in my name.
2. This command or call of God was expressed in his actual separation unto his office, which consisted in two things:
(1.) His being arrayed by Gods appointment with glorious garments, Exo 28:2. And they are affirmed to be contrived on purpose for beauty and for glory. But herein also a double weakness is included or supposed:
[1.] That he stood in need of an outward robe to adorn him, because of his own weakness and infirmities, which God would as it were hide and cover, in his worship, under those garments.
[2.] That indeed they were all of them but typical of things far more glorious in our high priest, namely, that abundant fullness of the graces of the Spirit, which being poured on him rendered him fairer than the children of men. It was therefore a part of the glory of Christ, that in the discharge of his office he stood in no need of outward ornaments, all things being supplied by the absolute perfection of his own personal dignity and holiness.
(2.) His actual consecration ensued hereon; which consisted in two things:
[1.] His unction with the holy consecrated oil.
[2.] In the solemn sacrifice which was offered in his name and for him, Exodus 29. And there was much order and glory in the solemnity of his consecration.
But yet still these things had their weakness and imperfection. For,
(1.) He had nothing of his own to offer at his consecration, but he was consecrated with the blood of a bullock and a ram.
(2.) Another offered for him, and that for his sins. And this was the call of Aaron, his call of God; and that which God vindicated, setting a notable mark upon it, when it was seditiously questioned by Korah, Num 16:3; Num 17:10. And all these things were necessary unto Aaron, because God in his person erected a new order of priesthood, wherein he was to be confirmed by an extraordinary call thereunto. And this is that, and not an ordinary call, which the call of Christ is compared unto and preferred above. After this all the successors of Aaron had a sufficient call to their office, but not of the same kind with that of Aaron himself. For the office itself was established to continue by virtue of Gods institution. And there was a law of succession established, by which they were admitted into it, whereof I have treated elsewhere. But it is the personal call of Aaron which is here intended.
Obs. 1. It is an act of sovereignty in God to call whom he pleaseth unto his work and especial service, and eminently so when it is unto any place of honor and dignity in his house.
The once of the priesthood among the Jews was the highest and most honorable that was among them, at the first plantation of the church. And an eminent privilege it was, not only unto the person of him who was first called, but with respect also unto his whole posterity; for they, and they only, were to be priests unto God. Who would not think, now, but that God would call Moses to this dignity, and so secure also the honor of his posterity after him? But he takes another course, and calls Aaron and his family, leaving Moses and his children after him in the ordinary rank and employment of Levites. And the sovereignty of God is evident herein,
1. Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction. Some one is called out from among others. So was it in the call of Aaron, Exo 28:1, Take unto thee Aaron, from among the children of Israel. By a mere act of sovereign pleasure God chose him out from among the many thousands of his brethren. And this sovereign choice God insisteth on to express the favor and kindness that is in any call of his, 1Sa 2:27-28. And herewith he reproacheth the sins and ingratitude of men, upbraiding them with his sovereign kindness, Num 16:9-10.
2. Because antecedent unto their call there is nothing of merit in any to be so called, nor of ability in the most for the work whereunto they are called. Under the new testament none was ever called to greater dignity, higher honor, or more eminent employment, than the apostle Paul. And what antecedaneous merit was there in him unto his vocation? Christ takes him in the midst of his madness, rage, persecution, and blasphemy, turns his heart unto himself, and calls him to be his apostle, witness, and great instrument for the conversion of the souls of men, bearing forth his name to the ends of the earth. And this we know that himself mentions on all occasions as an effect of sovereign grace, wisdom, and mercy. What merit was there, what previous disposition unto their work, in a few fishermen about the lake of Tiberias or sea of Galilee, that our Lord Jesus Christ should call them to be his apostles, disposing them into that state and condition wherein they sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel? So was it ever with all that God called in an extraordinary manner. See Exo 4:10-11; Jer 1:6; Amo 7:14-15. In his ordinary calls there is the same sovereignty, though somewhat otherwise exercised.
For in such a call there are three things:
1. A providential designation of a person to such an office, work, or employment. When any office in the house of God, suppose that of the ministry, is fixed and established, the first thing that God doth in the call of any one thereunto, is the providential disposition of the circumstances of his life, directing his thoughts and designs toward such an end. And were not the office of the ministry in some places accompanied with many secular advantages, yea, provisions for the lusts and luxuries of men that are foreign unto it, this entrance into a call from God thereunto, by a mere disposal of mens concerns and circumstances, so as to design the ministry in the course of their lives, would be eminent and perspicuous. But whilst multitudes of persons, out of various corrupt ends, crowd themselves into the entrances of this office, the secret workings of the providence of God towards the disposal of them whom he really designs unto his work herein are greatly clouded and obscured.
2. It is part of this call of God, when he blesseth, succeedeth, and prospereth the endeavors of men to prepare themselves with those previous dispositions and qualifications which are necessary unto the actual call and susception of this office. And hereof also there are three parts:
(1.) An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with his designation of them unto their office. Where this is not effected, but men proceed according as they are stimulated by outward impressions or considerations, God is not as yet at all in this work.
(2.) An especial blessing of their endeavors for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom.
(3.) The communication of peculiar gifts unto them, rendering them meet and able unto the discharge of the duty of their office; which, in an ordinary call, is indispensably required as previous to an actual separation unto the office itself.
3. He ordereth things so, as that a person whom he will employ in the service of his house shall have an outward call, according unto rule, for his admission thereinto.
And in all these things God acts according to his own sovereign will and pleasure. And many things might hence be educed and insisted on. As,
1. That we should have an awful reverence of, and a holy readiness to comply with the call of God; not to run away from it, or the work called unto, as did Jonah 1; nor to be weary of it, because of difficulty and opposition which we meet withal in the discharge of our duty, as it sundry times was ready to befall Jer 15:10; Jer 20:7-9; much less desert or give it over on any earthly account whatever, seeing that he who sets his hand to this plough, and takes it back again, is unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, and it is certain that he who deserts his calling on worldly accounts, first took it up on no other.
2. That we should not envy nor repine at one another, whatever God is pleased to call any unto.
3. That we engage into no work wherein the name of God is concerned without his call; which gives a second observation, namely, that,
Obs. 2. The highest excellency and utmost necessity of any work to be done for God in this world, will not warrant our undertaking of it or engaging in it, unless we are called thereunto. Yea,
Obs. 3. The more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought our call unto it to be.
Both these observations will be so fixed and confirmed in the consideration of the instance given us in the next verse, as that there is no occasion here to insist upon them.
Obs. 4. It is a great dignity and honor, to be duly called unto any work, service, or office, in the house of God.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
Exo 28:1, Lev 8:2, Num 3:3, Num 16:5, Num 16:7, Num 16:10, Num 16:35, Num 16:40, Num 16:46-48, Num 17:3-11, Num 18:1-5, 1Ch 23:13, 2Ch 26:18, Joh 3:27
Reciprocal: Exo 28:41 – and consecrate them Exo 29:9 – the priest’s Exo 36:2 – in whose Num 18:7 – as a service Jdg 17:5 – consecrated Ezr 7:5 – chief priest Joh 5:43 – come Joh 8:54 – If Joh 10:1 – He Act 13:2 – the work Rom 1:1 – called Heb 7:5 – who
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 5:4. The apostle again takes up the points in which the high priests of both systems were similar. Numbers 16, 18 will clearly show that Aaron did not seek the office of high priest. but that he was called into that service by the Lord.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 5:4. A priest, moreover, who is Gods agent as well as mans, has his appointment not from himself nor from man, but from God.
And none taketh this honour (the office, as the word frequently means) to himself (upon himself, as we now say), i.e legally, acceptably to the chief party in this arrangement; but when called of God, even as Aaron was. The Divine ordinance which made Aaron and his sons high priests continued long in the theocracy, and was vindicated against the usurpation of other Levites and of kings (Num 16:17; 2Ch 26:16-21). But long before the date of this Epistle the ordinance had been broken, and the Roman power contemptuously set it aside. Some have thought that the writer rebukes these irregularities in this verse, but probably he is speaking of what was in fact the law and the proprieties of the case without any side-reference to later abuses. Who are to present offerings to God, and whom God will accept, are questions that belong clearly to God Himself. We must carefully distinguish, however, between the prophetical office and the priestly. All Christians that have the Gospel may prophesy; every man who has found the cross is competent and is authorised, nay, is even required to tell others the road. Warnings against preaching the Gospel, derived from the history of Korah and Abiram, are specially inappropriate under a dispensation when all are commanded to tell what God has done for them, when not only the Spirit and the Bride, but every one that heareth is to say, Come. The real lesson lies in another direction. We have under the Gospel one Priest only in the deeper sense of that word, a Mediator and a sacrifice, who has made complete atonement for sin. The usurpation of His office is on the part of those who assume to themselves the name of priests, and pretend to offer sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Here is the sin of Korah; the more guilty as Christ is greater than Aaron, and as His perfect sacrifice is superior to the shadowy sacrifices of the ancient Law.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of the High Priest; here we have his call and commission to theis office and function: The former made him meet for it, the latter gave him right unto it. No man taketh this honour that is, the honour of priesthood to himself, but only he that is called of God, as was Aaron, and his posterity.
Note here, 1. That it is and act of sovereignty in God, to call whom he pleases to his work and service.
2. That as it is an act of sovereignty in God, so is it a special dignity and honour to us to be duly called to, as well as qualified for his work and service.
Learn, 3. That the highest excellency, and utmost necessity of any work or service to be here done for God, will, by no means, warrant our undertaking of it, and engaging in it, without a lawful call unto it.
Learn, 4. That the more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought to be our calling to it. No man taketh this honour upon him, but he that is called of God: It were well if our lay preachers considered this.
Observe next, How the apostle applies all this to Christ: So also Christ our great High Priest, glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, uncalled, but he dignified him who said unto him, Thou art my Son; and thou art a Priest forever; without succession, after the order, similitude, and manner of Melchizedek.
Learn hence, That the office of the high priesthood over the church of God, was an honour and glory to Jesus Christ; it was so to his human nature, even as it was united to his divine nature. Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, implying that it was a glory and honour, though not assumed, but conferred: and that as Aaron was called of God, so was Christ, but in a more excellent and glorious manner.
By this we understand the intolerable pride, and bold presumption for many in these times, who take upon them to officiate in matters of religion, though neither qualified for, nor called to this work: if ever any man or angel, then surely Christ might have taken this honour to himself, yet he did not uncalled. Verily, this will be the eternal condemnation of all such usurpers, who, without any commission from God or man, undertake what they do not understand.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 5:4-6. And no man Who has any regard to duty or safety; taketh this honour This awful office, attended with a high degree of responsibility; unto himself, but he only that is called of God to it; as was Aaron And his posterity, who were all of them called at one and the same time. But it is observable Aaron did not preach at all, preaching being no part of the priestly office. So also Christ glorified not himself See Joh 8:54; to be made a High-Priest That is, did not take this honour to himself, but received it from his Father, who said unto him, Thou art my Son This solemn acknowledging of him for his Son, shows that he undertook nothing but what his Father authorized him to undertake; to-day have I begotten thee As if he had said, There is an eternal relation between us, which is the foundation of thy call to this work. See note on Psa 2:7; Act 13:33. As he God the Father; saith in another place Because the former testimony was somewhat obscure, the apostle adds another more clear: Thou art a priest for ever, after Or according to; the order of Melchisedec That is, thou art a priest, not like Aaron, but Melchisedec. Inasmuch as Melchisedec had neither predecessor nor successor in his office, his priesthood could not, properly speaking, be called an order, if by that phrase be understood a succession of persons executing that priesthood. Therefore the expression, , here rendered after the order, must mean after the similitude of Melchisedec, as it is expressed Heb 7:15; and as the Syriac version renders the phrase in this verse. The words of Gods oath, recorded Psa 110:4, are very properly advanced by the apostle as a proof of the Messiahs priesthood, because the Jews in general acknowledged that David wrote that psalm by inspiration concerning Christ.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 4
This honor; the office of high priest.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
5:4 {3} And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron.
(3) The third comparison which is complete: The others are called by God and so was Christ, but in another order than Aaron. For Christ is called the Son, begotten by God and a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Finally, a man could attain the high priesthood only by divine appointment.
"The essential nature of a high priest is that he should be chosen by God to act for his fellows in offering sacrifices related to the removal of sin." [Note: Ellingworth, p. 272.]
Only those whom God chose served in this office. These people were primarily Aaron and his successors. This ceased to be true after Israel lost her sovereignty as a nation, beginning with the Babylonian captivity. Then the high priesthood became a political appointment. However the writer was speaking of Israel as a sovereign nation. Disaster befell those individuals who took it upon themselves to perform high priestly duties without divine authorization (Korah, Numbers 16; Saul, 1Sa 13:8-14; Uzziah, 2Ch 26:16-21). The writer stressed the essential humility of the high priest who stood in his privileged position only by divine appointment. He was not stressing the dignity of his office or the grandeur of his call to his office. [Note: Lane, p. 117.]