Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 8:4
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
4. For if he were ] Rather, “now if He were still on earth.”
if he were on earth ] His sanctuary must be a heavenly one, for in the earthly one He had no standpoint.
he should not be a priest ] He would not even be so much as a Priest at all; still less a High Priest; for He was of the Tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14), and the Law had distinctly ordained that “no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord” (Num 16:40).
seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law ] Rather (omitting “priests” with the best mss.), since “there are (already) those who offer their gifts according to the Law.” The writer could not possibly have used these present tenses if the Epistle had been written after the Fall of Jerusalem. Jewish institutions are, indeed, spoken of in the present tense, after the fall of Jerusalem, by Barnabas and Clement of Rome; but they are merely using an everyday figure of speech. In case of the Epistle to the Hebrews the argument would have gained such indefinite force and weight in passages like this by appealing to a fact so startling as the annulment of the Mosaic system by God Himself, working by the unmistakeable demonstrations of history, that no writer similarly circumstanced could possibly have passed over such a point in silence.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest – He could not perform that office. The design of this is, to show a reason why he was removed to heaven. The reason was, that on earth there were those who were set apart to that office, and that he, not being of the same tribe with them, could not officiate as priest. There was an order of people here on earth consecrated already to that office, and hence, it was necessary that the Lord Jesus, in performing the functions of the office, should be removed to another sphere.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. For if he were on earth] As the Jewish temple was standing when this epistle was written, the whole temple service continued to be performed by the legal priests, descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi; therefore if Christ had been then on earth, he could not have performed the office of a priest, being of the tribe of Judah, to which tribe the office of the priesthood did not appertain.
There are priests that offer gifts] This is an additional proof that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. As the word , sacrifices, is not added here as it is in Heb 8:3, is it any evidence that bloody sacrifices had then ceased to be offered? Or, are both kinds included in the word , gifts? But is , a gift, ever used to express a bloody sacrifice? I believe the Septuagint never used it for zebach, which signifies an animal offered to God in sacrifice.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest: this gives the reason why the Levitical gifts and offerings were inconsistent with Christs priesthood: for if he were earthly for person or office, or was existing on earth, or in an earthly sanctuary or tabernacle proper to the law, he could not by Divine ordination be an offering priest, being not of Aarons family, nor of the tribe of Levi, nor such a priest as he was made by Gods oath after Melchisedecs order, if he were for temper, office, or place of ministry earthly.
Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: this earthly office, state, and work, was by the law settled on Aarons family, and none could legally offer sacrifices or gifts in Gods earthly tabernacle or temple, but his sons alone. Christ, as he was not of that tribe, so he never was either in the court of the priests, or in the holy place in the temple, neither did minister in them as a priest at all; this was proper and peculiar only to his types.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. Implying that Christ’spriestly office is exercised in heaven, not in earth; in the power ofHis resurrection life, not of His earthly life.
ForThe oldestmanuscripts read, “accordingly then.”
if, c.”if He wereon earth, He would not even (so the Greek) be a priest”(compare Heb 7:13 Heb 7:14);therefore, certainly, He could not exercise the high priestlyfunction in the earthly Holy of Holies.
seeing that, c.”sincethere are” already, and exist now (the temple service not yetbeing set aside, as it was on the destruction of Jerusalem), “those(the oldest manuscripts omit ‘priests’) who offer the(appointed) gifts according to (the) law.” Therefore, Hissacerdotal “ministry” must be “inthe heavens,” not on earth (Heb8:1). “If His priesthood terminated on the earth, He wouldnot even be a priest at all” [BENGEL].I conceive that the denial here of Christ’s priesthood on earthdoes not extend to the sacrifice on the cross which He offered asa priest on earth but applies only to the crowning work of Hispriesthood, the bringing of the blood into the Holy of Holies,which He could not have done in the earthly Holy of Holies, asnot being an Aaronic priest. The place (the heavenly Holy ofHolies) was as essential to the atonement being made as the oblation(the blood). The body was burnt without the gate; but thesanctification was effected by the presentation of the blood withinthe sanctuary by the high priest. If on earth, He would not be apriest in the sense of the law of Moses (“according tothe law” is emphatic).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,…. The Socinians from hence attempt to prove that Christ was not a priest, and did not offer sacrifice on earth; whereas his coming into the world, and his appearance in human nature, was in the character of a priest, and to qualify himself for one; his death was his sacrifice, which was on earth; and he never offered but one sacrifice; and it was after he had offered himself that he went to heaven; so the sacrifices under the law were first offered, before their blood was carried within: but the meaning is, either if “that” was on earth, namely, what it was necessary he should have to offer; if his human nature had been earthly, had been of men, had come by ordinary generation, he had not been properly, only typically a priest, at most; and had been no better than the typical ones; yea, he would have been needless, nay, might not have offered, not being of Levi’s tribe, and could not have existed as a priest with the sons of Aaron; but he had his human nature in another way, through the power of the Holy Ghost from above, and therefore is said to come from above, from heaven, and to be the Lord from heaven: or the sense is, if he was on earth, and had not died, he had not been a priest; and if he had died and remained under the power of death, he had been a priest of no account and use; and had he rose again and remained on earth, without going to heaven, with his blood and sacrifice, he had not been a perfect priest; if Christ had remained on earth, the Levitical priesthood had remained, and so he would have been no priest, since two priesthoods could not have subsisted together. The Levitical priesthood was in force while Christ was on earth; Christ’s priesthood was not perfected on earth; the Levitical priesthood remaining while he was on earth, proves he was not then a perfect priest, or had not completed his priesthood; had he been so, that would not have subsisted; it was necessary therefore that Christ should enter into the holy place, to put an end to the Levitical priesthood: moreover, if he had remained on earth, he had been needless;
seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; there were priests when Christ was upon earth; their work was to offer gifts the people brought, and sacrifices for sin, and that according to the law of Moses, which till the death of Christ was in full force.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
On earth ( ). As opposed to (verse 1). Condition of second class, determined as unfulfilled.
He would not be a priest at all (‘ ). “Not even would he be a priest.” Conclusion of second class condition with and imperfect indicative ().
Seeing there are those ( ). Genitive absolute with (from ) and the articular present active participle of (verse 3). Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi and so could not serve here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Rend. “Now if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all, seeing that there are those who offer the gifts according to the law.” Christ could not be a priest on earth, because there is an order of priests already established by law; and as Christ was not of the tribe of Levi (ch. 7 13, 14) he could have nothing in common with them.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For if he were on earth,” (ei men oun hen epiges) “If therefore he were on earth,” at this time, after the law and worship program of it have been taken out of the way, Mat 5:17-18; Gal 3:19; Gal 3:23-25.
2) “He should not be a priest,” (oud’ an hen heireus) “He would not be a priest,” a priest of the Mosaic order, because he was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and the Law of Moses has by Him now been abolished, Num 3:10; Num 16:40; Heb 7:14. One can not exist as an officer of an office that has been abolished. And the office was abolished when the Law of Moses was set aside, abolished or taken out of the way, See? Col 2:14-17; 2Co 3:13.
3) “Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts,” (onton ton prospheronton ta dora) “There being (existing) on earth those priests offering the gifts,” whose duties none but the duty constituted or legally ordained could undertake except at the risk of death, Num 3:10.
4) “According to the law,” (kata nomon) “According to the order of Divine appointment of the Law,” imperfect men, imperfect priests, of the tribe of Levi, of the family of Aaron – – Such qualifications were too low, too base for Jesus while on earth, and they would still be, if he were on earth today. For he was born of the tribe of Judah (not Levi) and of the family lineage of David, (not Aaron) and he was without sin, not a sinner, as were all priests of the Aaronic and Levitical and Melchisedec order, see? Mat 1:3; Luk 3:33; Rom 1:3; Rev 5:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. For if he were on earth, etc. It is now beyond dispute that Christ is a high priest; but as the office of a judge does not exist without laws and statutes, so the office of sacrificing must be connected with Christ as a priest: yet he has no earthly or visible sacrifice; he cannot then be a priest on earth. We must always hold this truth that when the Apostle speaks of the death of Christ, he regards not the external action, but the spiritual benefit. He suffered death as men do, but as a priest he atoned for the sins of the world in a divine manner; there was an external shedding of blood, but there was also an internal and spiritual purgation; in a word, he died on earth, but the virtue and efficacy of his death proceeded from heaven.
What immediately follows some render thus, “He could not be a priest of the number of those who offer gifts according to the Law.” But the words of the Apostle mean another thing; and therefore I prefer this rendering, “He could not be a priest as long as there are priests who,” etc. For he intends to show one of these two things, either that Christ is no priest, while the priesthood of the Law continued, as he had no sacrifice, or that the sacrifices of the law ceased as soon as Christ appeared. The first of these is against all reason, for it is an act of impiety to deprive Christ of his priesthood. It then remains for us to confess, that the Levitical order is now abolished.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) For if he were . . .The oldest Greek MSS. and two important versions read, If then He were; and two other changes in the text of this verse also rest on high authority. In its correct form the verse will stand thus: If then He were on earth, He would not even be a priest (that is, He would not be a priest at all), seeing there are those who according to law offer the gifts. The argument somewhat resembles that of Heb. 7:13-14; there, however, the impediment is that of tribe; here the thought is that the place is preoccupied by men who by express command are bringing the gifts unto God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. For It is as yet an unexplained somewhat; for so entirely is this high priest out of the order of earthly high priests, that, if he were on earth, ( were being here emphatic,) he would not be a priest at all. Our writer seems about to explain this somewhat, but the current of his thought is veered (after the Pauline style, note on Eph 3:1; Eph 3:14) by a view opening upon him of Christ’s elevation to the mediatorship of the new covenant, and he defers considering the somewhat to offer to Heb 10:5-17.
Priests law The priesthood on earth are a regular line, offering gifts, and by regular law. And in this line, and with these gifts, and according to this law, Christ would be no priest. For he was not descended from Levi; he never performed any sacrifices, and the law forbade him to be a priest. Yet the Being who on earth gazed upon the offerers of sacrifice, unadmitted to perform the rite, was sole original of all was both sole priest and victim.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing that there are those who offer the gifts according to the law,’
The writer now puts the whole matter in context. He has portrayed Jesus as a heavenly High Priest. However, he is now ready to concede that were Jesus on earth He could not act as such a priest, as a priest who ‘offered gifts according to the Law’, for he was not of the right descent. That was a matter of earthly history. Let there be no doubt about it, he is saying, if you want to be governed by the old Law and the old covenant, and to miss out on the Great Reality that has come, you must stick with the levitical priesthood. If you want an earthly priesthood, it must be the levitical priesthood.
But that is what his argument has been about. For as he has previously pointed out, and will point out again, that ignores firstly, the fact that the Law has been superseded (Heb 7:12) and a new covenant has come into being (Heb 8:6-13), and secondly, that there is a new High Priesthood in Heaven of an even more ancient likeness. That being so, if they want to continue as participators in the new covenant they must ditch the levitical priesthood. The choice is theirs. They have come to the crunch.
Note on The First Century Jewish-Christian Dilemma.
This verse brings us face to face with the dilemma faced by Jews and God-fearers on coming to Christ in the first century, and which the writer is dealing with in this letter. On the one hand they were faced with the admittedly God-revealed religion based on the God-revealed revelation in the Scriptures, in which they had been brought up, or to which they had turned from idolatry, and which was seen as the ancient way to approach God, and on the other was the challenge of the One Who was revealed as the expected Jewish Messiah, of Whose teaching it was claimed that it too was in accordance with those same Scriptures, and Whose death and resurrection had changed history, and was calling them to see that that old way was now simply of the past. And the question in respect of both was, how then should men and women now approach God and what must they believe?
For the two ways certainly seemed contrary to each other. The one called to obedience to the teaching of the priests, those men who were in the line of a priesthood that had survived for over a thousand years, and it called to response to them through the ordinances of the Jerusalem temple; the other called to obedience to Jesus Christ and an acceptance that much of the old Law was superseded, and that the temple ordinances no longer mattered because replaced by His activity as High Priest in the true Tabernacle in Heaven. It was this latter view that was being stressed and argued for by continual quotation from Scripture by this present writer.
But there was admittedly much to be said for the old priesthood. They ministered in an awe-inspiring and splendid, visible temple whose roots went back to the Tabernacle in the wilderness; they offered the same gifts and sacrifices as had been taught by Moses and had been offered over generations long past; and they ministered in the Holy Place itself, a place of ancient tradition which men entered in awe and in which was temple furniture made venerable by age, and which was before the veil that hid that most awesome of places, the Holy of Holies itself. Furthermore, hidden behind that thick veil was the very Holy of Holies which was the throneroom of God, and in which they believed that something of God dwelt, a presence often manifested, although mainly unperceived, in the shining light that they called the Shekinah.
And what was even more these men had a long established, God-revealed system by which they could daily approach the God Whose throne it was, even if the approach was somewhat restricted. And they could also once a year, although only for a short time, actually dare to pierce the veil in the person of their High Priest, so as to enter the Holy of Holies in order to obtain atonement for the people. And they had a Law given by Moses. What then did ‘the new’ offer compared with this? Only an earth shattering event could possibly replace it.
His answer up to now has been clear. There has been such an earth shattering event. It has pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, the outshining of God’s glory. It is He to Whom the Scriptures cited have pointed. It is He Who is the One through Whom God has finally spoken, and Who is the perfect revelation of what God is, and to Whom the Scriptures bore witness. (Heb 1:1-3). It is He Who is the One Who has suffered on their behalf that He might make purification for sin through the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 1:3; Heb 2:17; Heb 7:27) and Who, having died and risen again, has become the Initiator and Trek Leader of their salvation (Heb 2:10). It is He Who is the One Who has come offering the true Rest (Heb 4:1-11). But above all it is He Who is the One Who has come as the High Priest of a greater and more ancient priesthood than that of Levi, and Who, having offered Himself up as the perfect sacrifice, has now passed into Heaven on their behalf, there to carry out His ministry in the true and better Sanctuary.
So the stark choice lay before them, the levitical priesthood with its ancient ceremonies, or Christ, this wondrous and eternal High Priest of an even more ancient priesthood, Who has fulfilled them all in Himself.
End of note.
So, as the writer has already demonstrated, Jesus’ unacceptability as an earthly priest because of His earthly descent is not to the point. It has in fact rather stressed that He represents a greater priesthood, one even more ancient, one even greater, and one which enables Him to minister in Heaven in a far more glorious sanctuary, and in a far more glorious High Priesthood of a different order than that of Levi, having, as such, taken His seat at God’s right hand (Psa 110:1 with 4).
An earthly limitation might be there, he points out, but it is not really relevant. It simply demonstrates that He does not deal in copies and shadows. It is simply one that is on Him because the ancient Law stipulated that any priest who served the earthly sanctuary and ministered according to the Law, a sanctuary dealing with copies and shadows, must be of proved Aaronic descent. It is this ministry in the earthly sanctuary, where men sought to observe the old law and the old covenant, that is in the hands only of the Levites and the levitical priests. They and the old covenant and the old Law go together. But He has no bent for this. He does not desire to minister in the earthly temple. He does not want to minister a covenant of copies and shadows. He knows that such ministry is no longer valid.
So the contrast is clear. While these priests do minister on earth on behalf of the old Law and the old covenant, it is because they are dealing in copies and shadows. It is the perfect Priest, Whose ministry would not be acceptable on earth (in a place of copies and shadows), Who now ministers in the great reality of Heaven with regard to the new covenant. His readers must therefore choose between the earthly ministry with its copies and shadows, and His heavenly ministry with its dealings with the great realities themselves, between the old and the new.
Nevertheless in recognising this we must not overlook the fact that, in this period immediately after the resurrection, the Temple and its priests did still temporarily serve for such godly Jews and God-fearers as had not yet been faced up with the Gospel, but only until the time came when they did hear that Gospel and decide on their response. It was a transitory period. And this is shown by the fact that the temple was also used by some Jewish Christian worshippers, who were finding it difficult to tear themselves away from what they had esteemed all their lives, while even Paul himself (unwisely in the event) agreed to connect with its activities (Act 21:26). The writer does not deny any of this. But he does deny that it is finally relevant for those who have come into the full light of Christ. Nor would it in fact serve as it was for long, for God would shortly arrange for its demise, because it had served its time, and because its priesthood had failed. Then, in looking elsewhere, it might be that some would find Christ.
(While not absolutely certain, for it is difficult to argue from silence, it would appear almost certain from all this that the ministry in the temple was still continuing at the time of writing, confirming that the letter was written before 70 AD. If the ministry had been forcibly closed down he could hardly not have mentioned the fact here, nor would all this have been such a powerful argument against the possible desertion of some of his readers to Judaism)
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 8:4-5. For if he were on earth, “But, we may observe by the way, that if he were always to continue on earth, he could not, in any consistence with the Jewish institutions, have been a priest, to officiate at the temple of God in Jerusalem; as there are already a certain order of priests there, who offer the gifts of the people according to the law; and it is exactly settled, that none of any other family should have access to these services; nor would it have been agreeable to the divine purposes that Jesus should by extraordinary, dispensation have interfered with their peculiar functions, Heb 8:5. These he left entirely to those priests who perform divine service to an economy, which contains only the example and shadow of celestial things; as Moses was charged by Jehovah, when he was about to finish the tabernacle; for See, said he, that thou make all things according to the model shewn thee upon the mountain; lest an error which may seem to thee small, should become more material than thou art aware. Now this exactness was required, in special regard to the typical representations couched under these ordinances, the particulars of which Moses himself did not perfectly understand.” The word , rendered example, Heb 8:5 is rendered by Dr. Barrow by the very expressive word subindication. From an accurate review of this passage, the connection of the apostle’s reasoning seems to be this; “We have an High-priest seated on the right hand of God in heaven, who is first a Minister of the true holy things; and, secondly, of the true holy tabernacle. With respect to the first, the holy things, it was necessary that he should be a minister of these, because (Heb 8:3.) every high-priest is constituted for the very purpose of offering these holy things,gifts and sacrifices. And in the next place, with respect to his being a minister of the true tabernacle, namely, that in heaven; this also is equally necessary, because, Heb 8:4 if he were on earth, he could not be a priest officiating in the earthly sanctuary, as not being of the order and family of Aaron.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 8:4 . A sacrificial priest Christ can only be, either in the earthly or the heavenly sanctuary; for a third, besides these two, there is not. The author now proves, Heb 8:4 , that He cannot be a priest in the earthly sanctuary, whence it then follows of itself that He must be so in the heavenly one.
] not: if He had been (Bhme, Kuinoel), but: if He were . we have, moreover, neither, with Grotius, Wolf, and others, to supply , nor, with Zeger, Bengel, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Bhme, and others, or . It signifies nothing more than: if He were now on earth, had His dwelling-place upon earth.
] He would not even be a priest . Incorrectly Bleek, Bisping, and Ewald: He would not even be a priest not to say a high priest . For the augmenting can refer only to the whole proposition, not specially to , since otherwise must have been written. is therefore to be taken as a more general expression for the more definite . Yet more erroneously Primasius, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, Carpzov, and others: “He would not be that unique, real, or true priest, that everlasting priest after the manner of Melchisedec” which, without an addition, the words cannot by any means signify.
The reason why Christ, if He were dwelling upon earth, could not at all be a priest, is contained in the . For on earth there are, of a truth, the legally appointed priests already present, and with these Jesus, since He belonged not to the tribe of Levi, but to the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14 ), has nothing in common.
] since assuredly there are present ( has the emphasis), sc . on earth, those who in accordance with law ( i.e. according to the norm of the Mosaic law) offer the gifts , namely the Levites, among whom Christ could not be reckoned, and designate that which is still existing at the time of our author. To take the words as participles of the past (Peshito, Vulgate, Grotius, [86] Braun, and others), is already forbidden by the present , Heb 8:5 .
[86] This writer with the explanation entirely foreign to the subject: “Erant, nempe quum psalmus iste scriberetur.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 8:4-5 . Return ( ) from the subsidiary remark, Heb 8:3 , to the main thought in Heb 8:2 ( , . . .), and proof for the same.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Ver. 4. He should not be a priest ] Because not of the tribe of Levi, whose priesthood lasted so long as Christ lived on earth, and was done away by his death.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] Yea, if (or as rec., “ For if ,” which follows more smoothly and naturally on the position of Heb 8:2 , and on that very account is probably a correction. Hofmann, as above, laying all the stress on the aor. , takes the as justifying that aorist: Er muss ein nicht erst darzubringendes, sondern, dargebrachtes Opfer haben: denn wre er auf Erden But see on this above. The connexion is obvious: ‘our High Priest must have somewhat to offer. But on earth this could not be: for ’ &c.) he were (not, “ had been ,” though grammatically it might be so: the pres. part. , which follows, and , continuing it, shew that this is spoken of a continuing, not of a past hypothesis) on earth (some, as Grot., Wolf, al., supply after and something in the same view c., , : and Thdrt., : others, as Gerhard, Heinrichs, al., supply or : but this it seems to me would stultify the argument. There is no need of any thing supplied) He would not even be a priest (observe the emphasis: which is not, as Bleek, He would not even be a priest, much less a High Priest ( ), but the stress is on the verb , and it is taken ex concesso that the belonged to the genus : ‘He would not even belong to the category of priests.’ In the background lies, ‘and if not so, certainly could not be a High Priest:’ but it is not brought forward, nor does it belong to the argument, which continues , not ), since there are ( , emphatic: ‘there are already:’ not, “ were ” (as Grot.: “ erant , nempe quum Psalmus iste scriberetur”), as is shewn by below. The time indicated is that of writing the Epistle) those who offer the gifts according to ( the ) law ( the law, equally, with or without the article; not only because but one law can be meant, but because the art. is so constantly omitted after a preposition even when required in translation),
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 8:4 . “And indeed if He were on earth He would not even be a priest, since there are those who according to law offer the gifts”. = et quidem (Devarius, p. 125) or, it might be rendered “If however,” see Hermann’s Viger , p. 442. Vaughan says: “The is (as usual) in accordance with the above statement ; here, namely, that He must have something to offer ”. The apodosis in Heb 8:6 . . The argument is, given or assumed as already proved that Christ is our High Priest, it must be in Heaven He exercises His ministry, for if He were on earth, He would not even be a priest, not to say, a High Priest. [As Bleek has it, “er wrde nicht einmal Priester sein, geschweige denn Hohe priester”.] He could not be a priest, because the priestly office on earth is already filled. The law [ ], which can not be interfered with, regulates all that concerns the earthly priesthood (Heb 7:12 ), and by this law He is excluded from priestly office, not being of the tribe of Levi (Heb 7:14 ). “the gifts” further emphasises the rigorous prescriptions of the law. The absence of the article before does not necessitate though it suggests the translation “according to law”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
if. Greek. ei. App-118.
earth. Greek. ge. App-129.
should not be = would not even be.
priests. The texts omit. Read “those who offer”.
according to. Greek. kata. App-104.
the. Omit.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] Yea, if (or as rec., For if , which follows more smoothly and naturally on the position of Heb 8:2, and on that very account is probably a correction. Hofmann, as above, laying all the stress on the aor. , takes the as justifying that aorist: Er muss ein nicht erst darzubringendes, sondern, dargebrachtes Opfer haben:-denn wre er auf Erden But see on this above. The connexion is obvious: our High Priest must have somewhat to offer. But on earth this could not be: for &c.) he were (not, had been, though grammatically it might be so: the pres. part. , which follows, and , continuing it, shew that this is spoken of a continuing, not of a past hypothesis) on earth (some, as Grot., Wolf, al., supply after -and something in the same view c., , : and Thdrt., : others, as Gerhard, Heinrichs, al., supply or : but this it seems to me would stultify the argument. There is no need of any thing supplied) He would not even be a priest (observe the emphasis: which is not, as Bleek, He would not even be a priest, much less a High Priest ( ), but the stress is on the verb , and it is taken ex concesso that the belonged to the genus : He would not even belong to the category of priests. In the background lies, and if not so, certainly could not be a High Priest: but it is not brought forward, nor does it belong to the argument, which continues , not ), since there are (, emphatic: there are already: not, were (as Grot.: erant, nempe quum Psalmus iste scriberetur), as is shewn by below. The time indicated is that of writing the Epistle) those who offer the gifts according to (the) law (the law, equally, with or without the article; not only because but one law can be meant, but because the art. is so constantly omitted after a preposition even when required in translation),
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 8:4. , for) The reason why he said , in the heavens, Heb 8:1 : a Chiasmus: comp. Heb 8:2-3.- ) If our Priest were a priest upon the earth, if His priesthood terminated on the earth, He would not even be [in the true sense] a priest at all. Christ, whilst He discharged the duties of the priesthood, entered into heaven.-) inasmuch as there were already at the time priests existing.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
, , .
Vulg. Lat., si esset super terrain; all others, in terra, to the same purpose. Syr., , in the earth. , , even also he should not be a priest. . The Vulgar omits , and renders the words, cure essent qui offerrent. Rhem., whereas there were who did offer. The Syriac agrees with the original. Beza, manentibus illis sacerdotibus; quum sint alii sacerdotes.
In the preceding discourses the apostle hath fully proved, that the introduction of this new priesthood under the gospel had put an end unto the old; and that it was necessary so it should do, because, as he had abundantly discovered in many instances, it was utterly insufficient to bring us unto God, or to make the church-state perfect. And withal he had declared the nature of this new priesthood. In particular he hath showed, that although this high priest offered his great expiatory sacrifice once for all, yet the consummation of this sacrifice, and the derivation of the benefits of it unto the church, depended on the following discharge of his office, with his personal state and condition therein; for so was it with the high priest under the law, as unto his great anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, whose efficacy depended on his entrance afterwards into the holy place. Wherefore he declares this state of our high priest to be spiritual and heavenly, as consisting in the ministry of his own body in the sanctuary of heaven.
Having fully manifested these things, unfolding the mystery of them, he proceeds in this verse to show how necessary it was that so it should be, namely, that he should neither offer the things appointed in the law, nor yet abide in the state and condition of a priest here on earth, as those other priests did. In brief, he proves that he was not in any thing to take on him the administration of holy things in the church according as they were then established by law. For whereas it might be objected, If the Lord Christ was a high priest, as he pleaded, why then did he not administer the holy things of the church, according to the duty of a priest?To which he replies, that so he was not to do; yea, a supposition that he might do so was inconsistent with his office, and destructive both of the law and the gospel. For it would utterly overthrow the law, for one that was not of the line of Aaron to officiate in the holy place; and God had by the law made provision of others, that there was neither room nor place for his ministry. And the gospel also would have been of no use thereby, seeing the sacrifice which it is built upon would have been of the same nature with those under the law. This the apostle confirms in this verse.
Heb 8:4. For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.
The words are a hypothetical proposition, with the reason or confirmation of it. The proposition is in the former part of the verse, For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest. Hereof the remainder of the words is the reason or confirmation, Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.
And we may consider first the causal connection, for, which relates unto what he had discoursed immediately before, as introducing a reason why things ought to be as he had declared. He had in sundry instances manifested his present state and condition, with the way and manner of the discharge of his office. A priest he was; and therefore he must have somewhat to offer; which must be somewhat of his own, seeing the law would not accommodate him with a sacrifice, nor yet the whole creation; the law having prepossessed unto its own use all that was clean and fit to be offered unto God. A sanctuary he must also have wherein to officiate; and this was to be heaven itself, because he was himself exalted into heaven, and set down at the right hand of God. And of all this there was yet another special reason: For if he were on the earth, etc.
If indeed he were on earth. The emphasis of the particle , is not to be omitted, If really it were so;for therein is force granted unto the concession that the apostle here makes: Truly it must be so. If he were on earth, includes two things:
1. His continuance and abode on the earth: If he were not exalted into heaven in the discharge of his office; if he were not at the right hand of God; if he were not entered into the heavenly sanctuary, but could have discharged his whole office here on the earth, without any of these things. If he were thus on the earth, or thus to have been on the earth. 2. The state and condition of his priesthood: If he were on the earth, or had a priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the law; if he were to have offered the same sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the earth; if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his sacrifice could not be absolutely consummated without the presentation of himself in the most holy place not made with hands.
These two things the apostle was treating of:
1. His present state and condition, as to the sanctuary wherein he administered; which was heavenly.
2. His sacrifice and tabernacle; which was himself. In opposition unto both these is this supposition made, If he were on the earth.
This, therefore, is the full sense of this supposition, which is well to be observed, to clear the meaning of the whole verse, which the Socinians endeavor with all their skill and force to wrest unto their heresy, If we did aver him to have such a priesthood as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the earth, and to administer in the sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple, with the blood of legal sacrifices.On this supposition the apostle grants that he could not be a priest. He had not been, or could not be so much as a priest, or a priest at all in any sense. That a priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, had proved before. And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his sacrifice, tabernacle, and sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a priest.
It will be said, that he was a priest on the earth; and that therein he offered his great expiatory sacrifice, in and by his own blood. And it is true. But,
1. This was not on the earth in the sense of the law, which alone appointed the sacrifices on the earth; it was not in the way nor after the manner of the sacrifices of the law, which are expressed by that phrase, on the earth.
2. Although his oblation or sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth, yet the whole service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accomplished on the earth. Had he not entered into heaven, to make a representation of his sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the high priest of the church from that offering of himself; because the church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the earth, and not afterwards to have entered the heavenly sanctuary to make it effectual. The high priest, on the great day of expiation, perfected his sacrifice for his own sin and the sins of the people without the tabernacle; but yet he neither could, nor would, nor ought to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the ark and mercy-seat, the throne of grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been a priest.
The reason of this assertion and concession is added in the latter part of the verse, Seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.
, sacerdotibus existentibus, cum sint sacerdotes; whereas there are priests. The apostle doth not grant that at that time when he wrote this epistle there were legal priests de jure, offering sacrifices according to the law. De facto, indeed, there were yet such priests ministering in the temple, which was yet standing; but in this whole epistle, as to right and acceptance with God, he proves that their office was ceased, and their administrations useless. Wherefore respects the legal institution of the priests, and their right to officiate then, when ther Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to offer gifts according to the law.
Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these words, and the force of the reason in them:
1. Why might not the Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according unto the law?
2. Why did he not in the first place take away and abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood?
1. I answer unto the first, That if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood here below, whilst they were priests also, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sacrifices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them. This the apostle proves because he was of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood, in that it was appropriated unto the tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron. And therefore also he could not offer the same sacrifices with them; for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be.; for there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Yea, as we have proved before, the introduction of a priesthood of another order was not only inconsistent with that priesthood, but destructive of the law itself, and all its institutions. Wherefore, whilst they continued priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his office had been upon the earth together with theirs, he could not be a priest among them.
2. Unto the second inquiry, I say the Lord Christ could not by any means take away that other priesthood, until he himself had accomplished all that ever was signified thereby, according unto Gods institution. The whole end and design of God in its institution had been frustrated, if the office had ceased de jure before the whole of what was prefigured by its being, duties, and offices, was fulfilled. And therefore, although there was an intercision of its administrations for seventy years, during the Babylonish captivity, yet was the office itself continued in its right and dignity, because what it designed to prefigure was not yet attained. And this was not done till the Lord Christ ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, to administer in the presence of God for the church; for until then, the high priests entering into the holy place in the tabernacle once a year had not an accomplishment in what was prefigured thereby. Wherefore there was not an end put unto their office and ministration by the oblation of Christ on the cross, but they still continued to offer sacrifices according to the law; for there yet remained, unto the fulfilling of what was designed in their whole office, his entering into the holy place above. Wherefore they were still to continue priests, until he had completed the whole service prefigured by them, in the oblation of himself, and entering thereon into the heavenly sanctuary.
This, therefore, is the sense of the apostles reasoning in this place: The priests of the order of Aaron continued de jure their administrations of holy things, or were so to do, until all was accomplished that was signified thereby. This was not done until the ascension of Christ into heaven; for the first tabernacle was to stand until the way was made open into the holiest of all, as we shall see afterwards. Now, the Lord Christ was not a priest after their order, nor could he offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. Hence it is evident, that he could not have been a priest had he been to continue on the earth, and to administer on the earth: for so their priesthood, with which his was inconsistent, could never have had an end; for this could not be without his entrance as a priest into the heavenly sanctuary.
It appears, therefore, how vain the pretense of the Socinians is, from this place to prove that the Lord Christ did not offer his expiatory sacrifice here on the earth. For the apostle speaks nothing of his oblation, which he had before declared to have been once for all, before he entered into heaven to make intercession for us; but he speaks only of the order of his priesthood, and the state and condition wherein the present administration of it was to be continued.
Obs. 1. Gods institutions, tightly stated, do never interfere. So we see those of the ancient priesthood and that of Christ did not. They had both of them their proper bounds and seasons; nor could the latter completely commence and take place until the former was expired. The entrance of Christ into the holy place, which stated him in that condition wherein he was to continue the exercise of his priesthood unto the consummation of all things, put an absolute period unto the former priesthood, by accomplishing all that was signified thereby, with a due and seasonable end unto all legal worship, as to fight and efficacy. When he had done all that was figured by them, he took the whole work into his own hand.
Obs. 2. The discharge of all the parts and duties of the priestly office of Christ, in their proper order, was needful unto the salvation of the church. His oblation was to be on the earth, but the continuation of the discharge of his office was to be in heaven. Without this the former would not profit us; if he had done no more he could not have been a priest. For,
1. As this dependeth on the infinite wisdom of God, ordering and disposing all things that concern the discharge of this office unto their proper times and seasons; so,
2. Believers do find in their own experience, how all things are suited unto their conditions and wants. Unless the foundation of a propitiation for their sins be first laid, they can have no hope of acceptance with God. This, therefore, was first done, in the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But when this is done, unless they have a continual application of the efficacy of it unto their souls, neither their peace with God nor their access unto God can be maintained. And this is done by the ministration of his office in the heavenly sanctuary, which ensues thereon.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
he should: Heb 7:11-15, Num 16:40, Num 17:12, Num 17:13, Num 18:5, 2Ch 26:18, 2Ch 26:19
there are priests: or, they are priests
gifts: [Strong’s G1435], gifts, or offerings, comprehended propitiatory sacrifices as well as freewill-offerings., See, Heb 11:4
Reciprocal: Lev 6:20 – the offering Num 3:10 – and the stranger
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 8:4. If he were on earth. This means as long as Christ was on earth he could not act as a priest. That is because the law was in force all the time He was on earth, and it already had its priests to offer according to that law.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Verse 4
The meaning is, that his priesthood, as spoken of in the passage upon which all this discussion rests, (Psalms 110:4,) cannot be an ordinary priesthood under the law of Moses, since he did not belong to the tribe to which the priestly office was confined.–There are priests; that is, of the tribe of Levi.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
8:4 {5} For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
(5) He gives a reason why he said that our High Priest is in the heavenly sanctuary, and not in the earthly: because, says he, if he were now on the earth, he could not minister in the earthly sanctuary, seeing there are still Levitical priests who are appointed for him, that is to say, to be patterns of that perfect example. To what purpose should the patterns serve, when the true and original example is present?