Text -- Hebrews 5:1-6 (NET)

5:1 For every high priest is taken from among the people and appointed to represent them before God, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. 5:2 He is able to deal compassionately with those who are ignorant and erring, since he also is subject to weakness, 5:3 and for this reason he is obligated to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. 5:4 And no one assumes this honor on his own initiative, but only when called to it by God, as in fact Aaron was. 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but the one who glorified him was God, who said to him, “You are my Son! Today I have fathered you,” 5:6 as also in another place God says, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Heb 5:1

In things pertaining to God ( ta pros ton theon ).

Accusative of general reference as in Heb 2:17 (Rom 15:17). The two essential points about any high priest are human sympathy (Heb 5:1-3) and divine appointment (Heb 5:4). He is taken from men and appointed in behalf of men.

Robertson: Heb 5:1

That he may offer ( hina prospherēi ).

Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of prospherō , "that he keep on offering (from time to time)."

Robertson: Heb 5:1

Both gifts ( dōra )

and sacrifices (kai thusias ). General term (dōra ) and bloody offerings, but the two together are inclusive of all as in Heb 8:3; Heb 9:9 (1Ki 8:64).

Robertson: Heb 5:1

For sins ( huper hamartiōn ).

His own included (Heb 7:27) except in the case of Jesus.

Robertson: Heb 5:2

Who can bear gently ( metriopathein dunamenos ).

Present active infinitive of the late verb metriopatheō (metrios , moderate, pateō , to feel or suffer). It is a philosophical term used by Aristotle to oppose the apatheia (lack of feeling) of the Stoics. Philo ranks it below apatheia . Josephus ( Ant. XII. 32) uses it of the moderation of Vespasian and Titus towards the Jews. It occurs here only in the N.T. "If the priest is cordially to plead with God for the sinner, he must bridle his natural disgust at the loathsomeness of sensuality, his impatience at the frequently recurring fall, his hopeless alienation from the hypocrite and the superficial, his indignation at any confession he hears from the penitent"(Dods).

Robertson: Heb 5:2

With the ignorant ( tois agnoousin ).

Dative case of the articular present active participle of agnoeō , old verb not to know (Mar 9:32).

Robertson: Heb 5:2

And erring ( kai planōmenois ).

Present middle participle (dative case) of planaō . The one article with both participles probably makes it a hendiadys, sins of ignorance (both accidence and sudden passion) as opposed to high-handed sins of presumption and deliberate purpose. People who sinned "willingly"(hekousiōs , Heb 10:26) had no provision in the Levitical system. For deliberate apostasy (Heb 3:12; Heb 10:26) no pardon is offered.

Robertson: Heb 5:2

Is compassed with infirmity ( perikeitai astheneian ).

Present passive indicative of the old verb perikeimai here used transitively as in Act 28:20 (halusin , chain). The priest himself has weakness lying around him like a chain. Not so Jesus.

Robertson: Heb 5:3

For himself ( peri heautou ).

Note peri three times here (peri tou laou ,peri heautou ,peri hamartiōn ), but in Heb 5:1 huper anthrōpōn ,huper hamartiōn . In the Koiné this interchange of peri (around) and huper (over) is common (Mat 26:28).

Robertson: Heb 5:4

Taketh the honour unto himself ( heautōi lambanei tēn timēn ).

Dative case of personal interest (heautōi ). 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.

Robertson: Heb 5:5

So Christ also ( houtōs kai ho Christos ).

Just as with Aaron. Jesus had divine appointment as high priest also.

Robertson: Heb 5:5

To be made ( genēthēnai ).

First aorist passive infinitive of ginomai .

Robertson: Heb 5:5

High priest ( archierea ).

Predicate accusative agreeing with heauton (himself) object of edoxasen .

Robertson: Heb 5:5

But he that spake unto him ( all' ho lalēsas pros auton ).

Ellipsis of edoxasen to be supplied from preceding clause. God did glorify Jesus in appointing him priest as we see in Psa 2:7 quoted already as Messianic (Heb 1:5). Jesus himself repeatedly claimed that the Father sent him on his mission to the world (Joh 5:30, Joh 5:43; Joh 8:54; Joh 17:5, etc.). Bruce holds that Christ’ s priesthood is co-eval with his Sonship. Davidson thinks it is merely suitable because he is Son. Clearly the Father nominated (Dods) the Son to the Messianic priesthood (Joh 3:16).

Robertson: Heb 5:6

In another place ( en heterōi ).

That is Psa 110:4. It is this crucial passage by which the author will prove the superiority of Jesus to Aaron as high priest. Only the word priest (hiereus ) occurs here which the author uses as synonymous with high priest (archiereus ). The point lies in the meaning of the phrase "After the order of Melchizedek"(kata tēn taxin Melchisedek ). But at this point the only thing pressed is the fact of the divine appointment of Jesus as priest. He returns to this point (5:10-7:28).

Vincent: Heb 5:1

Every high priest ( πᾶς ἀρχιερεὺς )

Every Levitical high priest. Αρχιερεὺς o P.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

Taken ( λαμβανόμενος )

Rend. being taken , or since he is taken: not who is taken . The point is that the high priest's efficiency for men depends on his being taken from among men.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

Is ordained ( καθίσταται )

Constituted priest. See on Tit 1:5.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

For men ( ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων )

On behalf of men.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

In things pertaining to God ( τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν )

As respects his relation to God. See on Heb 2:17.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

That he may offer ( ἵνα προσφέρῃ )

Προσφέρειν , lit. to bring to ( the altar ). Comp. Mat 5:23. o P., who, however, has the kindred noun προσφορὰ offering . Very often in lxx; nineteen times in Hebrews, and always, with one exception (Heb 12:7), in the technical sense, as here.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

Gifts - sacrifices ( δῶρα - θυσίας )

Δῶρα offerings generally: θυσίας bloody sacrifices. The distinction, however, is not constantly observed. Thus, θυσὶαι , of unbloody offerings, Gen 4:3, Gen 4:5; Lev 2:1; Num 5:15; δῶρα , of bloody offerings, Gen 4:4; Lev 1:2, Lev 1:3, Lev 1:10.

Vincent: Heb 5:1

For sins ( ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν )

In this the priest's efficiency is especially called out, and he who has not genuine compassion for the sinful cannot do this efficiently. Hence the words which follow.

Vincent: Heb 5:2

Have compassion ( μετιοπαθεῖν )

N.T.o . o lxx. o Class. Originally of the rational regulation of the natural passions, as opposed to the Stoic ἀπάθεια , which involved the crushing out of the passions. Often, in later Greek, of moderating anger. It is not identical with συνπαθῆσαι (Heb 4:5), but signifies to be moderate or tender in judgment toward another's errors. Here it denotes a state of feeling toward the ignorant and erring which is neither too severe nor too tolerant. The high priest must not be betrayed into irritation at sin and ignorance, neither must he be weakly indulgent.

Vincent: Heb 5:2

The ignorant ( τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι )

Comp. ἀγνοημάτων ignorances , Heb 9:7, and Num 15:22-31, where the distinction is drawn between sins of ignorance and sins of presumption. Atonement for sins of ignorance was required by the Levitical law as a means of educating the moral perception, and of showing that sin and defilement might exist unsuspected: that God saw evil where men did not, and that his test of purity was stricter than theirs.

Vincent: Heb 5:2

For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity ( ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν )

Sympathy belongs to the high-priestly office, and grows out of the sense of personal infirmity. The verb is graphic: has infirmity lying round him . Comp. Heb 12:1, of the encompassing (περικείμενον ) cloud of witnesses. Ἀσθένειαν the moral weakness which makes men capable of sin. This is denied in the case of Christ. See Heb 7:28.

Vincent: Heb 5:3

He ought ( ὀφείλει )

It is his duty, growing out of the fact of his own infirmity.

Vincent: Heb 5:4

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 ( καλούμενος )

The A.V. follows T.R., ὁ καλούμενος . The article should be omitted. Rend. but being called by God ( he taketh it ), as did Aaron .

Vincent: Heb 5:5

Did not glorify himself to be made high priest

Ἐδόξασεν glorified is general, and is more specifically defined by γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα to be made high priest .

Vincent: Heb 5:5

But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, etc.

Supply glorified him . He did not glorify himself, but God who styled him " son" glorified him. Thou art my Son is introduced thus in close connection with the call to the priesthood, in recognition of the fact that the priesthood of Christ had its basis in his sonship. " Christ's priestly vocation ceases to be an accident in his history, and becomes an essential characteristic of his position as Son: sonship, christhood, priestliness, inseparably interwoven" (Bruce).

Vincent: Heb 5:6

Thou art a priest forever, etc.

According to this verse Christ is prophetically pointed out in Psa 110:1-7 as an eternal priest, independent of fleshly descent, a king, and superior in dignity to the Levitical priests.

Vincent: Heb 5:6

According to the order ( κατὰ τὴν τάξιν )

According to the rank which Melchisedec held. Almost = like . For Melchisedec see ch. 7.

Wesley: Heb 5:1

Is, till he is taken, of the same rank with them.

Wesley: Heb 5:1

That is, is wont to be appointed.

Wesley: Heb 5:1

To bring God near to men, and men to God.

Wesley: Heb 5:1

Out of things inanimate, and animal sacrifices.

Wesley: Heb 5:2

In proportion to the offence: so the Greek word signifies.

Wesley: Heb 5:2

Them that are in error.

Wesley: Heb 5:2

Them that are in sin.

Wesley: Heb 5:2

Even with sinful infirmity; and so needs the compassion which he shows to others.

Wesley: Heb 5:4

The apostle begins here to treat of the priesthood of Christ. The sum of what he observes concerning it is, Whatever is excellent in the Levitical priesthood is in Christ, and in a more eminent manner; and whatever is wanting in those priests is in him.

Wesley: Heb 5:4

The priesthood. To himself, but he that is called of God, 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.

Wesley: Heb 5:5

That is, did not take this honour to himself, but received it from him who said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - Not, indeed, at the same time; for his generation was from eternity. Psa 2:7.

Wesley: Heb 5:6

Psa 110:4.

JFB: Heb 5:1

Substantiating Heb 4:15.

JFB: Heb 5:1

That is, every legitimate high priest; for instance, the Levitical, as he is addressing Hebrews, among whom the Levitical priesthood was established as the legitimate one. Whatever, reasons Paul, is excellent in the Levitical priests, is also in Christ, and besides excellencies which are not in the Levitical priests.

JFB: Heb 5:1

Not from among angels, who could not have a fellow feeling with us men. This qualification Christ has, as being, like the Levitical priest, a man (Heb 2:14, Heb 2:16). Being "from men," He can be "for (that is, in behalf of, for the good of) men."

JFB: Heb 5:1

Greek, "constituted," "appointed."

JFB: Heb 5:1

To be joined with "for sins," as "sacrifices" is (the "both . . . and" requires this); therefore not the Hebrew, "mincha," "unbloody offerings," but animal whole burnt offerings, spontaneously given. "Sacrifices" are the animal sacrifices due according to the legal ordinance [ESTIUS].

JFB: Heb 5:2

Greek, "being able"; not pleasing himself (Rom 15:3).

JFB: Heb 5:2

Greek, "estimate mildly," "feel leniently," or "moderately towards"; "to make allowance for"; not showing stern rigor save to the obstinate (Heb 10:28).

JFB: Heb 5:2

Sins not committed in resistance of light and knowledge, but as Paul's past sin (1Ti 1:13). No sacrifice was appointed for wilful sin committed with a high hand; for such were to be punished with death; all other sins, namely, ignorances and errors, were confessed and expiated with sacrifices by the high priest.

JFB: Heb 5:2

Not deliberately and altogether wilfully erring, but deluded through the fraud of Satan and their own carnal frailty and thoughtlessness.

JFB: Heb 5:2

Moral weakness which is sinful, and makes men capable of sin, and so requires to be expiated by sacrifices. This kind of "infirmity" Christ had not; He had the "infirmity" of body whereby He was capable of suffering and death.

JFB: Heb 5:3

"on account of this" infirmity.

JFB: Heb 5:3

The Levitical priest ought; in this our High Priest is superior to the Levitical. The second "for" is a different Greek term from the first; "in behalf of the people . . . on account of sins."

JFB: Heb 5:4

Of any other family but Aaron's, according to the Mosaic law, can take to himself the office of high priest. This verse is quoted by some to prove the need of an apostolic succession of ordination in the Christian ministry; but the reference here is to the priesthood, not the Christian ministry. The analogy in our Christian dispensation would warn ministers, seeing that God has separated them from the congregation of His people to bring them near Himself, and to do the service of His house, and to minister (as He separated the Levites, Korah with his company), that content with this, they should beware of assuming the sacrificial priesthood also, which belongs to Christ alone. The sin of Korah was, not content with the ministry as a Levite, he took the sacerdotal priesthood also. No Christian minister, as such, is ever called Hiereus, that is, sacrificing priest. All Christians, without distinction, whether ministers or people, have a metaphorical, not a literal, priesthood. The sacrifices which they offer are spiritual, not literal, their bodies and the fruit of their lips, praises continually (Heb 13:15). Christ alone had a proper and true sacrifice to offer. The law sacrifices were typical, not metaphorical, as the Christian's, nor proper and true, as Christ's. In Roman times the Mosaic restriction of the priesthood to Aaron's family was violated.

JFB: Heb 5:5

Did not assume the glory of the priestly office of Himself without the call of God (Joh 8:54).

JFB: Heb 5:5

That is, the Father glorified Him or appointed Him to the priesthood. This appointment was involved in, and was the result of, the Sonship of Christ, which qualified Him for it. None but the divine Son could have fulfilled such an office (Heb 10:5-9). The connection of Sonship and priesthood is typified in the Hebrew title for priests being given to David's sons (2Sa 8:18). Christ did not constitute Himself the Son of God, but was from everlasting the only-begotten of the Father. On His Sonship depended His glorification, and His being called of God (Heb 5:10), as Priest.

JFB: Heb 5:6

He is here called simply "Priest"; in Heb 5:5, "High Priest." He is a Priest absolutely, because He stands alone in that character without an equal. He is "High Priest" in respect of the Aaronic type, and also in respect to us, whom He has made priests by throwing open to us access to God [BENGEL]. "The order of Melchisedec" is explained in Heb 7:15, "the similitude of Melchisedec." The priesthood is similarly combined with His kingly office in Zec 6:13. Melchisedec was at once man, priest, and king. Paul's selecting as the type of Christ one not of the stock of Abraham, on which the Jews prided themselves, is an intimation of Messianic universalism.

Clarke: Heb 5:1

For every high priest taken from among men - This seems to refer to Lev 21:10, where it is intimated that the high priest shall be taken מאחיו meachaiv , from his brethren; i.e. he shall be of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron

Clarke: Heb 5:1

Is ordained for men - Ὑπερ ανθρωπων κ̀±θισταται τα προς τον Θεον· Is appointed to preside over the Divine worship in those things which relate to man’ s salvation

Clarke: Heb 5:1

That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins - God ever appeared to all his followers in two points of view

1.    As the author and dispenser of all temporal good

2.    As their lawgiver and judge. In reference to this twofold view of the Divine Being, his worship was composed of two different parts

1.    Offerings or gifts

2.    Sacrifices

1.    As the creator and dispenser of all good, he had offerings by which his bounty and providence were acknowledged

2.    As the lawgiver and judge, against whose injunctions offenses had been committed, he had sacrifices offered to him to make atonement for sin

The δωρα, or gifts, mentioned here by the apostle, included every kind of eucharistical offering. The θυσιαι, sacrifices, included victims of every sort, or animals whose lives were to be offered in sacrifice, and their blood poured out before God, as an atonement for sins. The high priest was the mediator between God and the people; and it was his office, when the people had brought these gifts and sacrifices, to offer them to God in their behalf. The people could not legitimately offer their own offerings, they must be all brought to the priest, and he alone could present them to God. As we have a high priest over the house of God, to offer all our gifts and his own sacrifice, therefore we may come with boldness to the throne of grace. See above.

Clarke: Heb 5:2

Who can have compassion on the ignorant - The word μετριοπαθειν, signifies, not merely to have compassion, but to act with moderation, and to bear with each in proportion to his ignorance, weakness, and untoward circumstances, all taken into consideration with the offenses he has committed: in a word, to pity, feel for, and excuse, as far as possible; and, when the provocation is at the highest, to moderate one’ s passion towards the culprit, and be ready to pardon; and when punishment must be administered, to do it in the gentlest manner

Instead of αγνοουσι, the ignorant, one MS. only, but that of high repute, has ασθενουσι, the weak. Most men sin much through ignorance, but this does not excuse them if they have within reach the means of instruction. And the great majority of the human race sin through weakness. The principle of evil is strong in them; the occasions of sin are many; through their fall from God they are become exceedingly weak; and what the apostle calls, Heb 12:1, that ευπεριστατον ἁμαρτιαν, the well-circumstanced sin, often occurs to every man. But, as in the above ease, weakness itself is no excuse, when the means of strength and succor are always at hand. However, all these are circumstances which the Jewish high priest took into consideration, and they are certainly not less attended to by the High Priest of our profession

The reason given why the high priest should be slow to punish and prone to forgive is, that he himself is also compassed with weakness; περικειται ασθενειαν ; weakness lies all around him, it is his clothing; and as he feels his clothing, so should he feel it; and as he feels it, so he should deplore it, and compassionate others.

Clarke: Heb 5:3

And by reason hereof - As he is also a transgressor of the commands of God, and unable to observe the law in its spirituality, he must offer sacrifices for sin, not only for the people, but for himself also: this must teach him to have a fellow feeling for others.

Clarke: Heb 5:4

This honor - Την τιμην undoubtedly signifies here the office, which is one meaning of the word in the best Greek writers. It is here an honorable office, because the man is the high priest of God, and is appointed by God himself to that office

Clarke: Heb 5:4

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.

Clarke: Heb 5:5

Christ glorified not himself - The man Jesus Christ, was also appointed by God to this most awful yet glorious office, of being the High Priest of the whole human race. The Jewish high priest represented this by the sacrifices of beasts which he offered; the Christian High Priest must offer his own life: Jesus Christ did so; and, rising from the dead, he ascended to heaven, and there ever appeareth in the presence of God for us. Thus he has reassumed the sacerdotal office; and because he never dies, he can never have a successor. He can have no vicars, either in heaven or upon earth; those who pretend to be such are impostors, and are worthy neither of respect nor credit

Clarke: Heb 5:5

Thou art my Son - See on Heb 1:5 (note), and the observations at the end of that chapter. And thus it appears that God can have no high priest but his Son; and to that office none can now pretend without blasphemy, for the Son of God is still the High Priest in his temple.

Clarke: Heb 5:6

He saith also in another place - That is, in Psa 110:4, a psalm of extraordinary importance, containing a very striking prediction of the birth, preaching, suffering, death, and conquests of the Messiah. See the notes on Psa 110:4. For the mode of quotation here, See the note on Heb 2:6

Clarke: Heb 5:6

Thou art a priest for ever - As long as the sun and moon endure, Jesus will continue to be high priest to all the successive generations of men, as he was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If he be a priest for ever, there can be no succession of priests; and if he have all power in heaven and in earth, and if he be present wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, he can have no vicars; nor can the Church need one to act in his place, when he, from the necessity of his nature, fills all places, and is everywhere present. This one consideration nullifies all the pretensions of the Romish pontiff, and proves the whole to be a tissue of imposture

Clarke: Heb 5:6

After the order of Melchisedec - Who this person was must still remain a secret. We know nothing more of him than is written in Gen 14:18 (note), etc., where see the notes, and particularly the observations at the end of that chapter, in which this very mysterious person is represented as a type of Christ.

Calvin: Heb 5:1

1.=== For every high priest, === etc. He compares Christ with the Levitical priests, and he teaches us what is the likeness and the difference between them; and the object of the whole discourse is, to show what Christ’s office really is, and also to prove that whatever was ordained under the law was ordained on his account. Hence the Apostle passes on at last to show that the ancient priesthood was abolished.

He first says that the priests were taken from among men; secondly, that they did not act a private part but for the whole people; thirdly, that they were not to come empty to appease God, but furnished with sacrifices; fourthly, that they were not to be exempt from human infirmities, that they might more readily succor the distressed; and lastly, that they were not presumptuously to rush into this office, and that then only was the honor legitimate when they were chosen and approved by God. We shall consider briefly each of these points.

We must first, however, expose the ignorance of those who apply these things to our time, as though there was at this day the same need of priests to offer sacrifices; at the same time there is no necessity for a long refutation. For what can be more evident than that the reality found in Christ is compared with its types, which, being prior in time, have now ceased? But this will appear more fully from the context. How extremely ridiculous then are they who seek by this passage to establish and support the sacrifice of the mass! I now return to the words of the Apostle.

===Taken from among men, === etc. This he says of the priests. It hence follows that it was necessary for Christ to be a real man; for as we are very far from God, we stand in a manner before him in the person of our priest, which could not be, were he not one of us. Hence, that the Son of God has a nature in common with us, does not diminish his dignity, but commends it the more to us; for he is fitted to reconcile us to God, because he is man. Therefore Paul, in order to prove that he is a Mediator, expressly calls him man; for had he been taken from among angels or any other beings, we could not by him be united to God, as he could not react down to us.

===For men, === etc. This is the second clause; the priest was not privately a minister for himself, but was appointed for the common good of the people. But it is of great consequence to notice this, so that we may know that the salvation of us all is connected with and revolves on the priesthood of Christ. The benefit is expressed in these words, ordains those things which pertain to God. They may, indeed, be explained in two ways, as the verbκαθίσταται has a passive as well as an active sense. They who take it passively give this version, “is ordained in those things,” etc.; and thus they would have the preposition in to be understood; I approve more of the other rendering, that the high priest takes care of or ordains the things pertaining to God; for the construction flows better, and the sense is fuller. ⁸⁴ But still in either way, what the Apostle had in view is the same, namely, that we have no intercourse with God, except there be a priest; for, as we are unholy, what have we to do with holy things? We are in a word alienated from God and his service until a priest interposes and undertakes our cause.

===That he may offer both gifts, === etc. The third thing he mentions respecting a priest is the offering of gifts. There are however here two things, gifts and sacrifices; the first word includes, as I think, various kinds of sacrifices, and is therefore a general term; but the second denotes especially the sacrifices of expiation. Still the meaning is, that the priest without a sacrifice is no peacemaker between God and man, for without a sacrifice sins are not atoned for, nor is the wrath of God pacified. Hence, whenever reconciliation between God and man takes place, this pledge must ever necessarily precede. Thus we see that angels are by no means capable of obtaining for us God’s favor, because they have no sacrifice. The same must be thought of Prophets and Apostles. Christ alone then is he, who having taken away sins by his own sacrifice, can reconcile God to us.

Calvin: Heb 5:2

2.=== Who can, === etc. This fourth point has some affinity to the first, and yet it may be distinguished from it; for the Apostle before taught us that mankind are united to God in the person of one man, as all men partake of the same flesh and nature; but now he refers to another thing, and that is, that the priest ought to be kind and gentle to sinners, because he partakes of their infirmities. The word which the Apostle uses, μετριοπαθεῖν is differently explained both by Greek and Latin interpreters. ⁸⁵ I, however, think that it simply means one capable of sympathy. All the things which are here said of the Levitical priests do not indeed apply to Christ; for Christ we know was exempt from every contagion of sin; he therefore differed from others in this respect, that he had no necessity of offering a sacrifice for himself. But it is enough for us to know that he bare our infirmities, though free from sin and undefiled. Then, as to the ancient and Levitical priests, the Apostle says, that they were subject to human infirmity, and that they made atonement also for their own sins, that they might not only be kind to others when gone astray, but also condole or sympathize with them. This part ought to be so far applied to Christ as to include that exception which he mentioned before, that is, that he bare our infirmities, being yet without sin. At the same time, though ever free from sin, yet that experience of infirmities before described is alone abundantly sufficient to incline him to help us, to make him merciful and ready to pardon, to render him solicitous for us in our miseries. The sum of what is said is, that Christ is a brother to us, not only on account of unity as to flesh and nature, but also by becoming a partaker of our infirmities, so that he is led, and as it were formed, to show forbearance and kindness. The participle, δυνάμενος is more forcible than in our common tongue, qui possit , “who can,” for it expresses aptness or fitness. The ignorant and those out of the way, or erring, he has named instead of sinners, according to what is done in Hebrew; for שגגה , shegage, means every kind of error or offense, as I shall have presently an occasion to explain.

Calvin: Heb 5:4

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.

Calvin: Heb 5:5

5.=== Thou art my Son, === etc. This passage may seem to be far­fetched; for though Christ was begotten of God the Father, he was not on this account made also a priest. But if we consider the end for which Christ was manifested to the world, it will plainly appear that this character necessarily belongs to him. We must however bear especially in mind what we said on the first chapter; that the begetting of Christ, of which the Psalmist speaks, was a testimony which the Father rendered to him before men. Therefore the mutual relation between the Father and the Son is not what is here intended; but regard is rather had to men to whom he was manifested. Now, what sort of Son did God manifest to us? One indued with no honor, with no power? Nay, one who was to be a Mediator between himself and man; his begetting then included his priesthood. ⁸⁶

Calvin: Heb 5:6

6.As he saith in another place, or, elsewhere, etc. Here is expressed more clearly what the Apostle intended. This is a remarkable passage, and indeed the whole Psalm from which it is taken; for there is scarcely anywhere a clearer prophecy respecting Christ’s eternal priesthood and his kingdom. And yet the Jews try all means to evade it, in order that they might obscure the glory of Christ; but they cannot succeed. They apply it to David, as though he was the person whom God bade to sit on his right hand; but this is an instance of extreme effrontery; for we know that it was not lawful for kings to exercise the priesthood. On this account, Uzziah, that is, for the sole crime of intermeddling with an office that did not belong to him, so provoked God that he was smitten with leprosy. (2Ch 26:18.) It is therefore certain that neither David nor any one of the kings is intended here.

If they raise this objection and say, that princes are sometimes called כהנים cohenim, priests, I indeed allow it, but I deny that the word can be so understood here. For the comparison here made leaves nothing doubtful: Melchisedec was God’s priest; and the Psalmist testifies that that king whom God has set on his right hand would be a |kohen| according to the order of Melchisedec. Who does not see that this is to be understood of the priesthood? For as it was a rare and almost a singular thing for the same person to be a priest and a king, at least an unusual thing among God’s people, hence he sets forth Melchisedec as the type of the Messiah, as though he had said, “The royal dignity will not prevent him to exercise the priesthood also, for a type of such a thing has been already presented in Melchisedec.” And indeed all among the Jews, possessed of any modesty, have conceded that the Messiah is the person here spoken of, and that his priesthood is what is commended.

What is in Greek, κατὰ τάξιν according to the order, is in Hebrew, על-דברתי ol-deberti, and means the same, and may be rendered, “according to the way” or manner: and hereby is confirmed what I have already said, that as it was an unusual thing among the people of God for the same person to bear the office of a king and of a priest, an ancient example was brought forward, by which the Messiah was represented. The rest the Apostle himself will more minutely set forth in what follows.

Defender: Heb 5:1

The high priest in Israel had, supposedly, three qualifications. He was "taken from among men," must "have compassion" (Heb 5:2), and be "called of God" (Heb 5:4).

Defender: Heb 5:1

The "gifts" offered were for thanksgiving, and the sacrifices were for repentance to seek forgiveness."

Defender: Heb 5:5

Quoting Psa 2:7, already quoted once in Heb 1:6, indicates the importance of this prophetic Messianic psalm."

Defender: Heb 5:6

This verse quotes Psa 110:4, also quoted in Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21. Christ met all requirements for the priesthood except that of descent from Aaron. However, he was of another priestly order, greater even than that of Aaron and Levi.

Defender: Heb 5:6

Melchisedec was the mysterious priest/king who met Abraham when he returned from defeating the marauding confederation of kings from the north (see Gen 14:17-19). In the Genesis account, he is merely called "king of Salem" (meaning "peace") and "priest of the most high God" (the Hebrew name is El Elyon, "highest God"). The identity of Melchisedec has been vigorously debated. He is discussed in greater detail in Hebrews 7:1-21."

TSK: Heb 5:1

every : Heb 10:11; Exo 28:1-14, 29:1-37; Lev 8:2

is ordained : Heb 8:3

for men : Heb 2:17; Num 16:46-48, Num 18:1-3

both : Heb 8:3, Heb 9:9, Heb 10:11, Heb 11:4; Lev 9:7, Lev 9:15-21

TSK: Heb 5:2

Who : Heb 2:18, Heb 4:15

have compassion on : or, reasonably bear with

ignorant : Num 15:22-29; 1Ti 1:13

them : Heb 12:13; Exo 32:8; Jdg 2:17; Isa 30:11

is compassed : Heb 7:28; Exo 32:2-5, Exo 32:21-24; Num 12:1-9, Num 20:10-12; Luk 22:32; 2Co 11:30; 2Co 12:5, 2Co 12:9, 2Co 12:10; Gal 4:13

TSK: Heb 5:3

as : Heb 7:27, Heb 9:7; Exo 29:12-19; Lev 4:3-12, Lev 8:14-21, Lev 9:7, Lev 16:6, Lev 16:15

TSK: Heb 5:4

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

TSK: Heb 5:5

Christ : Joh 7:18, Joh 8:54

Thou : Heb 1:5; Psa 2:7; Mic 5:2; Joh 3:16; Act 13:33; Rom 8:3

TSK: Heb 5:6

Thou : Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20, Heb 7:3, Heb 7:15, Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21; Psa 110:4

Melchisedec : Gen 14:18, Gen 14:19

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Heb 5:1

For every high priest - That is, among the Jews, for the remarks relate to the Jewish system. The Jews had one high priest who was regarded as the successor of Aaron. The word "high priest"means "chief priest;"that is, a priest of higher rank and office than others. By the original regulation the Jewish high priest was to be of the family of Aaron Exo 29:9, though in later times the office was frequently conferred on others. In the time of the Romans it had become venal, and the Mosaic regulation was disregarded; 2 Macc. 4:7; Josephus, Ant . xv. 3. 1. It was no longer held for life, so that there were several persons at one time to whom was given the title of high priest. The high priest was at the head of religious affairs, and was the ordinary judge of all that pertained to religion, and even of the general justice of the Hebrew commonwealth; Deu 17:8-12; Deu 19:17; Deu 21:5; Deu 27:9-10.

He only had the privilege of entering the most holy place once a year, on the great day of atonement, to make expiation for the sins of the people; Lev. 16. He was to be the son of one who had married a virgin, and was to be free from any corporeal defect; Lev 21:13. The "dress"of the high priest was much more costly and magnificent than that of the inferior order of priests; Exo 39:1-7. He wore a mantle or robe - מציל m^e ̀iyl - of blue, with the borders embroidered with pomegranates in purple and scarlet; an "ephod"- אפוד ‛ephowd - made of cotton, with crimson, purple, and blue, and ornamented with gold worn over the robe or mantle, without sleeves, and divided below the arm-pits into two parts or halves, of which one was in front covering the breast, and the other behind covering the back. In the ephod was a breastplate of curious workmanship, and on the head a mitre. The breastplate was a piece of broidered work about ten inches square, and was made double, so as to answer the purpose of a pouch or bag. It was adorned with twelve precious stones, each one having the name of one of the tribes of Israel. The two upper corners of the breastplate were fastened to the ephod, and the two lower to the girdle.

Taken from among men - There maybe an allusion here to the fact that the great High Priest of the Christian dispensation had a higher than human origin, and was selected from a rank far above people. Or it may be that the meaning is, that every high priest on earth - including all under the old dispensation and the great high priest of the new - is ordained with reference to the welfare of people, and to bring some valuable offering forman to God.

Is ordained for men - Is set apart or consecrated for the welfare of people. The Jewish high priest was set apart to his office with great solemnity; see Exo. 29:

In things pertaining to God - In religious matters, or with reference to the worship and service of God. He was not to be a civil ruler, nor a teacher of science, nor a military leader, but his business was to superintend the affairs of religion.

That he may offer both gifts - That is, thank-offerings, or oblations which would be the expressions of gratitude. Many such offerings were made by the Jews under the laws of Moses, and the high priest was the medium by whom they were to be presented to God.

And sacrifices for sin - Bloody offerings; offerings made of slain beasts. The blood of expiation was sprinkled by him on the mercyseat, and he was the appointed medium by which such sacrifices were to be presented to God; see the notes at Heb 9:6-10. We may remark here:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the proper office of a priest is to present a "sacrifice"for sin.

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 t is "improper"to give the name "priest"to a minister of the gospel. The reason is, that he offers no sacrifice; he sprinkles no blood. He is appointed to "preach the word,"and to lead the devotions of the church, but not to offer sacrifice. Accordingly the New Testament preserves entire consistency on this point, for the name "priest"is never once given to the apostles, or to any other minister of the gospel.

Among the Papists there is "consistency"- though gross and dangerous error - in the use of the word "priest."They believe that the minister of religion offers up"the real body and blood of our Lord;"that the bread and wine are changed by the words of consecration into the "body and blood, the soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus"(Decrees of the Council of Trent), and that "this"is really offered by him as a sacrifice. Accordingly they "elevate the host;"that is, lift up, or offer the sacrifice and, require all to bow before it and worship, and with this view they are "consistent"in retaining the word "priest."But why should this name be applied to a "Protestant"minister, who believes that all this is blasphemy, and who claims to have no "sacrifice"to offer when he comes to minister before God? The great sacrifice; the one sufficient atonement, has been offered - and the ministers of the gospel are appointed to proclaim that truth to men, not to offer sacrifices for sin.

Barnes: Heb 5:2

Who can have compassion - Margin, "Reasonably bear with."The idea is that of "sympathizing with."The high priest is taken from among men, in order that he may have a fellow-feeling for those on whose behalf he officiates. Sensible of his own ignorance, he is able to sympathize with those who are ignorant; and compassed about with infirmity, he is able to succour those who have like infirmities.

And on them that are out of the way - The erring, and the guilty. If he were taken from an order of beings superior to people, be would be less qualified to sympathize with those who felt that they were sinners, and who needed pardon.

For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity - see chap. Heb 7:28. He is liable to err; He is subject to temptation; he must die, and appear before God - and encompassed with these infirmities, he is better qualified to minister in behalf of guilty and dying people. For the same reason it is, that the ministers of the gospel are chosen from among people. They are of like passions with others. They are sinners; they are dying men. They can enter into the feelings of those who are conscious of guilt; they can sympathize with those who tremble in dread of death; they can partake of the emotions of those who expect soon to appear before God.

Barnes: Heb 5:3

And by reason hereof - Because he is a sinner; an imperfect man. "As for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins."To make an expiation for sins. He needs the same atonement; he offers the sacrifice for himself which he does for others; Lev 9:7. The same thing is true of the ministers of religion now. They come before God feeling that they have need of the benefit of the same atonement which they preach to others; they plead the merits of the same blood for their own salvation which they show to be indispensable for the salvation of others.

Barnes: Heb 5:4

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:

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat 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.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 his 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.

Barnes: Heb 5:5

So also Christ glorified not himself; - see the notes at Joh 8:54. The meaning is, that Jesus was not ambitious; that he did not obtrude himself into the great office of high priest; he did not enter upon its duties without being regularly called to it. Paul claimed that Christ held that office; but, as he was not descended front Aaron, and as no one might perform its duties without being regularly called to it, it was incumbent on him to show that Jesus was not an intruder, but had a regular vocation to that work. This he shows by a reference to two passages of the Old Testament.

But he that said unto him - That is, he who said to him "Thou art my Son,"exalted him to that office. He received his appointment from him. This was decisive in the case, and this was sufficient, if it could be made out, for the only claim which Aaron and his successors could have to the office, was the fact that they had received their appointment front God.

Thou art my Son - Psa 2:7. See this passage explained in the notes on Act 13:38. It is used here with reference to the designation to the priestly office, though in the Psalm more particularly to the anointing to the office of king. The propriety of this application is founded on the fact that the language in the Psalm is of so general a character, that it may be applied to "any"exaltation of the Redeemer, or to any honor conferred on him. It is used here with strict propriety, for Paul is saying that Jesus did not exalt "himself,"and in proof of that he refers to the fact that God had exalted him by calling him his "Son."

Barnes: Heb 5:6

As he saith also in another place - Psa 110:4. "Thou art a priest forever."It is evident here that the apostle means to be understood as saying that the Psalm referred to Christ, and this is one of the instances of quotation from the Old Testament respecting which there can be no doubt. Paul makes much of this argument in a subsequent part of this Epistle, Heb. 7 and reasons as if no one would deny that the Psalm had a reference to the Messiah. It is clear from this that the Psalm was understood by the Jews at that time to have such a reference, and that it was so universally admitted that no one would call it in question. That the Psalm refers to the Messiah has been the opinion of nearly all Christian commentators, and has been admitted by the Jewish Rabbis in general also. The "evidence"that it refers to the Messiah is such as the following:

(1)    It is a Psalm of David, and yet is spoken of one who was superior to him, and whom he calls his "Lord;"Heb 5:1.

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 t cannot be referred to Jehovah himself, for he is expressly Heb 5:1 distinguished from him who is here addressed.

(3)\caps1     i\caps0 t cannot be referred to anyone in the time of David, for there was no one to whom he would attribute this character of superiority but God.

(4)\caps1     f\caps0 or the same reason there was no one among his posterity, except the Messiah, to whom he would apply this language.

(5)\caps1     i\caps0 t is expressly ascribed by the Lord Jesus to himself; Mat 22:43-44.

(6)\caps1     t\caps0 he scope of the Psalm is such as to be applicable to the Messiah, and there is no part of it which would be inconsistent with such a reference. Indeed, there is no passage of the Old Testament of which it would be more universally conceded that there was a reference to the Messiah, than this Psalm.

Thou art a priest - He is not here called a "high priest,"for Melchizedek did not bear that title, nor was the Lord Jesus to be a high priest exactly in the sense in which the name was given to Aaron and his successors. A word is used, therefore, in a general sense to denote that he would be a "priest"simply, or would sustain the priestly office. This was all that was needful to the present argument which was, that he was "designated by God"to the priestly office, and that he had not intruded himself into it.

For ever - This was an important circumstance, of which the apostle makes much use in another part of the Epistle; see the notes at Heb 7:8, Heb 7:23-24. The priesthood of the Messiah was not to change from hand to hand; it was not to be laid down at death; it was to remain unchangeably the same.

After the order - The word rendered "order"- τάξις taxis - means "a setting in order - hence, "arrangement"or "disposition."It may be applied to ranks of soldiers; to the gradations of office; or to any rank which men sustain in society. To say that he was of the same "order"with Melchizedek, was to say that he was of the same "rank"or "stations."He was like him in his designation to the office. In what respects he was like him the apostle shows more fully in Heb. 7. "One"particular in which there was a striking resemblance, which did not exist between Christ and any other high priest, was, that Melchizedek was both a "priest"and a "king."None of the kings of the Jews were priests; nor were any of the priests ever elevated to the office of king. But in Melchizedek these offices were united, and this fact constituted a striking resemblance between him and the Lord Jesus. It was on this principle that there was such pertinency in quoting here the passage from the second Psalm; see Heb 5:5. The meaning is, that Melchizedek was of a special rank or order; that he was not numbered with the Levitical priests, and that there were important features in his office which differed from theirs. In those features it was distinctly predicted that the Messiah would resemble him.

Melchisedek - see the notes on Heb 7:1 ff.

Poole: Heb 5:1

Heb 5:1-4 Concerning the office of high priests taken from

among men,

Heb 5:5-10 wherewith Christ’ s priesthood is compared, and its

privileges set forth.

Heb 5:11-14 A further account of which is deferred, and for what reason.

For every high priest taken from among men : for is a rational particle, enforcing the truth of what was asserted concerning the gospel High Priest before, that he was the most sensible and tender-hearted of all other, beyond what all his types were, even Aaron himself: how did it therefore behove those Hebrews to cleave to him and his religion, as to desert the Levitical priesthood which he had perfected in himself; he being more excellent for rise, qualities, office, call, than his preceding types, and the permanent truth of them all! For every one of that order in God’ s institution, and according to his law, ought to be selected out of the numbers of men for whom he was to minister, and therefore to be a man. He was not to be an angel, nor to minister for them; and being separated from men, is to be put into another and higher rank and order, Exo 28:1 , than he was in before: no person was to usurp it, but to be designed to it according to the Divine law settled in that behalf. This was accomplished in Christ’ s person, and he hath not since selected out of men any such order of priests properly so called in the Christian church. His officers being so far from being high priests, that they are not so much as in the enumeration of their titles styled iereiv , priests; and as far is it from truth, that there are now as priests, so altars, sacrifices, temples in the Christian church properly so called; since it is expressly against the New Testament, and if so spoken of by the fathers, it must be understood figuratively and metaphorically, or else it is untrue.

Is ordained for men in things pertaining to Godkayistatai , the designed person, is constituted and set over others for their good, to seek either temporal or spiritual good, as the office is: compare Heb 8:3 . By this ordination is power conveyed to this officer, and an obligation laid on him by a charge to exert it about things wherein men are concerned with God: he is a religious officer. Ta is imperfect, as Heb 2:7 , for en toiv , in things, or kata ta , about things. A sinner can undertake to manage nothing towards God immediately, or by himself, but with a mediating priest, who must know God’ s mind and perform it; and it was infinite mercy for God to institute such a help to sinners. The common sense of mankind about it since the fall doth evince it; no nation being without a religion, a temple, a place of worship, or a priest.

That he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins who may bring home to God, the supreme Lord and King of all, gifts, which were those free-will offerings, as of things inanimate, the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, &c., or of sacrifices, such whereby they were to atone and propitiate God for their sins, they being guilty, and he just; those were necessary to satisfy his justice, remove his wrath, and procure his blessing. What those sacrifices were which would please him, God only could reveal, as who should offer them both for himself and others: and this he did reveal to Adam, Noah, and Abraham, and to Moses fully in his law given him about them on the mount, and of which he hath written in his last four books.

Poole: Heb 5:2

Who can have compassion on the ignorant: the melting quality of the typical high priest is eminently to be fulfilled in the gospel one; each is to have an aptness, disposition, and a sufficiency of it, by the institution of God, for his ministrations, for manner as well as for matter, Heb 2:18 4:15 . Metriopayein , strictly, is to bear, suffer, or be affected in measure, or suffer moderately, with the failings of others, in such a degree as is necessary to incline, as far as he is able, to succour, help, and comfort those who are in misery. It notes sympathy, Heb 2:18 Rom 12:15 ; and a suffering with them, yet so regulated by the Divine rule, as not to extend it unto unfit subjects, nor in an undue measure, lest it unfits him for ministerting for them. But the great High Priest excelleth in this, and is not bound to our measures, but sinlessly overabounds in it, to such as sin for want of knowledge of their duty, unwittingly, and without any forecast, for which the law provided a sacrifice, Lev 4:2 Num 15:24-29 .

And on them that are out of the wayplanwmenoiv a metaphor borrowed from travellers gone out of their way; by which are understood such sinners as are misled by infirmity or violence of temptation, and so offend God by their opinions or practices; for the expiation of such were those sacrifices appointed, Lev 5:6,7 ; but then they were such as were sensible of their sins, confessed them, and begged for pardon, of whom the High Priest was to be compassionate; but not of presumptuous and capital sinners, who were unfit subjects of God’ s mercy or man’ s: there being no sacrifices provided for such, but they were to die without mercy, Num 15:30,31 ; compare Exo 22:14 . God’ s altar itself is no protection to them, 1Ki 2:28,31 . Such sins of infirmity which the Levitical high priest was liable to himself, was he to be compassionate of.

For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity for that he was beset with infirmity, sin, ignorance, error, and disobedience; infirm in respect of duty and sacrifice, which was by reason of its weakness to be repeated yearly, Heb 10:1,11 ; and of the same infirm nature, liable to the griefs and miseries of his brethren both in soul and body. All these did surround and lie about him; he was sin and weakness all over, and therefore should be the more feeling of his brethren’ s states, and more careful and ready to sacrifice and intercede for himself and them. But our great High Priest hath all the sense of these, but no sin, Heb 4:15 .

Poole: Heb 5:3

This connection demonstrates the infirmity of the legal high priest: for this their infirmity, sins of ignorance and error.

And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people he was obliged to his work by the express law of God, Lev 1:1-17 . It is a rule for what the priests ought to do, and so is the whole book, to which they are to be punctually obedient, even to sacrifice for particular sinners in the church, as they were guilty and brought their sacrifice, Lev 4:1-35 , and for the whole church of Israel on the atonement day, Lev 16:15-34 .

So also for himself, to offer for sins he had also his proper sacrifice for his own sins commonly, Lev 4:3 , extraordinarily on the day of atonement annually, Lev 16:6-14 . It is not necessary to a priest to be a sinner, but it is to be merciful. Adam offered prayers and praises to his Creator for himself and Eve in innocency; but since the fall our Lord Jesus Christ is the only High Priest without sin, and yet most merciful, as well as most sensible of the sins and miseries of penitent believing sinners. He offers up the sacrifice to God truly propitiatory, as his types did the typical ones, and procured the pardon which God promised to give upon his so sacrificing to him.

Poole: Heb 5:4

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 God’ s law, whose priesthood, offerings, and ministry are no true ones, especially where men are self-officiating, corruptly managing of it, as Eli’ s sons and Jeroboam’ s 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 God’ s 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 God’ s 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 Nu 16:35 17:5 .

Poole: Heb 5:5

The Spirit now draws the parallel, and shows, that whatsoever is requisite in God’ s high priest, is transcendently fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, the infirmities of his types, which were accidental to the office, excepted.

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest: he begins the parallel in his call to it: God-man, the, great gospel High Priest, anointed to this office in the flesh with the Holy Ghost, was not tainted with ambition, neither did usurp this honour and dignity, Joh 8:54 , though there never was person qualified for it, or deserved it, like him. He never did intrude himself upon the office, or take the sacerdotal power to him, whatever others have done, and usurped it.

But he that said unto him but God the Father bespeaketh him, and calleth him to this high office, as he did Aaron: he chose him, separated, sent, and anointed him for it. No less person than the eternal Jehovah could constitute and invest him in what was so high for dignity, so glorious for power; he did by speaking commission him for it, and did publish and testify the constitution, glorifying him in it, as is testified, Psa 2:7 .

Thou art my Son : Thou, is not David, but Christ, as is interpreted, Heb 1:5 Act 13:33 . Art my only begotten Son, my natural Son, Joh 1:14,18 ; the first-born of God, Psa 89:27 ; compare Rom 8:29 Col 1:18 . As his Son, the Father could appoint him to what calling he pleased. By his primogeniture he had right to the priesthood and kingship; and to these doth the Father call him, as who would not be denied by him.

To-day have I begotten thee from eternity he had a right and title to this office, but his solemn investiture in it was on the resurrection day, then was he begotten to it; not only dedicated, as Hannah did Samuel to the priesthood, but solemnly, after his consecration by his own blood to it, Heb 9:10-12,23,24 , compare Rom 1:4 , was he by the Father proclaimed to be the Son-mediator, King, Priest, and Prophet, and made to enter the holy of holiest in heaven, and to sit down there on his Father’ s right hand, invested with glory and power for the execution of his offices, and this of his priesthood in special, which tie is daily fulfilling with him by his intercession: see Heb 7:25,28 9:24 ; compare Psa 2:8 .

Poole: Heb 5:6

As he saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest for ever: the Spirit proves his call and investiture into this office, its confirmation to him for ever, by another testimony of the Father about it, penned by David, Psa 110:4 , and ratified to be so by the Lord himself, Mat 22:41-45 ; that he as man was David’ s Son: as God-man, David’ s Lord, and the grand officer to atone God by his sacrifice for sinners, and to intercede for them. By this word of God to him was he invested with the most glorious priesthood, and settled in that which he must execute for ever, Heb 7:24 , having no successor in it.

After the order of Melchisedec which order was a singular and most excellent one, such as Aaron’ s did but imperfectly shadow to us. It was a royal priesthood God installed him in, such as was Melchisedec’ s, largely described, Heb 7:1-28 . This was by God the Father revealed to David, and prophesied by him to the church, but actually fulfilled as to proclamation and inauguration at his ascension into the holy of holiest in heaven, where he actually in the flesh doth officiate and minister in it.

Haydock: Heb 5:1

Every high priest. He speaks first of the office of priests in general, before he speaks of Christ's priesthood. A priest is chosen and preferred before other men, as qualified for the divine ministry, to offer up gifts, oblations, sacrifices, in order to obtain forgiveness for his own sins and those of the people, who, by the experience he has of his own infirmities, may compassionate others who offend through frailty or ignorance, every priest (excepting our Saviour Christ) being a sinner. Nor must he take upon himself rashly and inconsiderately, for temporal motives, this sacred ministry, formidable (says St. Gregory) even for the shoulders of Angels; he must consult God by prayer, follow the advice of his spiritual guides and pious parents; by these means to know whether he has a call from God to this ministry, as Aaron had. (Witham) ---

The priest and pastor should never forget that he is a man and a sinner; that he is honoured with this divine ministry, to offer sacrifice both for his own sins and for the sins of the faithful; that prayer should be his delight, the altar his centre, and the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ his supreme felicity. "This sacrifice of the Eucharist," says St. Augustine, "has succeeded to all the ancient victims that were immolated of old, to signify the future sacrifice." (lib. 10. chap. xx. de Civit. Dei.) As to the word mass, it was in use to signify this holy sacrifice of the altar above thirteen hundred years ago. See the second Council of Carthage, canon 3.; St. Jerome upon the Prov. chap. xi.; St. Ambrose, lib. 2. ep. 14. Missa facere cœpi; I began to say mass. It was introduced into this country [Great Britain] with Christianity itself. See Ven. Bede's history, chap. xxvii. & b. 4. chap. xiv.

Haydock: Heb 5:4

See in 3 Kings xiii.; 2 Paralipomenon xxvi.; and 1 Kings xiii. the manifest punishments of the Almighty on laics that impiously and sacrilegiously attempted the ministry of priests. In the Christian dispensation, archbishop Cranmer, the very soul of the pretended reformation, dictatorially pronounces, "he that is appointed to be a bishop or priest, needeth no consecration:" words quoted by Dr. Stillingfleet from his own handwriting, in his Irenicum, p. 391, 2nd. ed. But the Catholic Church has given a very different decision, which is confirmed by the testimony of Scripture, apostolical tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. See Acts vi. 6. and xiii. 3. and xiv. 22.; 1 Timothy iv. 14. &c. See in the history of Socrates, who lived in the fifth century, how the usurpation of Ischyras, in taking upon himself the name and office of a priest without receiving holy orders, was reprobated as a crime worthy of death. (lib. 1. chap. xxvii. Ed. Val.)

Haydock: Heb 5:5

So also Christ, as man, did not glorify himself, by assuming this dignity of high priest, but had it conferred upon him by the divine decrees of his eternal Father, who said to him: Thou art my Son, and thou art a priest forever, &c. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 5:6

Some may perhaps wonder why St. Paul does not dwell more in this epistle on the eucharistic sacrifice; but until the Hebrews understood the bloody sacrifice on the cross, they could not be supposed to understand the unbloody sacrifice of the altar. The holy Fathers observe, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech, (Genesis xiv. 18.) offered in bread and wine, prefigured the unbloody sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ at his last supper. See Clement of Alexandria, lib. 4. Strom. chap. viii.; St. Cyprian, lib. 2. ep. 3. ad Cæul.; Eusebius of Cæsarea, lib. 5. Dem. Evang. chap. iii.; St. Jerome, ad Marcel.; St. Augustine, ep. 95. ad Inn. Pap.; St. Ambrose; St. Epiphanius; St. John Chrysostom; &c. apud Bellarmine, lib. 1. de missa. chap. vi. Hence it follows, that the holy Eucharist is truly and properly a sacrifice as well as a sacrament, as the paschal lamb or passover of the old law was both a sacrament and sacrifice. For either our Saviour offered sacrifice at his last supper under the forms of bread and wine, or he cannot be called a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. For the different orders of priests are chiefly distinguished by their sacrifice; (see ver. 1.) and if it be supposed that our Saviour only offered a bloody sacrifice, he would with more propiety have been called a priest according to the order of Aaron, and not of Melchisedech. See St. Augustine, lib. 16. de Civitat. Dei. chap. xxii.

Gill: Heb 5:1

For every high priest taken from among men,.... Every one that was an high priest under the law was a man, and not an angel; and it was proper he should be so, that he might be a priest for men, have compassion on them, and offer for them; and he was among the number of common men, and was taken out from them, and chosen and separated from the rest of men, as Aaron and his sons were from the children of Israel, Exo 28:1. And such an one

is ordained for men; in their room and stead, and for their good; and above them, as the word sometimes signifies; he was exalted unto, and invested with a superior office, to which he was ordained according to the law of a carnal commandment, by anointing with oil, and without an oath.

In things pertaining to God; in things in which God had to do with men; and so he presided over them in the name of God, and declared the will of God unto them, and blessed them; and in things in which men had to do with God; and so he appeared in their name, and represented their persons, and presented their sacrifices to God, as follows:

that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; freewill offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings, sin and trespass offerings, all kind of sacrifice.

Gill: Heb 5:2

Who can have compassion on the ignorant,.... Who have committed sins of ignorance, and bring their sacrifices for them; these he does not insult and upbraid, nor break out into anger and indignation against; but pities them, and sympathizes with them; has a just measure of compassion suitable to their condition, and bears with them with great moderation and temper:

and on them that are out of the way; of God's commandments; who are like sheep going astray, and turn to their own way; who transgress the law of God, and err from it; perhaps such who sin knowingly and wilfully, and through infirmity, are meant:

for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity; not of body only, but of mind, sinful infirmity; he had much of it, it beset him all around; he was "clothed" with it, as the Syriac version renders it; as Joshua the high priest was with filthy garments, Zec 3:3.

Gill: Heb 5:3

And by reason hereof,.... Because of his sinful infirmity:

he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins; as he offered sacrifice for the sins of the people, so he was obliged to offer for his own sins; in this Christ differed from the high priest, for he had no sin of his own to offer for, Heb 7:27 but he had, and therefore offered for them, Lev 16:11 and made a confession of them: the form of which, as used on the day of atonement, was this;

"he put both his hands upon the bullock, and confessed, and thus he said: I beseech thee, O Lord, I have done wickedly, I have transgressed, I have sinned before thee, I and my house; I beseech thee, O Lord, pardon the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which I have done wickedly, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house.''

And this he did a second time on that day ^z.

Gill: Heb 5:4

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.

Gill: Heb 5:5

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest,.... It was a glorifying of Christ, to make him an high priest; not as God, for as such no addition can be made to his glory; yea, it was a condescension in him to become a priest: but as man; it was an honour to the human nature to be united to the Son of God; and to be separated from others to this office; and to be called unto it, qualified for it, and invested with it; and to be of the order he was, and to do the work; and the very assistance he had in it, for the accomplishment of it, was a glorifying of him, for which he prayed; and the work being done, he had glory given him by his Father; and an ascription of glory is made to him by angels and saints: but Christ did not take this high and honourable office to himself, nor the glory of it; indeed, he did not receive it from man, nor was he made a priest according to the ceremonial law; yet he did not intrude himself into this office:

but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee; he appointed him to this office; he sent him to execute it; he anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows; he consecrated and established him in it with an oath; and prescribed to him what he should do, suffer, and offer; and declared to him what he might expect as the reward thereof. These words are taken out of Psa 2:7; see Gill on Heb 1:5, and they are not to be considered as constitutive of Christ's priesthood, as if that was intended by the begetting of him as a Son; but as descriptive of the person, who called him to it, who stood in the relation of a Father to Christ, and Christ in the relation of a Son to him; therefore the one was very proper to call, and the other a very fit person to be called to this office, being every way capable of executing it, to the glory of God, and to the good of men.

Gill: Heb 5:6

As he saith also in another place,.... Or psalm; namely, in Psa 110:4 that is, the same person, even God the Father; who spake the words before cited, also expressed the following:

thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec; that the psalm, from whence these words are taken, belongs to the Messiah; see Gill on Mat 22:44 and this very passage is applied unto him by the Jewish writers ^c; and had not this been the general sense of the Jewish church at this time, the apostle writing to Hebrews would not have produced it; and it very clearly expresses the priesthood of Christ, the eternity of it, and the order according to which it was; and it being not according to the order of Aaron, but of another, shows the change of the priesthood, and so of the law; of Melchizedek; see Gill on Heb 7:1.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Heb 5:1

¹ tn Grk “from among men,” but since the point in context is shared humanity (rather than shared maleness), the plural Greek term ἀνθρώπων (anqrwpwn) has been translated “people.”

² tn Grk “who is taken from among people is appointed.”

³ tn Grk “appointed on behalf of people in reference to things relating to God.”

NET Notes: Heb 5:4

¹ sn Honor refers here to the honor of the high priesthood.

² tn Grk “by himself, on his own.”

³ tn Grk “being called by God.”

NET Notes: Heb 5:5

¹ tn Grk “the one”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “I have begotten you”; see Heb 1:5.

sn A quotation from Ps 2:7.

NET Notes: Heb 5:6

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² sn A quotation from Ps 110:4.

Geneva Bible: Heb 5:1

For ^{( 1 )} every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things [pertaining] to God, ^{( 2 )} that he may offer both ^{( a )} gifts and ^{( b )} sacrifices for sins:

^{( 1 )} The first part of the first comparison of Christ's high priesthood with Aaron's: Other high priests are taken from among men, and are called after the order of men. ^{( 2 )} The first part of the second comparison: Others though weak, are made high priests, to the end that feeling the same infirmity in themselves which is in all the rest of the people, they should in their own and the peoples name offer gifts and sacrifices, which are witnesses of common faith and repentance.

^{( a )} Offering of things without life.

^{( b )} Beasts which were killed, but especially in the sacrifices for sins and offences.

Geneva Bible: Heb 5:2

Who ^{( c )} can have compassion on the ignorant, and ^{( d )} on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is ^{( e )} compassed with infirmity.

^{( c )} Fit and meet.

^{( d )} On them that are sinful: for in the Hebrew tongue, under ignorance and error is every sin meant, even that sin that is voluntary.

^{( e )} He carries with him a nature subject to the same inconveniences and vices.

Geneva Bible: Heb 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.

Geneva Bible: Heb 5:6

As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the ^{( f )} order of Melchisedec.

^{( f )} After the likeness or manner as it is later declared.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Heb 5:1-14

1 The honour of our Saviour's priesthood.

11 Negligence in the knowledge thereof is reproved.

Combined Bible: Heb 5:1-4

Superior to Aaron.   

(Hebrews 5:1-4).   

We are now to enter upon the longest section of our Epistle (Heb. 5:1-10,39), and a section which is, from the doctrinal and practical viewpoints, perhaps the most important of all. In it the Holy Spirit treats of our Savior’ s priesthood. Concerning this most blessed and vital subject the utmost confusion prevails in Christendom today. Yet this is scarcely to be wondered at. For not only has the time now arrived when the majority of those who profess the name of Christ "will not endure sound doctrine," who after their own fleshly and worldly lusts have heaped to themselves teachers that tickle their itching ears with God-dishonoring novelties, but they have turned away their ears from the truth, and are "turned unto fables" (2 Tim. 4:3, 4). Never was there a time when true God-fearing Christians more needed to heed that Divine admonition, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). Our only safeguard is to emulate the Bereans and search the Scriptures daily to ascertain whether or not the things we hear and read from men— be their reputation for scholarship, piety, and orthodoxy never so great— are according to the unerring Word of God.  

Romanists, and with them an increasing number of Anglicans (Episcopalians), virtually set aside the solitary grandeur of the Priesthood of Christ and the sufficiency of His Atonement, by bringing in human priests to act as mediators between God and sinful men. Arminians are in fundamental error by representing the priestly office and ministry of Christ as having a relation to and a bearing upon the whole human race. Most of the leaders among the Plymouth Brethren have wrested the Scriptures by denying the priestly character of Christ’ s death by insisting that He only entered upon His priestly office after His ascension, and by affirming that it bears no direct relation to sin or sins, but is only a ministry of sympathy and succor for weakness and infirmities. But as it will serve no profitable purpose to deal with the errors of others, let us turn to the positive side of our subject.  

Three references to the High Priesthood of Christ have already been before us in the preceding chapters of our Epistle. First, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, "Wherefore, in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." This, of itself, is quite sufficient to expose the sophistries of those who teach that the priestly work of Christ has nothing to do with "sins." Second, in Hebrews 3:1 we have been exhorted to, "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." Third, in Hebrews 4:14 we are told, "We have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." Here again is a single statement which is alone sufficient to prove that our Savior entered upon His priestly office before His ascension, for it was as the "great High Priest" He "passed into the heavens."  

Supplementing our previous comments on Hebrews 4:14 and introducing what is to be before us, let us note that the Lord Jesus is designed a "great High Priest." This word at once emphasizes His excellency and pre-eminency. Never was there, never can there be another, possessed of such dignity and glory. The "greatness" of our High Priest arises, First, from the dignity of His person: He is not only Son of man, but Son of God (Heb. 4:14). Second, from the purity of His nature: He is "without sin" (Heb. 4:15), "holy," (Heb. 7:26). Third, from the eminency of His order: that of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6). Fourth, from the solemnity of his ordination: "with an oath" (Heb. 7:20, 21)— none other was. Fifth, from the excellency of His sacrifice: "Himself, without spot" (Heb. 9:14). Sixth, from the perfection of His administration (Heb. 7:11, 25)— He has satisfied divine justice, procured Divine favor, given access to the Throne of Grace, secured eternal redemption. Seventh, from the perpetuity of His office: it is untransferable and eternal (Heb. 7:24). From these we may the better perceive the blasphemous arrogancy of the Italian pope, who styles himself "pontifex maximus"— the greatest high priest.  

"No part of the Mosaic economy had taken a stronger hold of the imaginations and affections of the Jews than the Aaronical High-priesthood, and that system of ritual worship over which its occupants presided. The gorgeous apparel, the solemn investure, the mysterious sacredness of the high priest, the grandeur of the temple in which he ministered, and the imposing splendor of the religious rites which he performed,— all these operated like a charm in riveting the attachment of the Jews to the now overdated economy, and in exciting powerful prejudices against that simple, spiritual, unostentatious system by which it had been superceded. In opposition to those prejudices, the apostle shows that the Christian economy is deficient in nothing excellent to be found in the Mosaic; on the contrary, that it has a more dignified High Priest, a more magnificent temple, a more sacred altar, a more efficacious sacrifice; and that, to the spiritually enlightened mind, all the temporary splendors of the Mosaic typical ceremonial, wax dim and disappear amid the overwhelming glories of the permanent realities of the Christian institution" (Dr. John Brown).  

But once more we could fain pause and admire the consummate wisdom of the Spirit of God as exhibited in the method pursued in presenting the truth in this Epistle. Had it opened with the declaration of Christ’ s superiority over Moses and Aaron, the prejudices of the Jews had been at once aroused. Instead, the personal dignity of the mediatorial Redeemer has been shown (from their own Scriptures) to be so great, that the glory of the angels was so far below His, it follows as a necessary consequence that, the honor attaching to the illustrious of earth’ s mortals must be so too. Moreover, at the close of chapter 4, the High Priesthood of Christ is presented in such a way that every renewed heart must be won by and to it. There the apostle had announced not only that our High Priest is Divine (verse 14), holy, (verse 15), and had passed into the heavens, but also that He is One filled with tender sympathy toward our infirmities, having Himself been tempted in all points like as we are (sin excepted); and, moreover, that through Him we have obtained free access to God’ s throne of grace, so that there we may obtain mercy (the remitting of what is due us) and find grace (the receiving that to which we are not entitled) to help in time of need. How we should welcome such a Priest! How thankful we should be for Him!  

Having thus comforted the hearts of God’ s children by assuring them of the tender compassion of Christ as the pledge of His effectual intercession for them on high, the apostle now proceeds to set forth more precisely the nature and glory of the priesthood of the Incarnate Son. He pursues the same method as was followed in the previous sections. As in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, He has been compared and contrasted with angels, and in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, with Moses and Joshua, so now in the present and succeeding chapters the order and functions of the Aaronic priesthood are examined, that the way may be paved for a setting forth of the more excellent order to which our High Priest belongs. "In the course of the section he makes it evident that whatever was essential to the office of a high priest was to be found in Christ Jesus, that whatever imperfections belonged to the Aaronical high priesthood were not to be found in Him, and that a variety of excellencies were to be found in Him of which none of the Aaronical priests were possessed," (Dr. J. Brown).  

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (verses 1-4). Here we have defined the intrinsic nature of the priestly office.  

The verses just quoted above contain a general description of the Levitical high priests. Five things are here said concerning them. First, he must be "taken from among men," that is, he must partake of the nature of those on whose behalf he acts. Second, he acted not as a private individual, but as a public official: "is ordained for men." Third, he came not empty-handed before God, but furnished with "gifts and sacrifices for sins." Fourth, for he himself was not exempt from infirmity, so that he might the more readily succor the distressed (verses 2, 3). Fifth, he did not presumptuously rush into his office of himself, but was chosen and approved of God (verse 4). Let us look at each of these more closely.  

"For every high priest taken from among men." First, then, his humanity is insisted upon. An angel would be no fitting priest to act on behalf of men, for he possesses not their nature, is not subject to their temptations, and has no experimental acquaintance with their sufferings; therefore is he unsuited to act on their behalf: therefore is he incapable of having "compassion" upon them, for the motive-spring of all real intercession is heart-felt sympathy. Thus, the primary qualification of a priest is that he must be personally related to, possess the same nature as, those for whose welfare he interposes.  

"For every high priest taken from among men." Bearing in mind to whom this Epistle was first addressed, it is not difficult for us to discern why our present section opens in this somewhat abrupt manner. As was pointed out so frequently in our articles upon Hebrews 2, that which so sorely perplexed the Jews was, that the One who had appeared and tabernacled in their minds in human form should have claimed for Himself divine honors (John 5:23, etc.). But if the Son of God had never become man, He could never have officiated as priest, He could never have offered that sacrifice for the sins of His people which Divine justice required. The Divine Incarnation was an imperative necessity if salvation was to be secured for God’ s elect. "It was necessary for Christ to become a real man, for as we are very far from God, we stand in a manner before Him in the person of our Priest, which could not be were He not one of us. Hence, that the Son of God has a nature in common with us does not diminish His dignity, but commends it the more to us; for He is fitted to reconcile us to God, because He is man" (John Calvin).  

"Is ordained for men." This tells us the reason why and the purpose for which the high priest was taken "from among men:" it was that he might transact on behalf of others, or more accurately, in the stead of others. To this position and work he was "ordained" or appointed by God. Thereby, under the Mosaic economy, the Hebrews were taught that men could not directly and personally approach unto God. They were sinful, He was holy; therefore was there a breadth between, which they were unable to bridge. It is both solemn and striking to observe how at the very beginning, when sin first entered the world, God impressed this awful truth upon our fallen parents. The "tree of life," whose property was to bestow immortality (Gen. 3:22), was the then emblem and symbol of God Himself. Therefore when Adam transgressed, we are told, "So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3:24). Thereby man was taught the awful fact that he is "alienated from the life of God." (Eph. 4:18).  

The same terrible truth was pressed unto the Israelites. When Jehovah Himself came down upon Sinai, the people were fenced off from Him: "And thou shalt set bounds upon the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death" (Ex. 19:12). There was the Lord upon the summit, there were the people at the base: separated the One from the other. So too when the Tabernacle was set up. Beyond the outward court they were not suffered to go; into the holy place, the priests alone were permitted to enter. And into the holy of holies, where God dwelt between the cherubim, none but the high priest, and he only on the day of atonement, penetrated. Thus were the Hebrews, from the beginning, shown the awful truth of Isaiah 59:2— "Your iniquities have separated between you and your God."  

But in the person of their high priest, through his representing of them before God, Israel might approach within the sacred enclosure. Beautifully is that brought out in the 28th chapter of Exodus, that book whose theme is redemption. There we read, "And thou shalt take two onyx stones, and grave on them the names of the children of Israel . . . and thou shalt put the two stones upon the shoulders of the ephod for stones of memorial unto the children of Israel: and Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord . . . And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment and thou shalt set in it setting of stones . . . and the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel . . . And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breast-plate of judgment upon his heart when he goeth in unto the holy, for a memorial before the Lord continually" (verses 9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 29). Concerning the high priest being "ordained for men" we are told, "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness" (Lev. 16:21).  

"Is ordained for men." The application of these words to the person and work of Christ is patent. He not only became Man, but had received appointment from God to act on behalf of, in the stead of, men: "Lo I come, to do Thy will, O God" (Heb. 10:9), announce both the commission He had received from God and His own readiness to discharge it. What that commission was we learn in the next verse: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." He came to do what men could not do— satisfy the claims of Divine justice, procure the Divine favor. Note, in passing "ordained for men," not mankind in general, but that people which God had given Him— just as Aaron, the typical high priest, confessed not the sins of the Canaanites or Amalekites over the head of the goat, but those of Israel only.  

"In things pertaining to God," that is, in meeting the requirements of His holiness. The activities of the priests have God for their object: it is His character, His claims, His glory which are in view. In their application to Christ these words, "in things pertaining to God" distinguishes our Lord’ s priesthood from His other offices. As a prophet, He reveals to us the mind and will of God. As the King, He subdues us to Himself, rules over and defends us. But the object of His priesthood is not us, but God.  

"That He may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." To "offer" is the chief function of the high priest. He offers to God for men. He offers both gifts and sacrifices; that is, eucharistic or thanksgiving offerings, and sacrificial or propitiatory sacrifices. "The first word includes, as I think, various kinds of sacrifices, and is therefore a general term; but the second denotes especially the sacrifices of expiation. Still the meaning is, that the priest without a sacrifice is no peace-maker between God and man, for without a sacrifice sins are not atoned for, nor is the wrath of God pacified. Hence, whenever reconciliation between God and man takes place this pledge must ever necessarily precede. Thus we see that angels are by no means capable of obtaining for us God’ s favor, because they have no sacrifice" (John Calvin).  

"That He may offer both gifts and sacrifice for sins." The application of these words to the Lord Jesus, our great High Priest, calls attention to a prominent and vital aspect of His death which is largely lost sight of today. The sacrificial death of Christ was a priestly act. On the Cross Christ not only suffered at the hands of men, and endured the punitive wrath of God, but He actually "accomplished" (Luke 9:31) something: He offered Himself as a sacrifice to God. At Calvary the Lord Jesus was not only the Lamb of God bearing judgment, but He was also His Priest officiating at the altar. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3). As Hebrews 9:14 also tells us, He "offered himself without spot to God."  

Christ on the Cross was far more than a willing victim passively enduring the stroke of Divine judgment. He was there performing a work, nor did He cease until He cried in triumph, "It is finished." He "loved the Church and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). He "laid down His life" for the sheep (John 10:11, 18)— which is the predicate of an active agent. He "poured out His soul unto death" (Isa. 53:12). He "dismissed His spirit" (John 19:30). "Hell’ s utmost force and fury gathered against Him: heaven’ s sword devouring Him, and heaven’ s God forsaking Him: earth, and hell, and heaven, thus in conspiring action against Him, unto the uttermost of heaven’ s extremest justice, and earth’ s and hews extremest injustice:— what is the glory of the Cross if it be not this: that with such action conspiring to subdue His action, His action outlasted and outlived them all, and He did not die subdued and overborne in the dying, He did not die till He gave Himself in death" (H. Martin on "The Atonement").  

"Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself is compassed with infirmity" (verse 2). Passing now from the design of the Levitical priesthood, we have a word upon their qualifications, the first of which is compassion unto those for whom he is to act. "The word here translated ‘ have compassion’ is rendered in the margin ‘ reasonably bear with.’ A person could not be expected to do the duties of a high priest aright if he could not enter into the feelings of those whom he represented. If their faults excited no sentiments in his mind but disapprobation— if they moved him to no feeling but anger, he would not be fit to interpose in their behalf with God— he would not be inclined to do for them what was necessary for the expiation of their sins, and the accomplishment of their services. But the Jewish high priest was one who was capable of pitying and bearing with the ignorant and erring; for ‘ he himself also was compassed with infirmity.’ ‘ Infirmity,’ here, plainly is significant of sinful weakness, and probably also of the disagreeable effects resulting from it. The Jewish high priest was himself a sinner. He had personal experience of temptation, and the tendency of man to yield to it— of sin, and of the consequences of sin; so that he had the natural capacity, and ought to have had the moral capacity, of pitying his fellow-sinners" (Dr. J. Brown).  

And what, we may enquire, was the Spirit’ s design in here making mention of this personal qualification in the Levitical high priest? We believe His purpose was at least fourfold. First, implicitly, to call attention to the failure of Israel’ s high priests. It is very solemn to mark how that the last of them failed, most signally, at this very point. When poor Hannah was "in bitterness of soul," and while she was in prayer, weeping before the Lord, Eli, because her lips moved not thought that she was drunken, and spoke roughly to her (1 Sam. 1:9-14). Thus, instead of sympathizing with her sorrows, instead of making intercession for her, he cruelly misjudged her. True, it is "human to err;" equally evident is it that the ideal priest would never be found among the sons of men. Second, was not the Spirit of God here paving the way for a contrast of the superiority of our great High Priest over the Aaronical? Third, does not this statement of verse 2 show, once more, that the value and efficacy of his work was inseparably connected with the personal qualifications of the priest himself, namely, his moral perfections, his human sympathy? Fourth, thus there was emphasized again the necessity for the Son of God becoming man, only thus could He acquire the requisite human compassion.  

"This compassionate, loving, gentle, all-considerate and tender 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 charges even His angels with folly. He beholds sin where we do not discover it. And Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, like the Father, has eyes like a flame of fire, and discerns everything that is contrary to God’ s mind and will. But with regard to the sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect holiness, is the most merciful, compassionate, and considerate Judge. For we, not taking a deep and keen view of sin, that central essential evil which exists in all men, and manifests itself in various ways and degrees, are not able to form a just estimate of men’ s comparative guilt and blameworthiness. Nay, our very sins make us more impatient and severe with regard to the sins of others. Our vanity finds the vanity of others intolerable, our pride finds the pride of others excessive. Blind to the guilt of our own peculiar sins, we are shocked with another’ s sins, different indeed from ours, but not less offensive to God, or pernicious in its tendencies. Again, the greater the knowledge of Divine love and pardon, the stronger faith in the Divine mercy and renewing grace, the more hopeful and the more lenient will be our view of sinners. And finally the more we possess of the spirit and heart of the Shepherd, the Physician, the Father, the deeper will be our compassion on the ignorant and wayward.  

"The Lord Jesus was therefore most compassionate, considerate, lenient, hopeful in His feelings toward sinners, and in His dealings with them. He was infinitely holy and perfectly clear in His hatred and judgment of sin; but He was tender and gracious to the sinner. Beholding the sinful heart in all, esteeming 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 and pain Him in the drunkard and profligate than in the respectable, selfish, and ungodly religionists. He looked upon sin as the greatest and most fearful evil, but on the sinner as poor, lost, and helpless. Thus, while Jesus, in perfect holiness, judges most truly, lovingly, and tenderly of us, He knows by experience the weakness of the flesh, and the difficulty and soreness of the struggle. What a marvelous fulfillment of the Priest’ s requisite, that he should be taken from men! one to whom we can look with full and calm trust, our Representative, the Man Christ Jesus, possessed of perfect, Divine love and compassion" (Abbreviated from Adolph Saphir).  

Those for whom the high priest was deputed to act are here described as "the ignorant and them that are out of the way." These are not two different classes of people, instead, those words give a twofold description of sinners. It has been rightly said that "in the Bible all sin is represented as the result of ignorance, but of blameable ignorance." "The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble" (Prov. 4:19). "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). Every sinner is a fool. "Out of the way" means that men have turned aside from the path which the Word of God has marked out for them to walk in: "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way" (Isa. 53:6). "And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (verse 3). "There was none who could offer sacrifice for the sins of the high priest; therefore, he must do it for himself. He was to offer for himself in the same way and for the reasons as he offered for the people, and this was necessary, for he was encompassed with the same infirmities and was obnoxious as to sin, and so stood in no less need of expiation or atonement than did the people" (Dr. John Owen). For scriptures where the high priest was bidden to present an offering for his own sin, let the reader consult Leviticus 4:3, 9:7, 16:6, 24.  

"And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (verse 3). Here again we may observe the Spirit of God calling attention to the imperfections of the Levitical priests that the way may be prepared for presenting the infinitely superior perfections of Christ. But that is not all we have in this verse. It is the personal qualifications of the one who exercises his office which is now before us. Before Aaron could present an offering on behalf of Israel, he must first bring a sacrifice for his own sins, that he might be purified and stand accepted before Jehovah. In other words, the one who was to come between a holy God and a sinful people must himself have no guilt resting upon him, and must be an object of Divine favor. Thus, personal fitness was an essential qualification of the priest: in the case of the Levitical, a ceremonial fitness; with Christ, a personal and inherent.  

"And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (verse 4). "The foregoing verses declare the personal functions of a high priest, but these alone are not sufficient to invest any one with that office; for it is required that he be lawfully called thereunto. Aaron was called of God immediately, and in an extraordinary way. He was called by the command of God given to Moses, and entrusted to him for execution; he was actually separated and consecrated unto the office of high priest, and this was accomplished by special sacrifices made by another for him; and all these things were necessary unto Aaron, because God, in his person, erected a new order of priesthood" (Dr. John Owen).  

"And no man taketh this honor to himself." The expression "this honor" refers to the high priestly office, for one to approach unto the Most High, to have personal dealings with Him, to transact on behalf of others before Him, obtaining His favor toward them, is a signal privilege and great favor indeed. To mark this distinguishing honor, Aaron was clothed in the most gorgeous and imposing vestments (Ex. 28). Looking beyond the type to the Antitype, we may discern how that the Spirit is, once more, bringing before the Hebrews that which was designed to remove the offense of the Cross. To carnal reason the death of Christ was a humiliating spectacle; but the spiritually enlightened see at Calvary One performing the functions of an office with high "honor" attached to it.  

"But he that is called of God, as was Aaron." This was the ultimate and most important qualification: no man could legitimately act as high priest unless he was Divinely called to that office. "The principle on which the necessity of a Divine calling to the legitimate exercise of the priesthood rests is an obvious one. It depends entirely on the will of God whether He will accept the services and pardon the sins of men; and suppose again that it is His will to do so, it belongs to Him to appoint everything in reference to the manner in which this is to be accomplished. God is under no obligation to accept of every one, or of any one who, of his own accord, or by the choice of his fellow-men, takes it upon him to offer sacrifices or gifts for himself or for others; and no man in these circumstances can have reason to expect that God will accept of his offerings, unless He has given him a commission to offer them, and a promise He will be appeased by them. This, then, from the very nature of the case, was necessary to the legitimate discharge of the functions of a high priest" (Dr. J. Brown). What the apostle is here leading up to was the proof that God was the Author of Christ’ s Priesthood. As that will come before us in the verses which follow, we pass it by now.  

"But he that is called of God, as was Aaron." That which makes an office lawful is the personal call of God. A most important principle is this to recognize, but one which, in these days of abounding lawlessness, is now flagrantly ignored. The will of man is to be entirely subordinated to the will of God. Everything connected with His work is to be regulated by the Divine appointments. Expediency, convenience, popular customs, are ruled out of court. Nor is any one justified in rushing into a holy office uncalled of God. To elect myself, or to have no higher authority than the election of fellow-sinners, is to usurp the authority of God.  

All ministry is in the hand of Christ (Rev. 2:1). He appointed the twelve apostles, and later the seventy disciples, to go forth. He bids us "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He send forth laborers into His harvest" (Matthew 9:38). When He ascended on high He "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). In the days of Paul it was said, "How shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10:15). But in these days, how many there are who run without being "sent!" Men have taken it upon themselves to be evangelists, pastors, teachers, who have received no call from God to such a work. The absence of His call, is evidenced by the absence of the qualifying gift. When God calls, He always equips.  

Returning to the call of Aaron, we may observe that a time came when his official authority was challenged (Num. 16:2). The manner in which God vindicated His servant is worthy of our most thoughtful attention. The record of it is found in Numbers 17: Aaron’ s rod budded and brought forth almonds. Supernatural fruit was the sign and pledge that he had been called of God. Let this be laid well to heart. Judged by this standard, how many today stand accredited as God’ s sent-servants? When God calls a man, He does not send him forth on any fruitless errand.  

It is a solemn thing for one to obtrude himself into a sacred office. The tragic case of Uzzah (2 Chron. 26:16-21) is a lasting warning. Alas, how rarely is it heeded; and how grievously is God dishonored! There are those who decry a "one-man ministry," and cut themselves off from many an edifying message from God’ s true servants; but after twenty years’ experience on three continents, the writer much prefers that which some so unchristianly condemn, to the lawlessness and fleshly exhibitions of an "every-man ministry" which is their alternative. Again: how many are urged to become Sunday School teachers and open-air speakers who have received neither call nor qualification from God to such work! Again: how many go forth as missionaries, only a few years later, at most, to abandon the work: what a proof that they were not "sent" or "called by God!" Let every reader weigh well Hebrews 5:4. Unless God has called you, enter not into any work for Him. Let restless souls seek grace to heed that Divine command, "Be swift to hear, slow to speak" (James 1:19).  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 5:5-7

Superior to Aaron.   

(Hebrews 5:5-7)   

The central design of the Holy Spirit in this Epistle needs to be kept steadily before the mind of the reader: that design was to prove the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. The center and glory of Judaism was the divinely appointed priesthood: what, then, had Christianity to offer at this point? "The unbelieving Jews would be apt to say to their Christian brethren, ‘ your new religion is deficient in the very first requisite of a religion— you have no high priest. How are your sins to be pardoned, when you have none to offer expiatory oblations for you? How are your wants to be supplied, when you have none to make intercession for you to God?’ The answer to this cavil is to be found in the apostle’ s word ‘ We have a High Priest’ Hebrews 4:14," (Dr. J. Brown).  

That God has provided His people with a High Priest is the fulfillment of His own promise. On the demonstrated failure of the Aaronical priesthood in the days of Eli and his sons (1 Sam. 1:14, 2; 12-17, 22), the Lord declared, "And I will raise Me up a faithful Priest, that shall do according to that which is in Mine heart and in My mind: and I will build Him a sure house" (1 Sam. 2:35). The fulfillment of this is found in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. But in taking up the study of the priesthood of Christ it is of the greatest possible importance to perceive that both the typical persons of Aaron and Melchizedek were required to prefigure the varied actions, and excellencies of the great High Priest who is the center and heart of Christianity. It was failure to recognize this which has resulted in so many inadequate and faulty treaties on the subject.  

Both Aaron and Melchizedek were needed to set forth the various phases of Christ’ s priestly ministry. But before the apostle could take up the latter, he had first to show that Christ fulfilled all which was adumbrated by the former: before he could dwell upon the points in which Christ’ s excelled the Levitical priesthood, he must first establish its parallels and similarities. This the apostle does in Hebrews 5. In its first four verses we have a description of the Levitical high priest: first with respect to his nature (verse 1), second his employment (verse 1), third his qualification (verse 2), fourth his duty (verse 3), fifth his call (verse 4). In the verses which immediately follow, an application of this is made, more directly, to Christ. In so doing the Holy Spirit had before Him a double design:  

He first shows the fulfillment of the type. God’ s purpose in appointing Israel’ s high priests was to foreshadow the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Thus, there must be some resemblance between the one and the other. Second, that the Hebrews might know that the ministry and service of the Levitical order had terminated. Their purpose having been served, they were no longer needed; now that the Substance had come, the shadows were superfluous. Nay, more, their very retention would repudiate the design of their institution: they were prefigurative, therefore to perpetuate them would deny that the Reality had come. For the Levitical priesthood to go on functioning would argue that it had a value and a use apart from Christ. Hence the necessity of showing the relation of Aaron’ s priesthood to Christ’ s, that it might the more plainly appear that a continuance of the former was not only useless but pernicious.  

That there was a close connection between the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ is evident from the opening verse of our present passage. Having stated, "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron," the apostle now adds, "So also Christ" (verse 5), or, "In like manner Christ." Thus, unmistakably, a parallel is here drawn. As it was with the Levitical high priests in all things necessary to that office, so, in like manner, was it with the Christ. In verses 5-10 the same five things (personal sin excepted) predicated of Aaron and his successors were found in our great High Priest. That there were, also, dissimilarities was inevitable from the personal imperfections that appertained to Aaron and his descendants: had there been anything in Christ which corresponded to their blemishes and failures, He had been disqualified.  

"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest" (verse 5). In 2:17, 3:1, 4:14 it had been affirmed that Christ is High Priest. A difficulty is now anticipated and met. Considering the strictness of God’ s law, and the specified requirements for one entering the priestly office, and more especially seeing that Jesus did not belong to the tribe of Levi, how could He be said to be "Priest?" In meeting this difficulty, the apostle emphasizes the fact that the chief requirement and qualification was a Divine call: "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God" (verse 4): applying that rule the apostle now shows, from Scripture itself, our Lord’ s right and title to this office. Ere weighing the proof for this, let us note that He is here designated "the Christ": the apostle’ s design was to demonstrate that the promised Messiah, the Hope of the fathers, was to be High Priest forever over the house of God. The "Anointed One" signified His unction unto this office.  

"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest." He did not take this dignity unto Himself; He did not obtrude Himself into office. As He declared, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing: it is My Father that honoureth Me." (John 8:54). No, He had made Himself of no reputation; He had taken upon Him the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), and He ever acted in perfect subjection to the Father. Nor was there any need for Him to exalt Himself: He had entered into a covenant or compact with the Father, and He might be safely trusted to fulfill His part of the agreement. "He that shall humble Himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12) was no less true of the Head than of His members.  

"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest." He to whom the authority belonged, invested Christ with the honors of priesthood, as He had Aaron. An ellipsis needs supplying to complete the implied antithesis: "But He glorified Him," or He (God) made Him to be High Priest." That Christ was glorified by being invested with the high priesthood is here plainly inferred. It was a high honor bestowed upon His mediatorial person, that is, upon His humanity (united unto His deity). Scripture plainly teaches that His mediatorial person was capable of being glorified, with degrees of glory, by augmentation of glory: see John 17:1; 1 Peter 1:21. This honor appears more plainly when we come to consider the nature of the work assigned Him as Priest: this was no less than healing the breach which sin had made between God and men, and this by "magnifying the law and making it honorable." It appears too when we contemplate the effects of His work: these were the vindicating and glorifying of the thrice holy God, the bringing of many sons unto glory, and the being Himself crowned with glory and honor. By that priestly work Christ has won for Himself the love, gratitude, and worship of a people who shall yet be perfectly conformed to His image, and shall praise Him world without end.  

How wonderful and blessed it is to know that the honor of Christ and the procuring of our salvation are so intimately connected that it was His glory to be made our Mediator! There are three chief offices which Christ holds as Mediator: He is prophet, priest and potentate. But there is an importance, a dignity and a blessedness (little as carnal reason may be able to perceive it) attaching to His priestly office which does not belong to the other two. Scripture furnishes three proofs of this. First, we never read of "our great prophet," or "our great King," but we do of "our great High Priest" (Heb. 4:14)! Second, the Holy Spirit nowhere affirms that Christ’ s appointment to either His prophetic or His kingly office "glorified" Him; but this is insisted upon in connection with His call to the sacerdotal office (Heb. 5:5)! Third, we read not of the dread solemnity of any divine "oath" in connection with His inauguration to the prophetic or the kingly office, but we do His priestly— "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest forever." (Ps. 110:4)! Thus the priesthood of Christ is invested with supreme importance.  

"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee." (verse 5). The apostle here cites the testimony of the 2nd Psalm: but how does this quotation confirm the priesthood of Christ or prove His "call" to that office? That the quotation here is adduced as proof-text is clear from the next verse— "As He saith also in another Psalm," which is given as further confirmation of His call. In weighing carefully the purpose for which Psalm 2:7 is here quoted, observe, First, it is not the priesthood but His call thereunto which the apostle has before him. Second, his object was simply to show that it was from God Christ had all His mediatorial authority. Third, in Psalm 2:7, God declares the incarnate Christ to be His Son. The proclamation. "Thou art My Son," testified to the Father’ s acceptance of Him in the discharge of all the work which had been committed to Him. This solemn approbation by the Father intimated that our Redeemer undertook nothing but what God had appointed. The Father’ s owning of Christ in human nature as "My Son," acclaimed Him Mediator— Priest for His people. In other words, Christ’ s "call" by God consisted of the formal and public owning of Him as the incarnate Son. Psalm 2:7 describes the "call."  

It is to be observed that Psalm 2:7 opens with the words, "I will declare the decree," which signifies a public announcement of what had been eternally predestinated and appointed in the everlasting covenant. It was God making known that the Mediator had received a Divine commission, and therefore was possessed of all requisite authority for His office. The deeper meaning, in this connection, of the proclamation, "Thou art My Son," tells us that Christ’ s sufficiency as Priest lies in His Divine nature. It was the dignity of His person which gave value to what He did. Because He was the Son, God appointed Him High Priest: He would not give this glory to another. Just as, because He is the Son, He has made Him "Heir of all things." (Heb. 1:2.)  

"Thou art My Son." The application of these words to the call which Christ received to His priestly office, refers, historically, we doubt not to what is recorded in Matthew 3:16, 17. There we behold a shadowing forth on the lower and visible plane of that which was to take place, a little later, in the higher and invisible sphere. There we find the antitype of what occurred on the occasion of Aaron’ s induction to the priestly office. In Leviticus 8 we find three things recorded of the type: First, his call (verses 1, 2). Second, his anointing (verse 12). Third, his consecration, (verse 22) These same three things, only in inverse order again (for in all things He has the pre-eminence) are found on the occasion of our Savior’ s baptism, which was one of the great crises of His earthly career. For thirty years He had lived in retirement at Nazareth. Now the time had arrived for His public ministry. Accordingly, He consecrates, dedicates Himself to God— presenting Himself for baptism at the hands of God’ s servant. Second, it was at the Jordan He was anointed for His work: "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38). Third, it was there and then He was owned of God. "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." That was the Father’ s attestation to His acceptance of Christ for His priestly office and work.  

Above, we have pointed out the first historical fulfillment of the prophetic word recorded in Psalm 2:7. As all prophecy has at least a double accomplishment, we find, accordingly, this same word of the Father’ s approbation of the Son recorded a second time in the Gospel narratives. In Matthew 17:5 we again hear the Father saying, "Thou art my Son," or "This is My Beloved Son." Here it was upon the mount, when Christ stood glorified before His disciples. It was then that God provided a miniature tableau of Christ’ s glorious kingdom. As Peter says, "We are eye-witnesses of His majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16). And no doubt this is the profounder reference in Hebrews 5:5, for the 2nd Psalm, there quoted, foretells the setting up of Christ as "King." Yet, let it not be forgotten that the priesthood of Christ is the basis of His kingship: "He shall be a priest upon His throne." (Zech. 6:13). It is as the "Lamb" He holds His title to the throne (Rev. 22:1)— cf. the "wherefore" of Philippians 2:9. He is a Priest with royal authority, a King with Priestly tenderness.  

"As He saith also in another, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (verse 6). A further proof of God’ s call of Christ to the priestly office is now given, the quotation being from the 110th Psalm, which was owned by the Jews as a Messianic one. There the Father had by the Spirit of prophecy, said these words to His incarnate Son. Thus a double testimony was here adduced. The subject was of such importance that God deigned to give unto these Hebrews confirmation added to confirmation. How graciously He bears with our dullness: compare the "twice" of Psalm 62:11, the "again" of the Lord Jesus in John 8:12,21 etc., the "many" proofs of Acts 1:3. "As He saith" is another evidence that God was the Author of the Old Testament. Here, the Father is heard speaking through David; in Psalm 22:1, the Son; in Hebrews 3:7, the Spirit. "As He saith," namely unto the Son. The Father’ s here speaking to Him was His "call," just as in Hebrews 7:21, it is His "oath." "Thou art a priest" was declarative of His eternal decree, of the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son, wherein He was designated unto this office. Thus was Christ "called of God as was Aaron."  

"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" (verse 7). In seeking to expound this verse three things require attention. To ascertain its scope, or theme, to discover its relation to the context and its own contribution unto the apostle’ s argument, and to define its solemn terms. Its theme is the priestly ministry of Christ: this is evident from the expression "offered up." "As the theme of verses 4-6 is, ‘ Jesus Christ has been divinely appointed to the priestly office, so the theme of verses 7-9 is Jesus Christ has successfully executed the priestly office.’ " (Dr. J. Brown). Its relation to the context is that the apostle was here showing the "compassed with infirmity" (verse 2) is found in the Antitype: the "strong crying and tears" being the proof. Its terms will be weighed in what follows. Ere submitting our own interpretations, we first subjoin the helpful analysis of Dr. Brown.  

"The body of the sentence (verses 7-10) divides itself into two parts: 1. ‘ He’ Christ in the character of a Priest ‘ learned obedience by the things which He suffered.’ 2. ‘ He’ , in the same character, ‘ has become the Author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him.’ The clauses, ‘ In the days of his flesh,’ and ‘ though He were a Son,’ qualify the general declaration, ‘ He learned obedience by the things which He suffered,’ and the clauses, ‘ when He had offered up,’ ‘ prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save Him from death,’ and ‘ when He had heard’— or having been heard—‘ in that He feared,’ contain in them illustrations both of the nature and extent of those sufferings by which Christ learned obedience; whilst the clause, ‘ being made perfect,’ qualifies the second part of the sentence, connecting it with the first, and showing how His ‘ learning obedience by the things which He suffered,’ led to His being ‘ the Author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.’ "  

In this 7th verse two other of the qualifications of Israel’ s high priest are accommodated to Christ. First, his being "compassed with infirmity" (verse 2) so as to fit him for having compassion on those for whom he transacted. In like manner was the Son, when He entered upon the discharge of His office, compassed with sinless infirmity. This is here exemplified in a threefold way. First, the time when He fulfilled the Aaronic type, namely, "in the days of His flesh," which was before He was "crowned with glory and honor." Second, from His condition, "in the days of His flesh," which signifies a state of weakness and humiliation. Third, from the manner of His deportment: "with strong crying and tears," for these proceed from the "infirmity" of our nature— angels do not weep. Second, Israel’ s high priest was appointed to "offer." (verses 1, 2). This is what Christ is here seen doing: offering up to God— "to Him that was able to save Him." This was a sacerdotal act, as is clear from the fact that the declaration of verse 7 is immediately preceded (verse 6), and succeeded (verse 10) by a reference to His priesthood. Let us now examine our verse clause by clause.  

"Who in the days of His flesh." "Flesh as applied to Christ, signifies human nature not yet glorified, with all its infirmities, wherein He was exposed unto— hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, sorrow, grief, fear, pain, death itself. Hereby doth the apostle express what he had before laid down in the person of the high priest according to the law— he was ‘ compassed’ with infirmity." (Dr. John Owen.) The word "flesh" is often used in Scripture of man as a poor, frail, mortal creature: Psalm 78:39, 65:2. The "days of His flesh" is antithetical to "made perfect." They cover the entire period of our Lord’ s humiliation, from the manger to the grave— cf. 2 Corinthians 5:16. During that time Christ was "a man of sorrows," filled with them, never free from them; "and acquainted with grief," as a companion that never departed from Him. No doubt there is special reference to the close of those days when His sorrows and trials came to a head.  

"The ‘ days of His flesh’ mean the whole time of His humiliation— that period when He came among men as one of them, but still the Son of God, whose majesty was hid. As applied to Christ ‘ flesh’ intimates that He put on a true humanity, but a humanity under the weight of imputed guilt, with the curse that followed in its train— a sinless, yet a sin-bearing humanity. The Lord felt the weakness of the flesh in His whole vicarious work, and though personally spotless, was in virtue of taking our place, subjected to all that we were heir to. We do not, indeed, find in Him the personal consequences of sin, such as sickness and disease, but the consequences which could competently fall to the sinless substitute; for He never was in Adam’ s covenant, but was Himself the last Adam. As He took flesh for an official purpose, He submitted to the consequences following in the train of sin-bearing— hunger and thirst, toil and fatigue in the sweat of His brow, persecution and injustice, arrest and sufferings, wounds and death." (Professor Smeaton on the Atonement.)  

"When He had offered up prayers and supplications." The Greek word for "offer up" signifies "to bear toward." It occurs in this Epistle sixteen times, and always as a priestly act. See Hebrews 8:3, 9:7, 14, 10:11, 14, 18, etc. Prayers and supplications are expressive of the frailty of human nature, for we never read of angels praying. "Prayers" are of two kinds: petitions for that which is good, requests for deliverance from that which is evil: both are included here. The Greek word for "supplications" occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; in its classical usage it denotes an olive bough, lifted up by those who were supplicating others for peace. What is here in view is Christ "offering" Himself unto God (Heb. 9:14), His offering being accompanied with priestly prayers and supplications. These are mentioned to exemplify His "infirmity," and to impress upon us how great a work it was to make expiation for sin. These prayers and supplications are not to be restricted to the agony of Gethsemane, or the hours of torture on the Cross; they must be regarded as being offered by Him through the entire period of His humiliation. "The pressure of human guilt habitually weighed down His mind and He was by way of eminence a Man of prayer, as well as a Man of sorrows." (Dr. Brown.)  

"With strong crying and tears." These words not only intimate the intensity of the sufferings endured by our Priest, but also the extent to which He felt them. The God-man was no stoic, unmoved by the fearful experiences through which He passed. No, He suffered acutely, not only in body, but in His soul too. The curse of the law, under which He had spontaneously placed Himself, smote His soul as well as His body, for we had sinned in both, and He redeemed both. These crying and tears were evoked not by what He received at the hands of man, but what imputed guilt had brought down upon Him from the hand of God. He was overwhelmed by the pressure of horror and anguish, caused by the Divine anger against sin.  

"With strong crying and tears." These were, in part, the fulfillment of that prophecy in Psalm 22:1: "the words of My roaring." A part of those "strong cryings" are recorded in the Gospels. To His disciples He said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38). To the Father He prayed, "If Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me" (Luke 22:42). There we read of Him "being in an agony," that "He prayed more earnestly," that "His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Such was the "travail of His soul" that He cried for deliverance. He voluntarily entered the place into which sin had brought us: one of misery and wretchedness. No heart can conceive the terribleness of that conflict through which our Blessed Substitute passed. "Jesus cried with a loud voice, My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46): here again we witness the "strong crying" accompanying His sacrifice. And what is the application of this to us? If His sacrifice was offered to God with "strong crying and tears" let none of us imagine we are savingly interested therein if our hearts are unmoved by the awfulness of sin, and are in the coldness of impenitence and the sloth of unbelief. Let him who would approach unto Christ ponder well how He approached unto God on behalf of sinners.  

"Unto Him that was able to save Him from death." The particular character in which our suffering Surety here viewed God, calls for close attention. These words reveal to us how Christ contemplated Deity at that time: "unto Him that is able." Ability or power is either natural or moral. Natural power is strength and active efficacy; in God, omnipotence. Moral power is right and authority; in God, absolute sovereignty. Christ looked toward both. In view of God’ s omnipotence He sought deliverance; in view of His sovereignty, He meekly submitted. The former was the object of His faith; the latter, of His fear. These two attributes of God should ever be before us when we approach unto His footstool. A sight of His omnipotence will encourage our hearts and strengthen our faith: a realization of His high sovereignty will humble us before Him and check our presumption.  

"Unto Him that was able to save Him from death." This also makes known the cause of His "strong crying and tears:" it was His sight of death. What "death?" Not merely the separation of the soul from the body, but the "wages of sin," that curse of the law which God, as a just judge, inflicts on the guilty. As the Surety of the covenant, as the One who had voluntarily taken upon Himself the debts of all His people, the wrath of a holy God must be visited upon Him. To this Christ referred when He said, "I am afflicted and ready to die from youth up; I suffer Thy terrors, I am distracted" (Ps. 88:15). Fiercer grew the conflict as the end was neared, and stronger were His cries for deliverance: "The sorrows of death compassed Me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon Me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord; O Lord, I beseech Thee, deliver My soul" (Ps. 116:34).  

But what was the "deliverance" which He sought? Exemption from suffering this death? No, for He had received commandment to endure it (John 10:18, Philippians 2:8). What then? Note carefully that Christ prayed not to be delivered from dying, but from "death." We believe the answer is twofold. First, He sought to be sustained under it. When death as the penal visitation of God’ s anger upon Him for our sins was presented to His view, He had deep and dreadful apprehension of the utter inability of frail human nature bearing up under it, and prevailing against it. He was conscious of His need of Divine succor and support, to enable Him to endure the incalculable load which was upon Him. Therefore it was His duty, as perfect yet dependent Man, to pray that He might not be overwhelmed and overborne. His confidence was in "Him that is able." He declared, "For the Lord God will help Me, therefore shall I not be confounded" (Isa. 50:17).  

"And was heard in that He feared." The best commentators differ in their understanding of these words. Two interpretations have been given, which, we believe, need to be combined to bring out the full meaning of this clause. Calvin gave as its meaning that the object of Christ’ s "fear" was the awful judgment of God upon our sins, the smiting of Him with the sword of justice, His desertion by God Himself. Arguing against the "fear" here having reference to Christ’ s own piety, because of which God answered Him, this profound exegete points out the absence of the possessive "His fear;" that the Greek preposition "apo" (rather than "huper") signifies "from," not "on account of;" and that the word "fear" means, for the most part, anxiety— "consternation" is its force as used in the Sept. His words are, "I doubt not that Christ was ‘ heard’ from that which He feared, so that He was not overwhelmed by His evils or swallowed up by death. For in this contest the Son of God had to engage, not because He was tried by unbelief (the source of all our fears), but because He sustained as a man in the flesh the judgment of God, the terror of which could not have been overcome without an arduous effort"— and, we may add, without a Divine strengthening.  

The sufferings of Christ wrung His soul, producing sorrow, perplexity, horror, dread. This is shown by His exercises and agony in Gethsemane. While He suffered God’ s "terrors," He was "distracted" (Ps. 88:15). "I am poured out like water," He exclaimed, "and all My bones are out of joint: My heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of My bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and My tongue cleaveth to My jaws" (Ps. 22:14, 15). And again, He cried, "Save Me, O God; for the waters are come in unto My soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing . . . Let not the water-flood overflow Me, neither let the deep swallow Me up" (Ps. 69:1, 2, 15). Fear, pain, torture of body and soul, were now His portion. He was then enduring that which shall yet cause the damned to weep and wail and gnash their teeth. He was deserted by God. The comforting influences of His relation to God were withdrawn. His relation to God as His God and Father were the fount of all His comfort and joy. The sense of this was now suspended. Therefore was He filled with heaviness and sorrow inexpressible, and, "and with strong crying and tears" He prayed for deliverance.  

"And was heard." This means, first of all, God’ s approval or acceptance of the petitioner himself. Christ’ s prayer here was answered in the same way as was Paul’ s request for the removal of the thorn in his flesh— not by exemption, but by Divine succor which gave enablement to bear the trial. In Gethsemane "There appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him" (Luke 22:43). So too on the Cross. "His mind and heart were fortified and sustained against the dread and terror which His humanity felt, so as to come to a perfect composure in the will of God. He was heard insofar as He desired to be heard; for although He could not but desire deliverance from the whole, as He was man, yet He desired it not absolutely as the God-man, as He was wholly subject to the will of the Father" (Dr. John Owen).  

"And was heard in that He feared." Other commentators have rightly pointed out that the Greek word for "fear" here signifies godly reverence or piety: cf. Hebrews 12:28, where it is found in its noun form. Having from godly fear offered up prayers and supplications, He was heard. His personal perfections made His petition acceptable. This was His own assurance, at the triumphant completion of His sufferings: "Thou hast heard Me from the horns of the unicorns" (Ps. 22:21). This brings us to the second and ultimate meaning of the Savior’ s petition to be delivered "from death," and the corresponding second response of the Father. "To ‘ save from death’ means, to deliver from death after having died. God manifested Himself as ‘ Him who was able to save Him from death,’ when, as ‘ The God of peace’— the pacified Divinity—‘ He brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus that great Shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the everlasting covenant’ . Hebrews 13:20" (Dr. J. Brown).  

Thus, to summarize the contents of this most solemn and wonderful verse, we here learn: First, that our blessed Substitute, in the discharge of His priestly work, encountered that awful wrath of God which is the wages of sin— "death." Second, that He encountered it in the frailty of human nature, compassed with infirmity— "in the days of His flesh." Third, that He felt, to an extent we are incapable of realizing, the visitation of God’ s judgment upon sin— evidenced by His "strong crying and tears." Fourth, that He cried for deliverance: for strength to endure and for an exodus from the grave. Fifth, that God answered by bestowing the needed succor and by raising Him from the dead.  

Many are the lessons which might be drawn from all that has been before us. Into what infinite depths of humiliation did the Son of God descend! How unspeakably dreadful was His anguish! What a hideous thing sin must be if such a sacrifice was required for its atonement! How real and terrible a thing is the wrath of God! What love moved Him to suffer so on our behalf! What must be the portion of those who despise and reject such a Savior! What an example has He left us of turning to God in the hour of need! What fervor is called for if our prayers are to be answered! Above all, what gratitude, love, devotion and praise are due Him from those for whom the Son of God died!  

  

  

MHCC: Heb 5:1-10

The High Priest must be a man, a partaker of our nature. This shows that man had sinned. For God would not suffer sinful man to come to him alone. But every one is welcome to God, that comes to him by this High Priest; and as we value acceptance with God, and pardon, we must apply by faith to this our great High Priest Christ Jesus, who can intercede for those that are out of the way of truth, duty, and happiness; one who has tenderness to lead them back from the by-paths of error, sin, and misery. Those only can expect assistance from God, and acceptance with him, and his presence and blessing on them and their services, that are called of God. This is applied to Christ. In the days of his flesh, Christ made himself subject to death: he hungered: he was a tempted, suffering, dying Jesus. Christ set an example, not only to pray, but to be fervent in prayer. How many dry prayers, how few wetted with tears, do we offer up to God! He was strengthened to support the immense weight of suffering laid upon him. There is no real deliverance from death but to be carried through it. He was raised and exalted, and to him was given the power of saving all sinners to the uttermost, who come unto God through him. Christ has left us an example that we should learn humble obedience to the will of God, by all our afflictions. We need affliction, to teach us submission. His obedience in our nature encourages our attempts to obey, and for us to expect support and comfort under all the temptations and sufferings to which we are exposed. Being made perfect for this great work, he is become the Author of eternal salvation to all that obey him. But are we of that number?

Matthew Henry: Heb 5:1-9

We have here an account of the nature of the priestly office in general, though with an accommodation to the Lord Jesus Christ. We are told,

I. Of what kind of beings the high priest must be. He must be taken from among men; he must be a man, one of ourselves, bone of our bones, flesh of our flesh, and spirit of our spirits, a partaker of our nature, and a standard-bearer among ten thousand. This implies, 1. That man had sinned. 2. That God would not admit sinful man to come to him immediately and alone, without a high priest, who must be taken from among men. 3. That God was pleased to take one from among men, by whom they might approach God in hope, and he might receive them with honour. 4. That every one shall now be welcome to God that comes to him by this his priest.

II. For whom every high priest is ordained: For men in things pertaining to God, for the glory of God and the good of men, that he might come between God and man. So Christ did; and therefore let us never attempt to go to God but through Christ, nor expect any favour from God but through Christ.

III. For what purpose every high priest was ordained: That he might offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.

1. That he might offer gifts or free-will offerings, brought to the high priest, so offered for the glory of God, and as an acknowledgment that our all is of him and from him; we have nothing but what he is pleased to give us, and of his own we offer to him an oblation of acknowledgment. This intimates, (1.) That all we bring to God must be free and not forced; it must be a gift; it must be given and not taken away again. (2.) That all we bring to God must go through the high priest's hands, as the great agent between God and man.

2. That he might offer sacrifices for sin; that is, the offerings that were appointed to make atonement, that sin might be pardoned and sinners accepted. Thus Christ is constituted a high priest for both these ends. Our good deeds must be presented by Christ, to render ourselves and them acceptable; and our evil deeds must be expiated by the sacrifice of himself, that they may not condemn and destroy us. And now, as we value acceptance with God and pardon, we must apply ourselves by faith to this our great high priest.

IV. How this high priest must be qualified, Heb 5:2.

1. He must be one that can have compassion on two sorts of persons: - (1.) On the ignorant, or those that are guilty of sins of ignorance. He must be one who can find in his heart to pity them, and intercede with God for them, one that is willing to instruct those that are dull of understanding. (2.) On those that are out of the way, out of the way of truth, duty, and happiness; and he must be one who has tenderness enough to lead them back from the by-paths of error, sin, and misery, into the right way: this will require great patience and compassion, even the compassion of a God.

2. He must also be compassed with infirmity; and so be able from himself feelingly to consider our frame, and to sympathize with us. Thus Christ was qualified. He took upon him our sinless infirmities; and this gives us great encouragement to apply ourselves to him under every affliction; for in all the afflictions of his people he is afflicted.

V. How the high priest was to be called of God. He must have both an internal and external call to his office: For no man taketh this honour to himself (Heb 5:4), that is, no man ought to do it, no man can do it legally; if any does it, he must be reckoned a usurper, and treated accordingly. Here observe, 1. The office of the priesthood was a very great honour. To be employed to stand between God and man, one while representing God and his will to men, at another time representing man and his case to God, and dealing between them about matters of the highest importance - entrusted on both sides with the honour of God and the happiness of man - must render the office very honourable. 2. The priesthood is an office and honour that no man ought to take to himself; if he does, he can expect no success in it, nor any reward for it, only from himself. He is an intruder who is not called of God, as was Aaron. Observe, (1.) God is the fountain of all honour, especially true spiritual honour. He is the fountain of true authority, whether he calls any to the priesthood in an extraordinary way, as he did Aaron, or in an ordinary way, as he called his successors. (2.) Those only can expect assistance from God, and acceptance with him, and his presence and blessing on them and their administrations, that are called of God; others may expect a blast instead of a blessing.

VI. How this is brought home and applied to Christ: So Christ glorified not himself, Heb 5:5. Observe here, Though Christ reckoned it his glory to be made a high priest, yet he would not assume that glory to himself. He could truly say, I seek not my own glory, Joh 8:50. Considered as God, he was not capable of any additional glory, but as man and Mediator he did not run without being sent; and, if he did not, surely others should be afraid to do it.

VII. The apostle prefers Christ before Aaron, both in the manner of his call and in the holiness of his person. 1. In the manner of his call, in which God said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee (quoted from Psa 2:7), referring to his eternal generation as God, his wonderful conception as man, and his perfect qualification as Mediator. Thus God solemnly declared his dear affection to Christ, his authoritative appointment of him to the office of a Mediator, his installment and approbation of him in that office, his acceptance of him, and of all he had done or should do in the discharge of it. Now God never said thus to Aaron. Another expression that God used in the call of Christ we have in Psa 110:4, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec, Heb 5:6. God the Father appointed him a priest of a higher order than that of Aaron. The priesthood of Aaron was to be but temporary; the priesthood of Christ was to be perpetual: the priesthood of Aaron was to be successive, descending from the fathers to the children; the priesthood of Christ, after the order of Melchisedec, was to be personal, and the high priest immortal as to his office, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, as it is more largely described in the seventh chapter, and will be opened there. 2. Christ is here preferred to Aaron in the holiness of his person. Other priests were to offer up sacrifices, as for the sins of others, so for themselves, Heb 5:3. But Christ needed not to offer for sins for himself, for he had done no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth, Isa 53:9. And such a high priest became us.

VIII. We have an account of Christ's discharge of this his office, and of the consequences of that discharge, Heb 5:7-9.

1. The discharge of his office of the priesthood (Heb 5:7): Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, etc. Here observe, (1.) He took to him flesh, and for some days tabernacled therein; he became a mortal man, and reckoned his life by days, herein setting us an example how we should reckon ours. Were we to reckon our lives by days, it would be a means to quicken us to do the work of every day in its day. (2.) Christ, in the days of his flesh, subjected himself to death; he hungered, he was a tempted, bleeding, dying Jesus! He body is now in heaven, but it is a spiritual glorious body. (3.) God the Father was able to save him from death. He could have prevented his dying, but he would not; for then the great design of his wisdom and grace must have been defeated. What would have become of us if God had saved Christ from dying? The Jews reproachfully said, Let him deliver him now, if he will have him, Mat 27:43. But it was in kindness to us that the Father would not suffer that bitter cup to pass away from him; for then we must have drunk the dregs of it, and been miserable for ever. (4.) Christ, in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications to his Father, as an earnest of his intercession in heaven. A great many instances we have of Christ's praying. This refers to his prayer in his agony (Mat 26:39, and Mat 27:46), and to that before his agony (Jn. 17) which he put up for his disciples, and all who should believe on his name. (5.) The prayers and supplications that Christ offered up were joined with strong cries and tears, herein setting us an example not only to pray, but to be fervent and importunate in prayer. How many dry prayers, how few wet ones, do we offer up to God! (6.) Christ was heard in that he feared. How? Why he was answered by present supports in and under his agonies, and in being carried well through death, and delivered from it by a glorious resurrection: He was heard in that he feared. He had an awful sense of the wrath of God, of the weight of sin. His human nature was ready to sink under the heavy load, and would have sunk, had he been quite forsaken in point of help and comfort from God; but he was heard in this, he was supported under the agonies of death. He was carried through death; and there is no real deliverance from death but to be carried well through it. We may have many recoveries from sickness, but we are never saved from death till we are carried well through it. And those that are thus saved from death will be fully delivered at last by a glorious resurrection, of which the resurrection of Christ was the earnest and first-fruits.

2. The consequences of this discharge of his office, Heb 5:8, Heb 5:9, etc.

(1.) By these his sufferings he learned obedience, though he was a Son, Heb 5:8. Here observe, [1.] The privilege of Christ: He was a Son; the only-begotten of the Father. One would have thought this might have exempted him from suffering, but it did not. Let none then who are the children of God by adoption expect an absolute freedom from suffering. What Son is he whom the Father chasteneth not? [2.] Christ made improvement by his sufferings. By his passive obedience, he learned active obedience; that is, he practiced that great lesson, and made it appear that he was well and perfectly learned in it; though he never was disobedient, yet he never performed such an act of obedience as when he became obedient to death, even to the death of the cross. Here he has left us an example, that we should learn by all our afflictions a humble obedience to the will of God. We need affliction, to teach us submission.

(2.) By these his sufferings he was made perfect, and became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, Heb 5:9. [1.] Christ by his sufferings was consecrated to his office, consecrated by his own blood. [2.] By his sufferings he consummated that part of his office which was to be performed on earth, making reconciliation for iniquity; and in this sense he is said to be made perfect, a perfect propitiation. [3.] Hereby he has become the author of eternal salvation to men; he has by his sufferings purchased a full deliverance from sin and misery, and a full fruition of holiness and happiness for his people. Of this salvation he has given notice in the gospel; he has made a tender of it in the new covenant, and has sent the Spirit to enable men to accept this salvation. [4.] This salvation is actually bestowed on none but those who obey Christ. It is not sufficient that we have some doctrinal knowledge of Christ, or that we make a profession of faith in him, but we must hearken to his word, and obey him. He is exalted to be a prince to rule us, as well as a Saviour to deliver us; and he will be a Saviour to none but to those whom he is a prince, and who are willing that he should reign over them; the rest he will account his enemies, and treat them accordingly. But to those who obey him, devoting themselves to him, denying themselves, and taking up their cross, and following him, he will be the author, aitios - the grand cause of their salvation, and they shall own him as such for ever.

Barclay: Heb 5:1-10

Now Hebrews comes to work out the doctrine which is its special contribution to Christian thought--the doctrine of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. This passage sets out three essential qualifications of the priest in any age and in any generation.

(i) A priest is appointed on men's behalf to deal with the things concerning God. A. J. Gossip used to tell his students that when he was ordained to the ministry he felt as if the people were saying to him: "We are for ever involved in the dust and the heat of the day; we have to spend our time getting and spending; we have to serve at the counter, to toil at the desk, to make the wheels of industry go round. We want you to be set apart so that you can go in to the secret place of God and come back every Sunday with a word from him to us." The priest is the link between God and man.

In Israel the priest had one special function, to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people. Sin disturbs the relationship which should exist between man and God and puts up a barrier between them. The sacrifice is meant to restore that relationship and remove that barrier.

But we must note that the Jew was always quite clear, when thinking at his highest, that the sins for which sacrifice could atone were sins of ignorance. The deliberate sin did not find its atonement in sacrifice. The writer to the Hebrews himself says: "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26). This is a conviction that emerges again and again in the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament. Again and again they begin: "If any one sins unwittingly in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done..." (Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13). Num 15:22-31is a key passage. There the requisite sacrifices are laid down "if you err unwittingly." But at the end it is laid down: "That person who does anything with a high hand...reviles the Lord...shall be utterly cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him." Deu 17:12lays it down: "The man who acts presumptuously...that man shall die."

The sin of ignorance is pardonable; the sin of presumption is not. Nevertheless we must note that by the sin of ignorance the Jews meant more than simply lack of knowledge. They included the sins committed when a man was swept away in a moment of impulse or anger or passion or mastered by some overmastering temptation and the sins followed by repentance. By the sin of presumption they meant the cold, calculated sin for which a man was not in the least sorry, the open-eyed disobedience of God.

So, then, the priest existed to open the way for the sinner back to God--so long as he wanted to come back.

(ii) The priest must be one with men. He must have gone through men's experiences and his sympathy must be with them. At this point the writer to the Hebrews stops to point out--he will later show that this is one of the ways in which Jesus Christ is superior to any earthly priest--that the earthly priest is so one with men that he is under the necessity of offering sacrifice for his own sin before he offers it for the sins of others. The priest must be bound up with men in the bundle of life. In connection with this he used a wonderful word--metriopathein (3356). We have translated it "to feel gently"; but it is really untranslatable.

The Greeks defined a virtue as the mean between two extremes. On either hand there was an extreme into which a man might fall; in between there was the right way. So the Greeks defined metriopatheia (the corresponding noun) as the mean between extravagant grief and utter indifference. It was feeling about men in the right way. W. M. Macgregor defined it as "the mid-course between explosions of anger and lazy indulgence." Plutarch spoke of that patience which was the child of metriopatheia. He spoke of it as that sympathetic feeling which enabled a man to raise up and to save, to spare and to hear. Another Greek blames a man for having no metriopatheia and for therefore refusing to be reconciled with someone who had differed from him. It is a wonderful word. It means the ability to bear with people without getting irritated; it means the ability not to lose one's temper with people when they are foolish and will not learn and do the same thing over and over again. It describes the attitude to others which does not issue in anger at their fault and which does not condone it, but which to the end of the day spends itself in a gentle yet powerful sympathy which by its very patience directs a man back to the right way. No man can ever deal with his fellow-men unless he has this strong and patient, God-given metriopatheia.

(iii) The third essential of a priest is this--no man appoints himself to the priesthood; his appointment is of God. The priesthood is not an office which a man takes; it is a privilege and a glory to which he is called. The ministry of God among men is neither a job nor a career but a calling. A man ought to be able to look back and say, not, "I chose this work," but rather, "God chose me and gave me this work to do."

The writer to the Hebrews goes on to show how Jesus Christ fulfils the great conditions of the priesthood.

(i) He takes the last one first. Jesus did not choose his task; God chose him for it. At the Baptism there came to Jesus the voice which said: "You are my Son; today I have begotten you" (Psa 2:7).

(ii) Jesus has gone through the bitterest experiences of men and understands manhood in all its strength and weakness. The writer to the Hebrews has four great thoughts about him.

(a) He remembers Jesus in Gethsemane. That is what he is thinking of when he speaks of Jesus' prayers and entreaties, his tears and his cry. The word he uses for cry (krauge, 2906) is very significant. It is a cry which a man does not choose to utter but is wrung from him in the stress of some tremendous tension or searing pain. So, then, the writer to the Hebrews says that there is no agony of the human spirit through which Jesus has not come. The rabbis had a saying: "There are three kinds of prayers, each loftier than the preceding--prayer, crying and tears. Prayer is made in silence; crying with raised voice; but tears overcome all things." Jesus knew even the desperate prayer of tears.

(b) Jesus learned from all his experiences because he met them all with reverence. The Greek phrase for "He learned from what he suffered" is a linguistic jingle--emathen (3129) aph' (575) hon (3739) epathen (3958). And this is a thought which keeps recurring in the Greek thinkers. They are always connecting mathein (3129), to learn, and pathein (3958), to suffer. Aeschylus, the earliest of the great Greek dramatists, had as a kind of continual text: "Learning comes from suffering" (pathei mathos). He calls suffering a kind of savage grace from the gods. Herodotus declared that his sufferings were acharista mathemata, ungracious ways of learning. A modern poet says of the poets:

"We learned in suffering what we teach in song."

God speaks to men in many experiences of life, and not least in those which try their hearts and souls. But we can hear his voice only when we accept in reverence what comes to us. If we accept it with resentment, the rebellious cries of our own heart make us deaf to the voice of God.

© By means of the experiences through which he passed, the King James Version says that Jesus was made perfect (teleioun, 5048). Teleioun is the verb of the adjective teleios (5046). Teleios can quite correctly be translated "perfect" so long as we remember what the Greek meant by that perfection. To him a thing was teleios (5046) if it perfectly carried out the purpose for which it was designed. When he used the word he was not thinking in terms of abstract and metaphysical perfection; he was thinking in terms of function. What the writer to the Hebrews is saying is that all the experiences of suffering through which Jesus passed perfectly fitted him to become the Saviour of men.

(d) The salvation which Jesus brought is an eternal salvation. It is something which keeps a man safe both in time and in eternity. With Christ a man is safe for ever. There are no circumstances that can pluck him from Christ's hand.

Constable: Heb 3:1--5:11

II. The High Priestly Character of the Son 3:1--5:10

The writer proceeded to take up the terms "merciful" and "faithful" from 2:17 and to expound them in reverse order. He spoke of the faithfulness of Jesus (3:1-6, exposition) and the need for his hearers to remain faithful as well (3:7-4:14, exhortation). He then encouraged his audience with a reminder of Jesus' compassion as a merciful high priest in the service of God (4:15-5:10, exposition).

Constable: Heb 4:15--5:11

D. The Compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

Having explored the concept of Jesus as a faithful high priest (3:1-4:14), the writer proceeded next to develop the idea that Jesus is a merciful high priest in the service of God (cf. 2:17). A high priest must be faithful to God and compassionate with people. This section is entirely exposition, except for 4:16, which is an exhortation to pray. Verses 15 and 16 of chapter 4 announce the perspectives that the writer developed in 5:1-10.

"A The old office of high priest (5:1)

B The solidarity of the high priest with the people (5:2-3)

C The humility of the high priest (5:4)

C' The humility of Christ (5:5-6)

B' The solidarity of Christ with the people (5:7-8)

A' The new office of high priest (5:9-10) . . .

"As a unit 4:15-5:10 lays the foundation for the great central exposition of Jesus' priesthood in 7:1-10:18, where the emphasis will be placed on his dissimilarity to the Levitical priesthood."¹⁴³

4:15 Jesus experienced temptation in every area of His life, as we do. Obviously He did not experience temptation to waste His time by watching too much television, for example. However, He experienced temptation to waste His time and to do or not do things contrary to God's will. His temptations did not come from a sinful nature as some of ours do since He had no sinful nature, but He suffered temptation as we do. Since He endured every temptation successfully He experienced temptations more thoroughly than we do when we yield to them before they pass. Consequently He can sympathize (feel and suffer) with us when we experience temptation. The writer's point was that Jesus understands us, He sympathizes with us, and He overcame temptation Himself.

As an illustration of the thoroughness of Jesus' temptations, imagine a large bolder on the sea coast. Since it does not move, it experiences the full force of every wave that beats against it. Smaller pebbles that the waves move around do not because they yield to the force of the waves. Similarly Jesus' temptations were greater than ours because He never yielded to them. Likewise a prizefighter (Jesus) who defeats the champion (Satan) endures more punishment than other contenders who throw in the towel or are knocked out before the end of the fight.

". . . in this epistle as high a Christology as is conceivable is combined with an emphasis on the real humanity of Jesus. Nobody insists on the limitations of Jesus' human frame as does the writer of Hebrews."¹⁴⁴

4:16 Since we have such a High Priest to intercede for us with God, we can approach God confidently in prayer (cf. 3:6; 10:19, 35). Every Christian can come to God's heavenly throne, not just the high priests of Judaism. The high priests of Judaism could only approach God at His earthly throne, in the holy of holies in the tabernacle or temple, once a year. God's throne of judgment has become a throne of grace (undeserved help) for us now. Our Sovereign will be merciful (not giving us what we deserve) and gracious (giving us what we do not deserve). This verse again contrasts the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.

5:1 To qualify for the high priesthood in Israel one had to be a man. He also had to stand between God and people as their representative before Him. His services included presenting gifts (offerings) of worship and sacrifices for sin.

"Although it would be natural to distinguish between dora, gifts' (i.e., peace and cereal offerings), and thysiai, sacrifices' (i.e., the sin and trespass offerings), in later statements in the OT all sacrifices pertain to the procuring of atonement and the removal of sin (cf. Ezek 45:15-17). The bloody offerings for the Day of Atonement are in the foreground of the discussion of the sacrificial ministry of the Levitical high priest here and elsewhere in Hebrews (cf. 7:27; 10:4, 12, 26)."¹⁴⁵

5:2-3 He also had to be a compassionate person. This grew out of his own consciousness of being a sinner himself. In other words, he needed not only to carry out his duties acceptably, but he also needed to do so with the proper attitudes and feelings. "Deal gently with" (Gr. metriopathein) means neither indifferent to moral lapses nor harsh. The evidence of his sinfulness was the fact that he had to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as for those of the people. Since Jesus Christ was sinless he did not need to do this (4:15; 7:27). However, Jesus Christ's compassion exceeded that of other high priests.

5:4 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."¹⁴⁶

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, Num. 16; Saul, 1 Sam. 13:8-14; Uzziah, 2 Chron. 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.¹⁴⁷

5:5-6 God appointed Jesus as king when He sat down at the right hand of God following His ascension (1:5). He presumably appointed Him priest at the same time. These two offices and functions were primary in the writer's argument in this epistle. Psalm 2:7-9 and Psalm 110:1 (cf. 1:13) predicted Messiah's reign. Psalm 110:4 also predicted His priesthood.¹⁴⁸ The same God who appointed Jesus as His Son also appointed Him high priest forever (cf. 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28)..

"The appeal to Melchizedek, who as the first priest mentioned in Scripture is the archetype of all priesthood, validates Jesus' priesthood as different from and superior to the Levitical priesthood."¹⁴⁹

"When . . . Jerusalem fell into David's hands and became his capital city (II Sam. 5:6ff.), he and his heirs became successors to Melchizedek's kingship, and probably also (in a titular capacity at least) to the priesthood of God Most High."¹⁵⁰

"All that a priest does in offering sacrifice for men Christ does. But whereas they do it only symbolically, he really effects atonement.

"There was no succession of priests from Melchizedek and thus no order.' Jesus, however, was a priest of this kind--not like Aaron and his successors."¹⁵¹

5:7 The phrase "days of his flesh [Gr. sarx]" draws attention to the weakness that characterized Jesus' life during His earthly sojourn. Jesus' offerings to God (cf. v. 1) included His prayers and petitions. Specifically Jesus' prayers from Gethsemane and the cross that were part of His offering of worship and expiation to God illustrate this (cf. Ps. 22:22-24; Heb. 2:12). However, Jesus' entire passion ministry is probably in view here.¹⁵² God heard and granted Jesus' prayers the evidence of which is Jesus' resurrection (cf. Ps. 22:22-31). "Piety" means reverent submission, godly fear, and trust. Jesus' prayers show His ability to sympathize with those He represents (vv. 2-3; cf. John 17).¹⁵³

5:8 Even though Jesus was the Son of God (Son though He was), and as such perfect in one sense, He gained something through His sufferings. He gained experiential knowledge of what being a human involves. Similarly Jesus grew in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52). He learned obedience in the sense that He learned to obey His father's will as a human. For Jesus, God's will involved suffering (cf. Phil. 2:6-8).

"Innocence is life untested, but virtue is innocence tested and triumphant."¹⁵⁴

5:9 This experience perfected Jesus Christ in the sense that it completed Him by giving Him experiential knowledge of what human beings must endure. Obeying God means trusting Him (cf. John 6:29; Acts 6:7; Rom. 10:16; 1 Pet. 1:22). Jesus is, of course, the source of eternal, not just temporal, salvation to all who initially believe on Him. However in view of the writer's emphasis it may be that he was also referring here to the ultimate aspect of our salvation, our eternal inheritance (1:14; 9:15). We obtain this to the extent that we "obey" God, and obey Him through suffering as Jesus did (cf. Mark 8:34-35).¹⁵⁵ Jesus Christ is the source (cause) of our inheritance not only because it comes from Him, but also because as our file leader He has blazed a trail through suffering for us (2:10). He is also the source of our inheritance because as our High Priest He provides what we need to live obediently to God.

"It is a nice touch that he who learned to obey brought salvation to those who obey."¹⁵⁶

5:10 It was for this purpose that God appointed Jesus as our High Priest. The writer developed the subject of the order of Melchizedek later (ch. 7).

Jesus Christ is not only superior to angels (1:5-14) and Moses (3:1-6) but also Aaron (5:1-10).

"The orientation given to the exposition is intensely practical. The solidarity of the heavenly high priest with the community in its weakness provides a strong motivation for earnest prayer. The demand to draw near to the one who is thoroughly familiar with the human condition, who suffers with their suffering, and who is therefore qualified to mediate renewed strength (4:15-16) is an appeal to recognize the importance of prayer in the rhythm of Christian life."¹⁵⁷

College: Heb 5:1-14

HEBREWS 5

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER

BY GOD'S OATH (5:1-7:28)

A. REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGH PRIEST (5:1-4)

¹ Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins ² He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. ³ This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.

⁴ No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.

Though the discussion of the new covenant in chapter eight is probably the centerpiece of the letter, the theme to which chapters five through seven are devoted is of no small significance for it represents the unique contribution of Hebrews to New Testament christology. In chapter five, our writer continues to develop the theme first introduced in 2:17-3:1 and resumed in the last section of chapter four (4:14-16) - that of Jesus' ministry as the great high priest of the Christian. The chapter break, then, does not represent a major transition. This occurred in v. 14 where the word Therefore does not so much draw a conclusion from what precedes it but (along with the present adverbial participle (e[conte" , echontes , since we have ) anticipates and provides a reason for the following exhortation, let us hold firmly (kratw'men , kratômen , a hortatory subjunctive). Though it is not translated in the NIV, there is a connective in 5:1 - ( gar , "for"). Its use here, however, is not so much argumentative as explanatory as the writer now describes in more detail (5:1-10) how Jesus fulfills the requirements of the high priestly office and is thus able to meet the central needs to be addressed by every high priest. In vv. 1-4, we see these requirements and needs described.

5:1 Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Our writer begins by describing what is required of every high priest . Jesus is thus to be measured by those requirements specified in the Mosaic law for the Aaronic priesthood - by the authority of Scripture rather than by popular opinion or mere human precedent. The term employed here is the same one previously applied to Jesus (ajrciereuv" , archiereus , 2:17, 3:1, 4:14, 15). Outside of the Gospels and Acts, where it is used both in reference to "chief priests" (when in the plural) or the "high priest" (when in the singular), it occurs only in Hebrews. The prefix (ajrc - ) adds the concept of rank or degree to the root word (iJereuv" , hiereus ) which in the New Testament is simply translated "priest." That Jesus is to be considered the high priest is clear from the approaching parallel with the Day of Atonement (cf. Heb 9, Lev 16) and reference to Jesus as "great priest" (iJereva mevgan , hierea megan, a title used of the high priest in the LXX, Lev 21:10, Num 35:25) in 10:21.

Verses 1-3 are devoted to the first requirement - that the high priest be selected from among men (ejx ajnqrwvpwn , ex anthrôpôn ). This probably has Exodus 28:1 as its background, where God commanded that Aaron and his sons be brought "from among the sons of Israel" (NASB; ejk tw'n uiJw'n Israhl , ek tôn huiôn Israçl , LXX). Both the participle (which the NIV renders "is selected") and the main verb (kaqivstatai , kathistatai , "is appointed") are in the passive voice, which indicates that another party is doing the choosing and appointing. The same verb (a form of kaqivsthmi , kathistçmi ) appears in 7:28 when the writer notes that "the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests" but the case can be made that the more immediate context of 5:4 is probably in mind here ("he must be called by God"). Both forms are also in the present tense - the customary tense form for broad, general statements, as Lenski points out.

The word rendered selected (lambanovmeno" , lambanomenos , present tense participle) is capable of a stronger translation such as "taken" (KJV, NASB). At times, it is even used in a violent sense - such as when the tenants "seized" the servants and "took" the son and killed him in Jesus' parable of the vineyard (Matt 21:35, 39) or when Pilate "took" Jesus and had him flogged (John 19:1). However, the notion of being "selected" or "chosen" (RSV) out of a larger number (such as when God "takes" a people for himself from the Gentiles, Acts 15:14) probably fits the context better (since the verb is followed by a genitive case of source or origin). This same word is used in the LXX of Numbers 8:6 where the Lord commands Moses to "take" the Levites.

The verb is appointed (kaqivstatai [ kathistatai ] - a compound form of i{sthmi [histçmi ], "to stand, set or put something in a place") can also be translated "ordain" and is used of governors (Acts 7:10), rulers or judges (Acts 7:27, 35), and elders (Titus 1:5) in the NT. The appointed duty of the high priest toward men is to represent them in matters related to God. If the two clauses of the sentence are taken together, then, we see him as being "from men for men." The structure of the Greek text brings this idea out more clearly for the words of the text appear in the following order: "from men selected, for men appointed."

As a representative of men to God the purpose of his ministry is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins . The Greek forms here (i{na prosfevrh/ , hina prospherç , "to offer") stress that the presenting of the offerings is the express purpose for which the high priest has been selected and appointed. This is the first of no less than twenty-one uses of this word (prospherô ) in Hebrews. The frequency takes on additional significance when we consider that it occurs nowhere else in the NT outside of the Gospels and Acts. It is customarily used of the offering of gifts at the altar of the temple (as in Matt 5:23, 24; 8:4; etc.) and is the same word which will be used in 9:14 when we read that Christ "offered himself."

There is considerable variation and overlap in the terms used for gifts and sacrifices in the Hebrew MT, the Greek LXX and Rabbinic literature. In 8:3, both of these terms are used again (dw'ra , dôra , "gifts" and qusiva" , thysias, "sacrifices") but in 8:4 only "gift" (dôra ) is used with no apparent difference in meaning, suggesting that the two terms are probably synonymous and both are offered for sin. In light of what the writer will have to say in chapter nine, the reference in mind here is probably to the gifts and sacrifices to be offered on the Day of Atonement (Lev 18).

5:2 He is able to deal gently

Though the NIV begins a new sentence here, the Greek text is a continuation of the sentence which began in the previous verse. The phrase is able actually translates a present tense adverbial participle. This means that the circumstance indicated by the participle - the ability to deal gently - coincides both with the condition of being "selected from among men" (also a present participle) and the appointment to represent men (v. 1). The condition is a requirement for the appointment because the ability is a requirement for the role.

The word translated "deal gently" (metriopaqei'n , metriopathein ; KJV "have compassion") occurs only here in the NT and not at all in the LXX. It is a compound word joining forms of metrios (moderate) and pathos (passion, affection) and is used in the sense of "moderation" in secular Greek literature. It could be taken as a stylistic variation and synonymous with terms sumpaqh'sai (sympathçsai , "sympathize," 4:15) and e[paqen ( epathen , "suffer," 5:8) in the sense of having "some fellow-feeling for," as Ellingworth suggests. This fits the context but the idea of "moderating one's anger" - achieving a mean between "indifference and sentimental indulgence" - fits the context as well and seems more consistent with its use elsewhere as noted by Kistemaker and Lane. The high priest, then, neither winks at the sins of his people nor deals with them harshly.

with those who are ignorant and are going astray

These are attributive present tense participles (toi~" ajgnoou~sin kaiΙ planwmevnoi" , tois agnoousin kai planômenois ) which suggests that the writer probably has general life patterns in mind. In the NT, ajgnoevw (agnoeô ) can be used of either a lack of knowledge or awareness, as when Paul announces his attention to proclaim to the Athenians something "unknown" to them (Acts 17:23) or when he informs the Galatians how he was at one time "personally unknown" (KJV, "unknown by face") to the churches of Judea (Gal 1:22). Or it can refer to a lack of understanding or recognition, as when Mark and Luke note that Jesus' disciples failed to understand the meaning of his teaching that he would be killed and raised (Mark 9:32, Luke 9:45) or when Luke later notes that the rulers of Jerusalem did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 13:27).

In some instances, it refers specifically to an ignorance that leads one to error or sin, as when Paul rebukes the one who "ignores" (NASB, "does not recognize") the fact that what he was writing was the Lord's command (1 Cor 14:38) or when Peter writes that men "blaspheme in matters they do not understand" (2 Pet 2:12). In such cases, it is clear from the context that the word refers to a lack of understanding or recognition rather than a lack of knowledge or awareness. The choice of this particular word, then, suggests that the writer probably has in mind the "unintentional sin" referred to in Leviticus 4. This fits well in Hebrews 5 where atonement for sin is such an important part of the context (vv. 1, 3; 7:27; 9:7, 12, 14, 26, 28).

Planavw (planaô ) can mean "to lead astray," "cause to wander," "mislead" or "deceive." This is the same word Jesus uses of the sheep who "wanders away" in Matthew 18:12 (cf. also 1 Pet 2:25) and our writer will use the word again in 11:38 to describe how the prophets "wandered" in deserts, mountains, caves and holes in the ground. In a more figurative sense, however, it can mean to "deceive" or "seduce" a person into an error of judgment (Matt 24:4ff; John 7:12, 47; Gal 6:7; Rev 12:9; etc.) which often directly results in sinful behavior (1 Cor 6:9, 15:33; Titus 3:3; Rev 2:20). This is the same word used in 3:10 when our writer quoted Psalm 95:10 to describe how the hearts of the Israelites were "always going astray."

The NIV translation in 5:2 - "going astray" - doesn't really do justice to the passive form of the participle which could be translated "are led astray," suggesting the idea of victimization. The fact that, in the Greek text, one article is used for both participles suggests that they both describe the same group of people and that either (1) the ignorance/misunderstanding is thus a result of having been led astray (although no specific agent is named) or (2) taken together the terms cover both unintentional sins (which stem from misunderstanding) and intentional sins (which stem from the kind of rebellious heart described in 3:7-11). The fact that one who "sinned defiantly" was to be "cut off from his people" (Num 15:30) - even as God was sentencing the rebellious Israelites to die in the wilderness - poses a problem for the second possibility, however.

since he himself is subject to weakness.

This phrase explains why the human high priest is able to deal gently with such people. The conjunction ejpeiΙ ( epei ) appears frequently in the letter (4:6; 5:2, 11; 6:13; 9:17, 26; 10:2; 11:11) and can be used of either time ("as," "when," "after that") or of ground or motive ("since" or "inasmuch as") as it is here.

Perivkeitai ( perikeitai , "is subject to") is used only five times in the NT but the other instances suggest some interesting imagery. In Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2, Jesus uses the word in reference to the millstone "tied around" the neck of the one who should wish to be thrown into the sea. Paul uses the word while under arrest in Rome when he says "I am bound with this chain" (Acts 28:20). Our writer uses the word again in 12:1 when he reminds us that we are "surrounded" by a great cloud of witnesses. This is how the human high priest experiences weakness - it is like a stone about his neck, a chain that binds him, a crowd that surrounds him.

=Asqevneian ( astheneian ) is usually used in reference to a person who is physically weak or ill. It is used in the Gospels to describe those who were healed by Jesus (Matt 8:17 cf. Isaiah 53:4; Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11, 12; John 5:5; 11:4) or Paul (Acts 28:9), Timothy's stomach problems (1 Tim 5:23), etc. In Matthew 25, Jesus uses asthençs when referring to those who are "sick" or in prison ( vv. 39, 43, 44) and Peter uses it when exhorting husbands to treat their wives "with respect as weaker vessels" (1 Pet 3:7). Although our writer seems to use the term in this sense in 11:34, it is unlikely that he is so using it either here or in 7:28 when he again refers to the human high priests as "weak." Used figuratively, either astheneia or asthençs can mean a kind of ineffectiveness (1 Cor 2:3; 15:43; 2 Cor 12:9; etc.), as when Jesus describes his "weak" flesh when struggling in Gesthemane or when Paul uses it in reference to the "weak" things of the world (1 Cor 1:27) or a "weak" conscience (1 Cor 8:7, 10). Thinking along these lines, Ellingworth suggests that, in this context, we consider it "the intellectual and moral weakness which leads to failure to do God's will." It is in this sense that the human high priest is one with his fellow man, able to both identify and empathize with his plight.

5:3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of his people.

This verse completes the long and complex Greek sentence which began in v. 1. A more form-literal translation of v. 1 might be "and because of it (NASB)." The "it," specifically, is the "weakness" mentioned in v. 2 ( astheneian , with which the Greek pronoun agrees in gender and number).

The verb here is ojfeivlei ( opheilei ), which can simply be translated "should" (Luke 17:10; John 13:14; Acts 17:29; 1 Cor 7:3 etc.) or "ought" (Rom 15:1; 1 Cor 7:36; 9:10; etc.) but includes the sense of "owing a debt." It is used of financial debts (by Jesus in his parables about the unforgiving servant - Matt 18:28, 30, 34 - and the shrewd manager - Luke 16:5, 7; by Paul when he exhorts us to "let no debt remain outstanding" - Rom. 13:7, 8; also Phlm 18, 19) but also by Jesus in the model prayer in reference to the debt of sin (Matt 6:12, ojfeilhvmata [opheilçmata ] and ojfeilevtai" [ opheiletais ]; Luke 11:4 joins ojfeivlonti [ opheilonti ] and aJmartiva" [ hamartias ], the same word translated "sin" here in Heb 5:1; cf. Luke 13:4). In other words, the verb has to here probably denotes a strong sense of obligation to pay a debt incurred by sin. Because the human high priest shares in the weakness and sin of his fellow man, he is obligated to offer sacrifices for himself as well as for others. This obligation is described in Leviticus 4:3-12 and 16:6-17 (for himself first on the Day of Atonement).

The word offer ( prospherei ) translates a form of the same verb used in v. 1. Here, however, the Greek text contains no object and our translators supply "sacrifices" on the basis of v. 1. It seems appropriate that the same object is implied but if "gifts and sacrifices" (v. 1) are to be taken together as uJpeΙr aJmartiw'n (hyper hamartiôn , "for sins"), then probably both are in mind here as well when the writer uses a similar phrase with the same meaning - periΙ aJmartiw'n (peri hamartiôn , "for sins"). Crouch suggests that since both the verb ("has") and the infinitive ("to offer") are in the present tense, the obligation to offer such gifts and sacrifices is continual just as the debt created by repeated sin and weakness.

5:4 No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.

The first three verses of the chapter have described the first requirement of a high priest - that he be selected from among men. In verse four, we are introduced to the second requirement - that he be called by God. In his unique role, then, the high priest both represents men to God and God to men.

Our writer employs antithesis here. That is, he first states the truth negatively and then positively. On one hand, no one takes this honor upon himself. This statement seems emphatic when contrasted to the reference to "every high priest" in v. 1. The NIV now uses takes to render the same verb which it previously rendered "selected" in v. 1 ( lambanei ). This is in keeping with stronger translation possible for the word and here the stronger translation is probably to be preferred when we consider the likely background of this statement. Bruce notes several cases, between 174 BC and AD 67, of men being appointed to the office who were neither descended from Aaron nor called by God. Our writer, however, has demonstrated no inclination to compare Jesus to specific human priests but rather measures him against selected requirements from Scripture. It is more probable that, if anything, the writer may have had in mind the examples of what happened to Korah (Num 16), Saul (1 Sam 13) and Uzziah (2 Chr 26) when they presumed to take priestly duties upon themselves.

Serving as high priest is described as an honor . Though this is a unique use of timhΙn (timçn ) in the NT, it is clear from the present context that our writer is referring to the sense of honor or respect attached to serving in the role of high priest. It is also possible that he is anticipating the use of the term ejdovxazen ( edoxazen , "glorify") when describing the appointing of Christ in v. 5 since in chapter two both the terms dovxh'/ (doxç , "glory")/ and timh'/ (timç , "honor") have been used together to describe the "crowning" of the Son who is greater than the angels (2:7, 9). Elsewhere in the NT the term is usually used to convey a sense of financial worth or value (Matt 26:6, 9; Acts 4:34; 5:2, 3; 7:16; 19:19; figuratively of Christ's death in 1 Cor 6:30 and 7:23; possibly in 1 Tim 5:17) or in the broad sense of respect, though an object is specified - father and mother (Matt 15:4, 6; 19:19; Eph. 6:2), Jesus as Son and his Father (John 5:23), widows (1 Tim 5:3), the king (1 Pet 2:17), a wife (1 Pet 3:7), and possibly elders (1 Tim 5:17). Although the NT nowhere else uses the noun by itself for an office, Josephus uses it in this same way of the high-priestly office as does Philo. Like vessels which are made "noble" because they are set aside for "noble" purposes (Rom 9:21; 2 Tim 2:20-21), so is the high priest.

The conjunction but marks the turn to the truth stated positively. On the other hand, he must be called by God . Our writer here resorts to a stylistic device known as "zeugma" - the omission of a verb in a parallel clause. The point here is more than technical. The style of the Greek text in both verses 4 and 5 is an important part of the way our writer draws parallels and contrasts between Jesus and human priests typified by Aaron. Hence we will see this device again soon and its import will become clearer when we consider verse 5. In this instance, ajllaΙ ( alla , "but") is not followed by a main indicative verb but a present passive participle (lit., "being called"). The continuation of the idea of being "selected" or "taken" (lambanô ) is the main thought and the present participle is probably modal (i.e., explaining how the selection takes place - "he is selected by being called by God"). Kalouvmeno" ( kaloumenos , "called") can be taken to mean "to urgently invite someone to accept responsibilities for a particular task" in the same sense that God, in the OT, called his servants and his people.

Just before our writer turns from what is true of "every priest" to what is true of Christ, he alludes to the specific example of Aaron, the inaugural high priest from whose line of descent succeeding high priests were to come. Exodus 28 describes the call he received directly from God. Aaron did not volunteer but was chosen by God. Later, when Korah and other Levites rose up to oppose Moses and Aaron, God reaffirmed his choice of Aaron and destroyed those who attempted to take the role for themselves (Num 16).

B. JESUS FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS AND

OFFERS ETERNAL SALVATION (5:5-10)

⁵ So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

"You are my Son;

today I have become your Father. ^a" ^b

⁶ And he says in another place,

"You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek." ^c

⁷ During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. ⁸ Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered ⁹ and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him ¹⁰ and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

^a 5 Or have begotten you ^b 5 Psalm 2:7 ^c 6 Psalm 110:4

Now that the requirements for "every high priest" have been described, Jesus will be measured against these criteria in order to show why he is the " great high priest" of the Christian (4:14). Shifts in the verb forms from present tenses (vv. 1-4) to past (aorist) tenses (vv. 5-10) signify the transition from the general, broad descriptions of what is required of every high priest to the specific, historical descriptions of what Jesus experienced - just as a syllogism proceeds from its major premise of a general truth about a class to its minor premise about the truth of a particular case. We will see here not only the fact that Jesus was so appointed (from among men and by God) but also what Jesus endured on the way to that appointment and what that appointment has achieved for us.

5:5 So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."

The final phrase of verse 4 and the initial phrase of verse 5 create a "pivot" around which this transition turns and together serve as just one example of the many parallelisms which help to draw the evaluative comparison. The order of the text illustrates more clearly how this "pivot" functions:

. . . just as also Aaron.

So also Christ . . .

This is the same basic form of comparison made on a smaller scale in verse three (NIV, "as well as for"; literally, "just as . . . "so also" [kaqwΙ" periΙ . . . ou{tw" , kathôs peri . . . houtôs ]) but now it forms the pivotal comparison of this section of the letter.

Other parallelisms assist in drawing the comparison. If we observe the style of the Greek text closely and note the recurring use of the "zeugma" as described in v. 4 above, we can see in v. 5 an antithesis which parallels that of v. 4:

not to himself one takes . . . but . . . being called by God

Christ not himself was glorifying . . . but . . . the one who said

When it is observed that both verses employ zeugma in the second half of the antithesis, the parallels stand out quite clearly. Just as no one took the honor to himself, so Christ did not glorify himself ("honor" and "glory" are now seen as serving parallel functions in these sentences). Both antitheses turn on the same conjunction (ajlla , alla ). The one who "said" (though not specified in v. 5) is clearly the same one who "called" (God). The progression from "selecting" (lambavnei , lambanei ) to "glorifying" (ejdovxazen , edoxazen ) would appear to be more than a coincidence. When God appointed his Son, he did so in a much more glorious way than when he ever appointed any human priest. The combination of "honor" and "glory" recalls the coronation imagery of 2:7-9 (Ps 8).

The argument proceeds, then, not only from major premise to minor premise (class to member) but from lesser to greater. Not only does Jesus' greater glory become clear but his greater humility. Though the glory he received was far greater, it was still pronounced upon him. He did not grasp it or "take" it unto himself.

The last time our writer referred to "Christ," he referred to him as "Jesus the Son of God" (4:14). We noted there how some have suggested that the name "Jesus" refers to his humanity while the name "Christ" refers to his divinity but also that the distinction does not seem to hold in Hebrews. Just as the letter describes his "blood" (9:14; 10:19), his entry into the sanctuary (4:14; 6:20; 9:24), and his role as mediator of the new covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24) so does it describe his role as high priest in both terms (Jesus and Christ). It is more probable that our writer chooses to refer to him as "the Christ" (the definite article appears in the Greek text) because he is in the process of citing two Messianic passages from the Psalms.

Whether "Jesus" or "Christ," he is now also clearly seen to be "Son of God" in either case since our writer returns again to Psalm 2:7 ("You are my Son"), first cited in 1:5 to demonstrate his superiority to the angels. The same pronouncement demonstrates the superiority of his divine call to be our high priest.

5:6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Our writer offers not one witness but two to back his claim about Jesus' appointment. Though he has used Psalm 2:7 previously, he now uses it in a different connection, pairing it with Psalm 110:4 (Ps 110:1 was introduced in 1:13). Just as he has appealed to Scripture to establish the requirements, so he also appeals to Scripture to demonstrate that Jesus not only measures up to these criteria but surpasses them as a great high priest with no equal. The pairing of Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4 also ties the notions of Sonship and Priesthood together, just as they were in 4:14. This can be said of no one but Jesus Christ. No one else can be both Son and Priest in as great a way as he.

This is the first reference in the letter to "the order of Melchizedek." However, this phrase does not seem to be as important in this verse as is the reference to the priesthood since the quote is introduced as evidence that the Christ did not try to take the priesthood for himself. That the phrase is repeated in v. 10, however, suggests that it will become important - as, in fact, it becomes the next major theme of the letter (6:20), following the lengthy excursus which begins in 5:11. This same phrase ("order of Melchizedek") will be found in 5:10; 6:20; 7:11; and 7:17 (Ps 110:4 again cited). Chapter seven will be completely devoted to explaining what is merely anticipated here - the significance of Melchizedek's priesthood for understanding the high priestly ministry of Jesus.

What the Psalmist and subsequently our writer mean by the "order" of Melchizedek (kataΙ thΙn tavxin , kata tçn taxin ) deserves some explanation. Although the NIV here retains the choice of the KJV, NASB, and RSV, it may still not be the best possible rendering. It is, admittedly, the same word used in reference to the "division" of priests in which Zechariah served (Luke 1:8) and seems to be used of Melchizedek in the same manner in which it is used of Aaron in 7:11. But there is no biblical or historical evidence to suggest any continuation of such a "class" or "order" of priesthood beyond the life of Melchizedek himself, unless our writer has Jesus in mind as the unique successor after a gap of many centuries. Nor can this be taken as a reference to any kind of order within the existing Levitical priesthood for Melchizedek served both before and outside of that covenant. The word is used on only two other occasions in the NT, when Paul describes an "orderly" way of conducting affairs (1 Cor 14:40; Col 2:5).

There is suggestive evidence from other sources, however. Bauer suggests "nature, quality, manner" as possible translations based upon usage in secular literature and Moulton and Milligan suggest "character" or "quality" based upon similar references, including 2 Maccabees 9:18. Hence, others have suggested such translations as "according to the nature of" or "of the same kind." This makes sense of the variation in 7:15 when our writer refers to another priest "like Melchizedek" (kataΙ thΙn oJmoiovthta , kata tçn homoiotçta ).

In the end, we should observe that the main thrust of the comparison seems to be more important to our writer than is a strict succession of order or any comparison of personal characteristics between Melchizedek and Jesus - the fact that both are priests "forever." Although Melchizedek is called a priest "forever" (eij" toΙn aijw'na , eis ton aiôna ) this description is also applied to the Levitical priests in the OT (Exod 29:9, eis ton aiôna , LXX; 1 Chr 15:2, e{w" aijw'no" , heôs aiônos , LXX). But our writer has something different in mind. He is priest "forever" (eij" toΙ dihnekev" , eis to diçnekes , "continually, for all time") in that he is "without a genealogy . . . without beginning of days or end of life" (7:3). The point of the comparison is to see how Jesus becomes "another priest like Melchizedek . . . one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (7:15-16). The "forever" dimension is the ultimate point of the comparison (cf. also 7:28). If the comparison to Aaron should, perhaps, cause a reader to object to Jesus as high priest because he lacked the required ancestry, he will soon be reminded that there are better reasons to accept him as an even greater high priest.

5:7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Now that our writer has appealed to the authority of Scripture in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Son and Messiah has been appointed by God to be a priest, our writer turns our attention to the earthly life of Jesus to demonstrate his identification with the experiences of men. The order is chiastic: (1) the high priest must be chosen from among men (vv. 1-3), (2) the high priest must be called by God (v. 4), (3) Jesus was called by God to be priest (vv. 5-6), and (4) Jesus was a full participant in our human struggles. In these next two verses, we will read about what Jesus went through in order to sympathize with our weakness (4:15), why Jesus is able to deal gently with us (5:2), and so is able to represent us in matters related to God (5:1).

The phrase "the days of Jesus' life on earth" (NIV) somewhat softens the impact of the Greek phrase which calls our attention more directly to the physical nature of his incarnation - literally, "the days of his flesh" (sarkoΙ" , sarkos ). Though this is the same word which figures so prominently in Paul's discussion of our "sinful nature" in Romans 7-8, where he opposes living "according to the sinful nature" (NIV; KJV, "flesh") and living "according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:4), it is otherwise used simply in reference to the body, i.e., "the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body" or of our "human descent." This is probably the extent of the term's meaning here but the context certainly suggests that even if Jesus (the "antitype" of Adam, Rom 5:14ff.) never sinned, he experienced every temptation experienced by those of "sinful nature" (4:15).

The rest of this verse is probably a description of Gethsemane. In the Gospels, we often find Jesus in prayer but here the phrase "with loud cries and tears" suggests a particularly intense period of prayer and the aorist tense of the main verb (e[maqen [ emathen ], which does not occur until v. 8) suggests that our writer has in mind a particular event rather than a general custom (for which an imperfect tense would probably be used). At Gethsemane we know that he "began to be sorrowful and troubled" (Matt 26:37; "deeply distressed," Mark 14:33), that he "was overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death" (Matt 26:38; Mark 14:34), that his "body" (savrx , sarx , i.e., "flesh") was "weak" ( asthençs ) (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38), that he was "in anguish" and "prayed earnestly" while "his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground" (Luke 22:44). We read here that he prayed "to the one who could save him from death," and it was in Gethsemane when he prayed in death's shadow, the cross looming before him.

Here we encounter a problem for the text tells us that "he was heard." Did Jesus pray, asking to be spared from death on a cross? This seems to be what we read in the synoptics when Jesus prays, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me" (Matt 26:39 cf. Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42). If so, it is not easy to explain how God "heard" or answered him. Eijsakouvw (eisakouô ) can be translated "obey" and is the same word used when Zechariah (Luke 1:13) and Cornelius (Acts 10:31) are told that their prayers have been "heard" (answered) and when Jesus' refers to the answers which pagans expect for their prayers (Matt 6:7).

Two explanations are possible. One is that God's answer is seen in the "angel from heaven" who "appeared to him and strengthened him" (Luke 22:43). Perhaps Jesus' agony over the cross was so great that it threatened to crush him even in the garden. Another is that, while the angel represents God's immediate response, God's ultimate answer was not to "rescue" (swv/zw , sôzô ) Jesus from the cross but from death through the resurrection. After all, it is because of his resurrection that he is able to serve as priest forever (Heb 7:16, 28). A form of sôzô is used similarly of Jesus' raising of Jairus' dead daughter (Luke 9:50).

In whichever sense Jesus was heard, it was "because of his reverent submission" (eujlabeiva" , eulabeias ). NASB renders the word "piety," while RSV translates it as "godly fear." If the reference here is to Gethsemane, then this alternative is clearly to be preferred for even as Jesus prayed there we remember well what he said to his Father: "Yet not as I will, but as you will" (Matt 26:39; cf. Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42).

5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered

For a better understanding of this statement, it is important to note that we have here the completion of a sentence which actually began in v. 7. The main verb is e[maqen ( emathen , "learned"). The two forms in v. 7 are aorist adverbial participles (he "offered up," prosenevgka" [ prosenengkas ] and "was heard," eijsakousqeiΙ" [ eisakoustheis ]) which means that they have an antecedent time relationship to the main verb. This is not to imply that Jesus was not obedient throughout his life. However, the "obedience" described here in v. 8 is not merely that of Jesus' entire obedient life but refers in particular to that degree of submissive obedience which the cross demanded and which Jesus could only experience and practice through the events of Gethsemane and Golgotha. The point is that even in the midst of this kind of suffering Jesus continued to obey.

Keeping in mind that the two verses are part of the same sentence sheds possible light on another potentially problematic dimension of this verse. The concessive conditional phrase "Although he was a son" may, in a way, be troublesome for it seems to suggest that Jesus learned obedience in spite of his Sonship (rather than because of it or through it, more natural thoughts for us). The concessive force of the phrase, however, comes not from the participle (w , ôn , "being" a son) but from the conjunction which introduces it (kaivper , kaiper ). The present tense of the participle merely signifies a simultaneous time relationship with some other event (i.e., the state of being a son persisted while some other event(s) took place).

The question we should ask here is, "which event?" The four major translations (NIV, NASB, RSV, KJV) each begin a new sentence here, conveying the impression that kaiper ("although") looks forward . However, in every other place where this conjunction is used in the NT - including both other occurrences in Hebrews (Phil 3:4; Heb 7:5; 12:17; and 2 Pet 1:12) - it looks backward , connecting the phrase to follow with what precedes it. That being the case, then, we have good reason to understand the phrase "although he was a son" as referring to what has already been described in v. 7. The idea is not that he "learned" in spite of being a son but that, even though he was God's Son, he endured "days of the flesh" along with the temptations and sufferings that accompany them. Though God's Son, he has earned the right to represent us (5:1) and is still able to sympathize with our weaknesses (4:15).

5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 5:10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

The long, complicated sentence which began in v. 7 can be seen as completed by the end of v. 8 and the focus now shifts. The Scriptures have testified to the fact of Jesus' call by God to be our high priest (vv. 5-6). Our writer has described what Jesus went through "in the flesh" to qualify him for that role (vv. 7-8). In verses 9-10 he will describe the results of what Jesus endured. There are three.

First, he was made perfect . teleiwqeiΙ" ( teleiôtheis , from teleiovw [teleioô ], cf. also televw [teleô ], tevlo" [ telos ] and tevleio" [ teleios ]) conveys the ideas of "finishing," "fulfilling" or "making complete." It can convey the idea of perfection in a righteous (or moral) sense as it seems to later in the letter when our writer notes that the law could not do this for a person (7:19) nor could the gifts and sacrifices offered by the human priests (9:9) but that only the one sacrifice offered by Jesus could (10:14). It is probably best to understand all of these as references to our "justification" (being put right in our position with God) rather than to our "sanctification" (achieving perfect righteousness in the condition of our lives). But since Jesus had no need to be justified or "put right" with God (because he had never sinned), this cannot be the meaning here.

The word is also used in reference to the "fulfilling" of predictive prophecy (John 19:28), the completion of a task (John 4:34; 17:4; Acts 20:24) or a period of time (Luke 2:43), and of reaching a full age or adulthood (1 Cor 14:20; Heb 5:14). It is the same word Paul uses in the sense of spiritual "maturity" or "completeness" (which is being like Christ - Eph 4:13; 1 Cor 13:10). Here, it seems best to take the notion of "completeness" or "fullness" in relationship to the sufferings just described. Having "finished" his suffering - completed it to the fullest extent possible, a painful death on the cross - and having completely and fully identified with our temptations (in every way, 4:15) and our total life experience in the flesh, suffering yet also obeying, he can now identify with man to the fullest extent. It is just as our writer said in 2:10 - the one who is the author of salvation is the one made "perfect through suffering."

The second result is that he has been designated by God to be high priest . We list this second because, even though this does not follow the formal order of the text, it follows the time sequence indicated by the Greek forms. Both "made perfect" and "was designated" are aorist passive adverbial participles which modify the main verb "became" (ejgevneto , egeneto ). The main verb is in the past (aorist) tense as well, suggesting that at a particular point of time in the past Jesus became the source of our salvation. The other events, however, precede this point in time ("once" suggests this for the first participle) and an argument could even be made that the relationship is causal.

The word translated "designated" (prosagoreuqeiΙ" , prosagoreutheis ) is used in the LXX and in secular literature of a "friendly and peaceful greeting," the "calling of someone by name," and of the "giving of a name to someone . . . especially as an expression of friendship or honour." Here, however, it should probably not be taken in a sense much different that the words previously used to describe Jesus' appointment (lambavnw , lambanô , "selected" and kalevw [kaleô ], "called") by God (tou' qeou' , tou theou , cf. v. 4) although it could suggest, as Ellingworth argues, that it is the title of high priest which is given to Jesus (as a result of his suffering and exaltation) while the high priesthood is itself eternal. In some places the word for "high priest" (ajrciereuv" , archiereus ) is used in connection with Melchizedek (5:10; 6:20) while in other places the word "priest" (iJereuv" , hiereus ) is used (5:5; 7:1, 11, 17, 21), although, strictly speaking, it is Christ who is called the "high priest" (after the order of Melchizedek). On the phrase "after the order of Melchizedek," see 5:6.

The final and ultimate result of what Jesus endured is that he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him . The word rendered "source" (NIV, NASB, RSV; "author," KJV) is ai[tio" ( aitios ) and is used only here in Scripture. The related aition occurs but seldom but conveys the idea, as can aitios , of "cause." It is used three times in Luke's account of Pilate's report that he found no "basis" or "grounds" for the charges against Jesus (23:4, 14, 22) and otherwise occurs only in Acts 19:40 when the city clerk at Ephesus dismissed the crowd because their was no "reason" for the commotion. Either "cause" or "source" is an acceptable translation because either word attributes the originating cause of our salvation to Jesus.

Since these verses (9-10) use aorist participles to describe what preceded Jesus' becoming the source of our salvation, it might be argued that both contribute to its cause and its source - that is both the suffering through which he as made perfect (the cross) as well as his ongoing ministry as our great high priest. The NT describes our salvation (swthriva" , sôtçrias ) as, at the same time, a past, present, and future event. It is a completed act in the sense that we were/have been justified or put right with God. Jesus accomplished this at the cross and becomes an accomplished fact for us when we enter the new covenant through our faith and its attendant manifestations (Rom 3:21-26; 5:1-11; 8:1-4). It is an ongoing act in the sense that we are being/in the process of being made holy and righteous in the actual condition of our lives (sometimes referred to as "sanctification"). This is a result of our renewal and recreation in Christ as a result of the work of his Spirit in our lives (2 Cor 2:15; 1 Cor 1:18; Phil 2:12-13; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Cor 3:18). Our writer actually refers to both of these dimensions of our salvation at the same time in 10:14 ("he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy"). But there is also a sense in which we will be saved when someday we attain to that for which we wait and hope for - that salvation "that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet 1:5, 9 cf. also Rom 8:22-26; 1 Thess 5:18; Rom 13:11) - all that we anticipate that heaven and eternity will hold for us (what some call our "glorification" or "consummation").

When considered this way, it is clear that Jesus has everything to do with our salvation in all three senses. His cross makes our justification possible. His Spirit makes our sanctification actual. His promised return will make our consummation final. As we live between what he has done for us and what he will do for us, we continue to be saved by what he now does for us. Herein lies the significance not only of the regenerating ministry of his Spirit but the need for his priesthood. Through his cross - the one and only sacrifice necessary - he has already purchased the forgiveness of our sins. Through his mediation - he continues to deal gently with us in our weakness and represents us to God the Father that we might be seen in him while we grow to become more like him.

Finally, we note that, though this salvation is available to anyone, it is not effectual for everyone. He is the source of eternal salvation for "all who obey him." It is appropriate and no coincidence that our writer uses the same word to describe here what is required of us as he has previously used to describe what Jesus "learned" from his suffering (uJpakouvousin [ hypakouousin ], cf. uJpakohvn [hypakoçn ] in v. 8). As obedience was required of Jesus that he might become our savior and great high priest, so it is required of those who would be saved by his sacrifice and mediation. The point is not that our obedience earns the salvation but that it is the only response of which faith is capable (Eph 2:8-9; cf. James 2:14, 17-18, 22, 24).

C. [EXCURSUS: RESPONDING TO GOD, 5:11-6:12]

1. Still Infants (5:11-14)

¹¹ We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. ¹² In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! ¹³ Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. ¹⁴ But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

These verses form an interruption to the main flow of thought concerning the high priesthood of Jesus which dominates Hebrews 5-7. Jesus was quite fully introduced as high priest in 4:14-16 and shown to fully represent man (5:1-3) and God (5:4-6). He won this status through submissive suffering. Once perfected he could offer eternal salvation to all who obey him (5:7-10).

At this point the author of Hebrews breaks away in frustration. He suggests that his readers are so slow to learn that they need someone to rehearse elementary truths all over again, though they should be able to do the teaching themselves. Half a dozen "elementary teachings" are listed in 6:1-2. By contrast, mature people would be acquainted with "the teaching about righteousness" (5:13) and could "distinguish good from evil" (5:14).

The many links between 5:1-10 and 6:13-chapter 7 suggest that the author returns to discuss further the ideas about Psalm 110:4 which he interrupted: (a) quotations of Psalm 110:4 in Hebrews 5:6; 7:17, 21; (b) Melchizedek - only in chapter 5-7 (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 11, 15, 17); (c) specifically "the order of Melchizedek" (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17); (d) priests; (e) especially high priest; (f) man (a[nqrwpo" , anthrôpos ; 5:1 [twice]; 6:16; 7:8 represent four of the ten times this word occurs in Hebrews) and (g) Melchizedek is mentioned at the point of departure (5:10) and reappears in 6:20-chapter 7.

This section shows how we must respond to God. It is necessary to grow (5:11-14). Six subjects form a foundation for beginning this response (6:1-3). There is a deep danger in ending one's response to God (6:4-6). Two illustrations show good and bad responses (6:7-8). Finally, readers are encouraged to be diligent to the very end (6:9-12).

5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.

The phrase much to say must be a relative phrase for 13:22 calls this whole writing "only a short letter." It does not take very many heavy, new ideas to make a lesson "much." The ideas in Hebrews chapter 7ff. about Melchizedek, about the changing priesthood, law, and covenant, and about Jesus' heavenly offering replacing the tabernacle offerings have been "much" for subsequent generations of Christians to ponder.

The difficulty of explanation is not due to the advanced complexity of the subject matter, but to the dullness of the readers who are "slow to learn" (nwqroiΙ . . . tai'" ajkoai'" , nôthroi . . . tais akoais ). The context here suggests mental or moral slothfulness (slow "of hearing"), for they evidently could have become teachers, but did not. Instead, they remained unskilled, needing others to teach them, and basic truths at that. They were like infants who feed on milk, not yet on solid food. In 6:12, the word "slow" (nôthroi ) will be contrasted with those who operate "through faith and long-suffering." This suggests a meaning like "distrusting and easily discouraged." Nôthroi appears only in these two places in the NT.

It gets worse. "You are slow to learn" would be better expressed, "You have become slow to learn." gegovnate ( gegonate ) is a perfect tense form of givnomai ( ginomai ), not a form of eijmiv ( eimi , to be). The simple phrase, "You are (slow)," sounds like a perpetual trait. The longer form, "You have become (slow)," indicates that the readers had not always been slow, dull or slothful, but had become that way by their inattention to teachings that had been available to them. The plural ajkoai'" ( akoais , "hearings") undergirds this disgraceful assessment. One should immediately read 6:9-12 and 10:32-36, where the readers are commended for their fine traits, in order to avoid a totally bleak picture of the first readers.

5:12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!

After a reasonable amount of time a Christian ought to become a teacher. It is the natural outcome of growth in Christ. It is the means by which the ever-expanding church reaches out with the gospel. It is the plan of the great commission. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations [a teaching process], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you [a teaching process]. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt 28:19-20).

Before long believers were assembling daily in one another's homes and in the temple to talk about Jesus and "the Way." They gathered with hungry ears for they had "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42). Soon they "filled Jerusalem with their teaching." Within a short time severe persecution drove them from the sacred city, but ordinary Christians "preached the word wherever they went" (Acts 8:4).

"Preached" in our culture sounds like the activity of a professionally trained clergy. Here Acts does not use the formal word "preach" (khruvssw , kçryssô ), but the informal word "tell good news" (eujaggelivzw , euangelizô ). How does the good news spread about a young couple expecting their first child? How does the good news spread about a super sale at a department store? How does the good news spread about someone's recovering from a death-threatening illness? Then, we may ask, who would be willing to spread the good news about forgiveness and salvation and new life available through the death of Jesus, the Messiah? That is the very significant question which arises from this whole section (5:11-6:12). The first readers were clearly failing to respond as they should.

The last phrase of v. 12 and verses 13-14 ("You need milk, not solid food!") paint a picture for our minds that would be humorous if it were not sad. The first readers were apparently much like the "fat babies" about which one contemporary Christian performing artist sings. Their poor spiritual tummies - they can't take too much. In the words that follow, we read about the risk which attends the "fat baby" syndrome, its alternative and the means by which we can grow out of it.

5:13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

The risk which attends being still an infant is that we are not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness . Whether the infant diet results in this malnourishment or whether being underfed keeps one an infant is not clear from the grammar here (e.g., does a lack of acquaintance with the word of righteousness result in one not growing or does a refusal to grow lead to the lack of acquaintance?). But the correlation is sufficiently clear and verses 11-12 suggest that a lack of opportunity for such teaching or nourishment was definitely not the problem. In either case, so long as one is an infant, one is not acquainted with "the teaching (lovgou , logou ) about righteousness (dikaiosuvnh" , dikaiosynçs )." This is in contrast to the "elementary truths" mentioned in v. 12 and which will be listed in 6:1-2. It probably looks forward to the ability to "distinguish (diavkrisin , diakrisin ) good from evil" in v. 14. We have already described in what sense salvation involves not only being "put right" with God (the justification accomplished at the cross) but "becoming right" in the way we live our lives (the obedience which it prompts from us and into which we grow, cf. 5:9). Not only does such a person find himself at a loss for moral and ethical direction but is possibly at risk of losing his salvation.

The alternative is to seek a growth that enables us to become mature . Teleivwn (teleiôn ) is the same word used in v. 9 to describe how Jesus was "once made perfect." Just as his obedience calls for ours (uJpakouvw , hypakouô , 5:8 cf. 5:9), so his "perfection" becomes the standard by which we measure our "maturity" (cf. Eph 4:13 where Paul also uses the same word to describe our "maturity" which is measured by the degree to which we attain "to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ," cf. also 1 Cor 13:10). If it is a fact that we are to measure ourselves by the "whole measure" of his "fullness," this may well include the practice of reverent submission and obedience in the midst of our suffering, just as it did for Jesus, although the model of righteous living that his example provides is probably more prominent in a context concerned about "the word of righteousness" and the ability "to distinguish between good and evil." The alternative to perpetual infancy (or perhaps death from malnutrition) is growth toward a maturity in which we become more like Jesus, finding in him the moral direction we need and the strength to follow it even in the most difficult of circumstances.

We also read here of the means by which that growth is achieved - solid food , that is, the constant use of and training in the practice of distinguishing between good and evil. The Greek text here includes the words for both the process (gumnavzw , gymnazô ) and the product (e{xi" , hexis ). Although gymnazô (NIV, "trained," KJV "exercised") was the word used to describe the training of the Greek athletes (who trained naked, cf. gymnos in 4:13; cf. English "gymnasium"), the word is never used in this literal sense in the NT but is used to provide an image which helps to understand both the benefits of God's discipline (12:11) and the need to put effort into our spiritual growth (1 Tim 4:7). The tense of the word here is perfect, suggesting that such a person has trained for some time with abiding results. Hexis (NIV "constant use," NASB and RSV "practice") here probably refers to the characteristic state which results from the process. Having been trained (gegumnasmevna , gegymnasmena ) for some time, their "faculties" (RSV, taΙ aijsqhthvria , ta aisthçtçria ) are "practiced" ( hexin ).

The purpose (proΙ" , pros ) of this practice and training is to "distinguish" ( diakrisin as in 1 Cor 12:10) between good and evil. This is a possible allusion to Numbers 14:23 in the LXX (which describes the children of the wilderness generation who "do not know good nor evil") or to Deuteronomy 1:39 (which refers to the same "children who do not yet know good from bad"). Ellingworth notes that this is a rare term but when used elsewhere it involves practical action (Rom 7:21; 12:21; 16:19; 1 Pet 3:11=Ps 34:15; 3 John 11). In other words, the hard work that we invest in nourishing ourselves on the teaching about the word of righteousness pays off in the practical moral and ethical guidance that we need for daily life.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Way of Introduction

Unsettled Problems

Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

The Picture of Christ

At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Heb_1:1-3), this Son who is God’s Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in Phi_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20; John 1:1-18. This high doctrine of Jesus as God’s Son with the glory and stamp of God’s nature is never lowered, for as God’s Son he is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-2:4), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Heb_2:5-18). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God’s Son over God’s house (Heb 3:1-4:13), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Heb 4:14-12:3). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Heb 4:14-7:28), works under a better covenant of grace (Heb_8:1-13), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Heb_9:1-12), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Heb 9:13-10:18), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Heb 10:19-12:3). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. So W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, High Priesthood and Sacrifice (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mar_10:46; Mat_20:28; Joh_10:17; Mat_26:28; Rom_8:32; 1Pe_1:18.; 1Jo_2:1.; Rev_5:9, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

The Style

It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: " It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" ( Light from the Ancient East , pp. 70f.). But Blass ( Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa , 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of " a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many " parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of " the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koiné rather than to the vernacular. Moulton ( Cambridge Biblical Essays , p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

The Author

Origen bluntly wrote: " Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul’s while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in Heb_11:32 ( me diēgoumenon ) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply Pros Hebraious as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

The Recipients

If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his Commentary (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author’s use of the lxx. For myself Dr. Moffatt’s reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in Heb_10:32-34. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Heb_13:24), though " they of Italy" ( hoi apo tēs Italias ) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

The Date

Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between a.d. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between a.d. 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written Heb_10:1.: " Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in Heb_8:13 " nigh to vanishing away" ( eggus aphanismou ) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in Heb_13:23 as being " set free" ( apolelumenon ) raises an inquiry concerning Paul’s last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Ti_4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero’s own death (June 8, a.d. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 a.d. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Purpose

The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary aeons (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it " a profound homily."

JFB: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2Co 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 1Co 15:27. The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; 1Th 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, 1Co 12:4. Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with 1Co 3:1-2; 1Co 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare 1Co 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare "subject to bondage," Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews" (1Co 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother," Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So Heb 13:18, "We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared (2Th 3:17-18) to be "his token in every Epistle": so 1Co 16:21, 1Co 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, 1Co 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, 2Pe 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you" (2Pe 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles" (2Pe 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), "the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare 2Pe 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

JFB: Hebrews (Outline)

• THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14)
• DANGER OF NEGLECTING SO GREAT SALVATION, FIRST SPOKEN BY CHRIST; TO WHOM, NOT TO ANGELS, THE NEW DISPENSATION WAS SUBJECTED; THOUGH HE WAS FOR A TIME HUMBLED BELOW THE ANGELS: THIS HUMILIATION TOOK PLACE BY DIVINE NECESSITY FOR OUR SALVATION. (Heb. 2:1-18)
• THE SON OF GOD GREATER THAN MOSES, WHEREFORE UNBELIEF TOWARDS HIM WILL INCUR A HEAVIER PUNISHMENT THAN BEFELL UNBELIEVING ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (Heb. 3:1-19)
• THE PROMISE OF GOD'S REST IS FULLY REALIZED THROUGH CHRIST: LET US STRIVE TO OBTAIN IT BY HIM, OUR SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST. (Heb. 4:1-16)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD; NEEDED QUALIFICATIONS; MUST BE A MAN; MUST NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE DIGNITY HIMSELF, BUT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD; THEIR LOW SPIRITUAL PERCEPTIONS A BAR TO PAUL'S SAYING ALL HE MIGHT ON CHRIST'S MELCHISEDEC-LIKE PRIESTHOOD. (Heb 5:1-14)
• WARNING AGAINST RETROGRADING, WHICH SOON LEADS TO APOSTASY; ENCOURAGEMENT TO STEADFASTNESS FROM GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD AND OATH. (Heb 6:1-14)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)
• CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13)
• INFERIORITY OF THE OLD TO THE NEW COVENANT IN THE MEANS OF ACCESS TO GOD: THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS OF NO REAL AVAIL: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ALL-SUFFICIENT TO PURGE AWAY SIN, WHENCE FLOWS OUR HOPE OF HIS APPEARING AGAIN FOR OUR PERFECT SALVATION. (Heb. 9:1-28)
• PROOF OF AND ENLARGEMENT ON, THE "ETERNAL REDEMPTION" MENTIONED IN. Heb 9:12 (Heb. 9:13-28)
• CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. THE YEARLY RECURRING LAW SACRIFICES CANNOT PERFECT THE WORSHIPPER, BUT CHRIST'S ONCE-FOR-ALL OFFERING CAN. (Heb. 10:1-39) Previously the oneness of Christ's offering was shown; now is shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
• DEFINITION OF THE FAITH JUST SPOKEN OF (Heb 10:39): EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD COVENANT FOR OUR PERSEVERANCE IN FAITH. (Heb. 11:1-40) Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul's exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.
• EXHORTATION TO FOLLOW THE WITNESSES OF FAITH JUST MENTIONED: NOT TO FAINT IN TRIALS: TO REMOVE ALL BITTER ROOTS OF SIN: FOR WE ARE UNDER, NOT A LAW OF TERROR, BUT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE, TO DESPISE WHICH WILL BRING THE HEAVIER PENALTIES, IN PROPORTION TO OUR GREATER PRIVILEGES. (Heb. 12:1-29)
• EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES, ESPECIALLY CONSTANCY IN FAITH, FOLLOWING JESUS AMIDST REPROACHES. CONCLUSION, WITH PIECES OF INTELLIGENCE AND SALUTATIONS. (Heb. 13:1-25)

TSK: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Heb 5:1, The honour of our Saviour’s priesthood; Heb 5:11, Negligence in the knowledge thereof is reproved.

Poole: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 5

MHCC: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

This epistle shows Christ as the end, foundation, body, and truth of the figures of the law, which of themselves were no virtue for the soul. The great truth set forth in this epistle is that Jesus of Nazareth is the true God. The unconverted Jews used many arguments to draw their converted brethren from the Christian faith. They represented the law of Moses as superior to the Christian dispensation, and spoke against every thing connected with the Saviour. The apostle, therefore, shows the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, and the benefits from his sufferings and death as the sacrifice for sin, so that the Christian religion is much more excellent and perfect than that of Moses. And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel, and thus to establish them in the Christian faith, and to prevent their turning from it, against which they are earnestly warned. But while it contains many things suitable to the Hebrews of early times, it also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God; for the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the very marrow and kernel of all the Scriptures. The ceremonial law is full of Christ, and all the gospel is full of Christ; the blessed lines of both Testaments meet in Him; and how they both agree and sweetly unite in Jesus Christ, is the chief object of the epistle to the Hebrews to discover.

MHCC: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

(Heb 5:1-10) The office and duty of a high priest abundantly answered in Christ.

(Heb 5:11-14) The Christian Hebrews reproved for their little progress in the knowledge of the gospel.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle to the Hebrews

Concerning this epistle we must enquire, I. Into the divine authority of it; for this has been questioned by some, whose distempered eyes could not bear the light of it, or whose errors have been confuted by it; such as the Arians, who deny the Godhead and self-existence of Christ; and the Socinians, who deny his satisfaction; but, after all the attempts of such men to disparage this epistle, the divine original of it shines forth with such strong and unclouded rays that he who runs may read it is an eminent part of the canon of scripture. The divinity of the matter, the sublimity of the style, the excellency of the design, the harmony of this with other parts of scripture, and its general reception in the church of God in all ages - these are the evidences of its divine authority. II. As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul's having written to them, 2Pe 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III. As to the scope and design of this epistle, it is very evident that it was clearly to inform the minds, and strongly to confirm the judgment, of the Hebrews in the transcendent excellency of the gospel above the law, and so to take them off from the ceremonies of the law, to which they were so wedded, of which they were so fond, that they even doted on them, and those of them who were Christians retained too much of the old leaven, and needed to be purged from it. The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. In order to this, the apostle speaks much of the excellency of the author of the gospel, the glorious Jesus, whose honour he advances, and whom he justly prefers before all others, showing him to be all in all, and this in lofty strains of holy rhetoric. It must be acknowledged that there are many things in this epistle hard to be understood, but the sweetness we shall find therein will make us abundant amends for all the pains we take to understand it. And indeed, if we compare all the epistles of the New Testament, we shall not find any of them more replenished with divine, heavenly matter than this to the Hebrews.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle continues his discourse upon the priesthood of Christ, a sweet subject, which he would not too soon dismiss. And here, I. He explains the nature of the priestly office in general (Heb 5:1-3). II. The proper and regular call there must be to this office (Heb 5:4-6). III. The requisite qualifications for the work (Heb 5:7-9). IV. The peculiar order of the priesthood of Christ; it was not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec (Heb 5:6, Heb 5:7, Heb 5:10). V. He reproves the Hebrews, that they had not made those improvements in knowledge which might have made them capable of looking into the more abstruse and mysterious parts of scripture (Heb 5:11-14).

Barclay: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways

Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.

(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paulconception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.

(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.

(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.

(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in Heb_10:19-23 .

"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."

If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."

The Double Background

The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."

The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."

The Hebrew Background

But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man," said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (Exo_33:20 ). It was Jacobastonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (Gen_32:30 ). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.

In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in Exo_24:3-8 .

So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.

The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice

What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."

To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.

The Riddle Of The New Testament

So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.

When Was It Written?

The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (Heb_2:3 ). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (Heb_5:12 ). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (Heb_10:32 ). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (Heb_13:7 ).

The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (Heb_13:7 ). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (Heb_12:4 ). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (Heb_10:32-34 ). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85. Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.

To Whom Was It Written?

Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (Heb_5:12 ). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (Heb_10:32-34 ). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (Heb_13:7 ). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (Heb_2:3 ). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (Heb_6:10 ).

We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (Heb_13:24 ). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.

But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From Heb_5:12 we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.

When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paulletters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."

By Whom Was It Written?

Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No authorname was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Pauland speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.

At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paulbut they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.

The Author Of Hebrews

Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.

(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (Act_4:36 ) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (G3874); and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (G3874) (Heb_13:22 ). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.

(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (Act_18:24 ; 1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:4 ). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.

(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (Act_18:26 ). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (Rom_16:5 ). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writername has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.

But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God.

FURTHER READING

Hebrews

J. Moffatt, Hebrews (ICC; G)

W. Neil, Hebrews (Tch: E)

J. H. Robinson, Hebrews (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

At Home With Man And God (Heb_5:1-10)

The Refusal To Grow Up (Heb_5:11-14)

Constable: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.

Some scholars believe that the book must have been written before A.D. 70 since the writer spoke of the sacrifices as being offered when he wrote (7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:7-8, 25; 10:1-3, 8; 13:10-11). However, the writer showed no interest in the temple but spoke of the sacrifices as the Israelites offered them when the tabernacle stood. He evidently used the present tense to give these reference a timeless quality rather than indicating that temple worship was still in practice. Nevertheless a date of composition before A.D. 70 seems probable.¹

"The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple."²

The reference to Timothy's release from imprisonment (13:23) appears to date the book later in the life of that outstanding man.³ No other New Testament writer mentioned his imprisonment. The imprisonment of Christians seems to have been a well-known fact of life (10:34; 13:3). This was true after Nero launched an empire-wide persecution in A.D. 64. All of these factors when taken together seem to point to a writing date near A.D. 68-69.

As to authorship, most students of this subject are not dogmatic or even certain for good reason.⁴ As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, no one knew who the writer was for sure. After careful study of the authorship of Hebrews, Origen wrote, "But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows."⁵

"The language of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and style purer and more vigorous than that of any other book of the New Testament.

". . . The vocabulary is singularly copious. It includes a large number of words which are not found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very many of which occur in this book only among the Greek Scriptures . . ."⁶

"All that can be said with certainty is that Hebrews was composed by a creative theologian who was well trained in the exposition of the Greek Scriptures. . . . He was surely a hellenistic Jewish-Christian."⁷

Commentators have made cases for the writer being Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Silvanus (Silas), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, Mary the mother of Jesus, Clement of Rome, Aristion, and others.⁸ None of these suggestions has found enthusiastic general reception for various reasons. Probably we should be content to share Origen's agnosticism on this question and look forward to getting the answer in heaven.⁹

The early Christians originally accepted all the New Testament books as inspired by God because they contained apostolic teaching. For this reason the writer was probably either an apostle or a close associate of at least one of the apostles (cf. 13:23).

The original recipients of the epistle are also unknown. The title "The Epistle to the Hebrews" implies that they were Jewish Christians. This title is ancient and is probably a safe guide to the identity of the first readers. References in the epistle also suggest that the original readers were mainly Jewish. The writer assumed that they were very familiar with the institutions of Judaism. The warnings against turning away from Jesus Christ back to the Old Covenant also imply this identity. Other indications are the emphasis on the superior priesthood of Jesus and the many appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. However the brand of Judaism in view seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Palestinian.

The reference to the generosity of the readers and their helping other believers (6:10) suggests that the original audience did not live in Palestine. The Palestinian churches had a reputation for needing material assistance rather than for giving it to other Christians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). Probably they were Jews of the Diaspora therefore. This conclusion has support in the writer's consistent use of the Septuagint Old Testament version. Hellenistic Jews used this translation widely, but Palestinian Jews did not use it as much.¹⁰

In most of the New Testament churches there was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers. The appeal of this epistle would certainly have been great to Gentiles tempted to return to paganism as it would have been to Jews facing temptation to return to Judaism. However the writer's primary concern appears to have been that his Jewish readers were failing to appreciate that Christianity is the divinely revealed successor to Judaism. He did not want them to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism.

Probably the letter originally went to a house-church outside Palestine that had a strong Hellenistic Jewish population. This church may have been in or near Galatia in view of conditions that existed there that the Epistle to the Galatians reflects. However they may very well have lived in another area. Many scholars believe that the letter went first to a church in or near Rome.¹¹

In view of 13:24b it has seemed to some scholars that the writer was in Italy when he sent this epistle, perhaps in Rome. However the expression "from Italy" in that verse probably refers to those living outside Italy, such as Priscilla and Aquilla who were Jews forced to leave Rome by Emperor Claudius' edict in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2).¹² This expression suggests that the writer was not in Italy when he wrote.

Purpose

Many students of the book have observed that Hebrews is more of a sermon in written form than an epistle in the traditional New Testament sense.¹³ The writer even described it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22). He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter. This tone comes through especially strongly in the five warning passages and in the encouragements that follow these warnings.

". . . the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. . . . Using material not from the prophets but primarily from the Psalms, with other materials added to elaborate the argument, the writer's goal was to establish the superiority of the gospel in contrast to all that went before, particularly the levitical system. The primary evidence of the supremacy of Christianity is presented in its finality. Coming to Christ means final access to God without any barrier."¹⁴

". . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

We could summarize the message of this epistle in the following words. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.

The ultimate goal that the writer had in view was our full eternal reward as believers. I do not believe it was the conversion of the unsaved members of his audience. He addressed his readers consistently as believers. He wrote to encourage Christians to persevere faithfully so we will receive all that God wants to give us at the judgment seat of Christ. Our rewards are at issue in this letter. He did not want us to suffer loss but to enter into our full inheritance, our full rest, our full salvation.

To do this he wrote that we must know one thing and do two things, one positive and one negative.

We must know the greatness of Jesus Christ. In this epistle the writer presented Him as the greatest revelation that God has given mankind. God's revelation in His Son is superior to all other revelations He has given in three respects.

1. It supersedes all other revelations: God's revelation through angels (the Mosaic Law), His revelation through humans (the prophets), and His revelation through rituals (the Old Covenant). When Jesus Christ came to reveal God, He brought revelation that superseded what had preceded Him.

2. God's revelation in His Son is sufficient to meet every basic human need. God spoke through His Son, so the need for a prophet (a revealer of God) no longer exists. He established a new Covenant, so the need for a priest (a mediator for man) no longer exists. Moreover He exalted His Son to His right hand, so the need for a king (a righteous ruler) no longer exists.

3. God's revelation in His Son insures final victory in every basic sphere. The individual (the human order) attains perfection through the Son. Society (the social order) will experience perfection through the Son. The universe (the cosmic order) will reach perfection through the Son.

This is what we need to know objectively to do subjectively what is necessary to gain our full reward as believers.

What we must do is continue to trust God. Hebrews places great emphasis on the importance of living by faith. It teaches us three things about faith.

1. Hebrews defines faith. Faith is volitional surrender and obedience to God regardless of appearances. It is not just intellectual conviction. It is the action of the will that expresses intellectual conviction. This epistle regards unbelief as disobedience as does all of Scripture. People in the past who lived by faith made decisions and acted because they believed God in spite of appearances (ch. 11).

2. Hebrews also illustrates faith. It describes faith as doing, as suffering, and as waiting. These are the primary activities of faith that the writer of Hebrews emphasized. They are progressively more difficult. It is harder to suffer persecution for our faith than it is to obey God when obedience does not involve suffering. It is most difficult to keep on trusting God when suffering does not end. Waiting for God to fulfill His promises is hardest of all when our hopes do not materialize (e.g., Christ's return).

3. In addition, Hebrews vindicates faith. It assures us of the ultimate triumph of faith. People in the past who acted in faith achieved. People who suffered for their faith triumphed. People who waited in faith received their reward.

On the positive side we need to continue to trust God to realize our full reward as believers.

What we must not do is turn away from God. This is the negative responsibility that the letter also stresses. If we apostatize, we will lose our full reward. Hebrews teaches us three things about apostasy (as it does about faith).

1. This epistle defines apostasy descriptively. It is the opposite of faith. It consists of disobedience because of appearances (e.g., the 10 spies; cf. Jude). Apostasy for a Christian is turning away from faith having previously embraced faith. An apostate, however, can be a believer or an unbeliever.

2. Hebrews also illustrates apostasy in the same three ways it illustrates faith. Apostasy acts. It involves a deliberate turning away. It also suffers, not now but in the future because of what the apostate loses. It also waits, even though it lives for the present rather than for the future.

3. Likewise Hebrews condemns apostasy. It assures us of the ultimate tragedy of apostasy. Apostates may achieve what they want in the present, namely success, but they lose what is far more valuable in the future. They may avoid suffering now, but later they will be sorry. They may not want to wait for their reward now, but they will wait forever for it later and never get it.

This is the central message of the epistle. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him.

The writer urged his readers to persevere in faith by using two appeals, one negative and one positive.

The first appeal is negative: the warnings. There are five warning passages in Hebrews. Each one warns of the danger of apostasy from a different angle.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) warns of the danger of drifting away from the truth (2:1). It pictures a ship dragging its anchor. The tides of our age can draw us away from our moorings. We need to keep on standing firm in faith (cf. Col. 1:23).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) warns of the danger of disbelief (3:12). Disbelief results in heart hardening (3:13). We need to keep on believing rather than ceasing to believe (cf. Luke 17:3).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) warns of the danger of immaturity (5:12). When we do not put truth into practice, we do not just remain in the same spiritual state. We regress. Therefore we need to keep on growing (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) warns of the danger of willful sinning (10:26-27). If we abandon confidence in the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, there is no other sacrifice that can protect us from God's judgment as believers. We need to keep on submitting to God (cf. Rom. 6:16).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) warns of the danger of unresponsiveness (12:25). The message of this letter demands positive response. If we do not respond positively, we will lose part of our reward (12:17). We need to keep on obeying God (cf. Titus 3:8).

The second appeal is positive: the encouragements. Accompanying each of the warning passages is at least one word of encouragement. The writer balanced his negative warnings with positive words of encouragement.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) encourages with a reminder of God's confirming His promises with miracles in the apostolic age (2:3b-4).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of faithfulness (3:1-6) and our resources as believers (4:12-16).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) encourages with a reminder of the readers' past faithfulness (6:9-12) and God's firm promises (6:13-20).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) also encourages with a reminder of the readers' past perseverance (10:32-39).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of perseverance (12:1-2) and the divine reason for discipline (12:3-11).

By way of application let me make three observations based on the three major revelations in the epistle.

1. An appreciation for Jesus Christ is foundational to faithful perseverance. The reason many Christians turn away from the Lord is that they do not appreciate His greatness. Preach Christ in your ministry.

2. We need to emphasize the Christian's hope more in our ministries. We live in a present oriented culture that values immediate self-gratification. Many Christians are apostatizing because they do not appreciate the reward they will receive if they remain faithful to the Lord. This life is preparation for the next.

3. We need to realize that God will judge Christians who apostatize. We will not lose our salvation, but we will lose much that we will wish we never gave up if we stop walking by faith.

Outline¹⁷

I. The culminating revelation of God 1:1-2:18

A. The agent of God's final revelation 1:1-4

B. The superiority of the Son 1:5-14

C. The danger of negligence (the first warning) 2:1-4

D. The humiliation and glory of God's Son 2:5-9

E. The Son's solidarity with humanity 2:10-18

II. The high priestly character of the Son 3:1-5:10

A. The faithfulness of the Son 3:1-6

B. The danger of disbelief (the second warning) 3:7-19

C. The possibility of rest for God's people 4:1-14

D. The compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

III. The high priestly office of the Son 5:11-10:39

A. The danger of immaturity (the third warning) 5:11-6:12

1. The readers' condition 5:11-14

2. The needed remedy 6:1-3

3. The dreadful alternative 6:4-8

4. The encouraging prospect 6:9-12

B. The basis for confidence and steadfastness 6:13-20

C. The Son's high priestly ministry 7:1-10:18

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

D. The danger of willful sinning (the fourth warning) 10:19-39

1. The three-fold admonition 10:19-25

2. The warning of judgment 10:26-31

3. The encouragement to persevere 10:32-39

IV. The proper response 11:1-12:13

A. Perseverance in faith ch. 11

1. Faith in the antediluvian era 11:1-7

2. Faith in the patriarchal era 11:8-22

3. Faith in the Mosaic era 11:23-31

4. Faith in subsequent eras 11:32-40

B. Demonstrating necessary endurance 12:1-13

1. The example of Jesus 12:1-3

2. The proper view of trials 12:4-11

3. The need for greater strength 12:12-13

V. Life in a hostile world 12:14-13:25

A. The danger of unresponsiveness (the fifth warning) 12:14-29

1. The goal of peace 12:14-17

2. The superiority of the New Covenant 12:18-24

3. The consequences of apostasy 12:25-29

B. Life within the church ch. 13

1. Pastoral reminders 13:1-21

2. Personal explanations 13:22-25

Constable: Hebrews

Hebrews

Bibliography

Andersen, Ward. "The Believer's Rest (Hebrews 4)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):31-38.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.

Bateman, Herbert W., IV. "Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5-13 and 4QFlor 1.1-19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):11-27.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Black, David Alan. "A Note on the Structure of Hebrews 12, 1-2." Biblica 68:4 (1987):543-51.

_____. "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):163-77.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bligh, John. "The Structure of Hebrews." Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964):170-77.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Early Christian Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

_____. "The Kerygma of Hebrews." Interpretation 23:1 (January 1969):3-19.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Casey, J. M. "Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, 1977.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Cockerill, G. L. The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1-28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1979.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Colijn, Brenda B. "Let Us Approach': Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):571-86.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

____. "The Substitutionary Death of Christ in Hebrews." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Cosby, M. R. "The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example-lists in Antiquity." Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985.

Cross, Frank M. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Custer, Stewart. "The Awfulness of Apostasy (Hebrews 6)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):45-50.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by A. B. Bruce.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1965.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Examination of the Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Elliott, J. H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976.

Estes, Daniel J. "Looking for Abraham's City." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):399-413.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Hebrews." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 369-415.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: University Press, 1894.

Filson, Floyd V. "Yesterday": A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series 4. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):281-303.

_____. "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):62-91.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Gourgues, M. "Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte." Revue Biblique 83 (1976):5-24.

Govett, Robert. Entrance into the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1978.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand Bold in Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):333-40.

Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Hebrews." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 777-813. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horning, Estella B. "Chiasmus, Creedal Structure, and Christology in Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical Research 23 (1978):37-48.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. "The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):99-109; 519 (July-September 1973):195-212; 520 (October-December 1973):305-14; 131:521 (January-March 1974):26-33.

_____. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):137-55.

Hughes, R. Kent. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. 2 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by T. Rees.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

_____. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Paternoster Press, 1951.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 11: Galatians--Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braume, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

_____. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint ed. London: Collins Press, Fontana Books, 1959.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. Hebrews. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

MacDonald, William. Hebrews from Shadow to Substance. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Mackay, Cameron. "The Argument of Hebrews." Church Quarterly

Review 168 (1967):325-38.

MacLeod, David J. "The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):60-63.

_____. "The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:583 (July-September 1989):291-300.

_____. "The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):185-97.

_____. "The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):184-200.

_____. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

MacRae, G. W. "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978):179-99.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.

Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

_____. "New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: V. The Biblical Use of the Word Ekklesia.'" Expository Times 84:12 (1973):359-64.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Mauro, Philip. God's Pilgrims. Revised ed. New York: Gospel Publishing House, n.d.

McCullough, J. C. "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews." Biblical Theology 20 (1974):1-7.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Millar, Merland Ray. "What Is the Literary Form of Hebrews 11?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):411-17.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Black, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Hebrews." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Mugridge, Alan. "Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 46:3 (September-December 1987):74-82.

Neal, Marshall. "The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):59-65.

Neighbor, R. E. If They Shall Fall Away. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1984.

Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):83-97; 578 (April-June 1988):185-96; 579 (July-September 1988):319-28; 580 (October-December 1988):410-19; 146:581 (January-March 1989):67-75.

Parsons, Mikael C. "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 60:3 (July 1988):195-215.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. A Faith That Endures. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers. 1992.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1990.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972.

Peterson, D. G. "An Examination of the Concept of Perfection' in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1978.

_____. "The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979):74-81.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Reich, Max I. The Glories of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960.

Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). "Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):327-45.

_____. "Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):83-96.

Rice, George E. "Apostasy As a Motif and Its Effect on the Structure of Hebrews." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):29-35.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 6th ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, S. E. "The Apocraphal Story of Melchizedek." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:1 (June 1987):26-39.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Robert W. "Hebrews." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1401-27. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.

Scott, Brett R. "Jesus' Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):201-10.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. "Archegos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):47-54.

Selby, Gary S. "The Meaning and Function of Suneidesis in Hebrews 9 and 10." Restoration Quarterly 28:3 (Third Quarter 1985/86):145-54.

Sharp, Jeffrey R. "Typology and the Message of Hebrews." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:2 (1986):95-103.

Smith, T. C. "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):70-78.

Soden, John. "The Use of Psalm 45:7-8 (6-7) in Hebrews 1:8-9." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):51-70.

Spencer, William David. "Christ's Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):189-97.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stedman, Ray C. What More Can God Say? Bible Commentary for Laymen series. Reprint ed. Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1977.

Swete, H. B. The Ascended Christ. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Swetnam, James. "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6." Biblica 53 (1972):368-85.

_____. "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13." Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.

Tenney, Merrill C. "A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):230-36.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Fredrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964-74. S. V. "aphistemi, apostasia, dichostasia," by Heinrich Schlier, 1 (1964):512-14.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Exchatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews." Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):67-80.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Guides to New Testament Exegesis series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Vanhoye, Albert. A Structureal Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Ware, Bruce A. "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 68-97. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Wills, L. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity." Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984):277-99.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wuest, Kenneth S. "Hebrews Six in the Greek New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):45-53.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Catholic Church hath received and declared this Epistle to be part of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, though some doubted of it in the first ages [centuries], especially in the Latin Church, witness St. Jerome on the 8th chap. of Isaias; Luther and most of his followers reject it, but the Calvinists and the Church of England have received it. Others, who received this Epistle in the first ages [centuries], doubted whether it was written by St. Paul, but thought it was written by St. Barnabas, or by St. Clement, or St. Luke, or at least that St. Paul only furnished the matter and the order of it, and that St. Luke wrote it, and St. Paul afterwards read it and approved it. It was doubted again, whether this Epistle was first written in Hebrew (that is, in Syro-Chaldaic, then spoken by the Jews) or in Greek, as Estius pretends. The ancient writers say it was written in Hebrew, but that it was very soon after translated into Greek either by St. Luke or St. Clement, pope and martyr. Cornelius a Lapide thinks the Syriac which we have in the Polyglot to have been the original; but this is commonly rejected. See Tillemont on St. Paul, Art. 46, and note 72; P. Alleman on the first to the Hebrews, &c. St. Paul wrote this letter about the year 63, and either at Rome or in Italy. See Chap. xii. 24. He wrote it to the Christians in Palestine, who had most of them been Jews before. This seems the reason why he puts not his name to it, nor calls himself their apostle, his name being rather odious to the Jews, and because he was chosen to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The main design is to shew that every one's justification and salvation is to be hoped for by the grace and merits of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, as he had shewn in his Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, where we many observe this kind of difference: To the Galatians he shews, that true justice cannot be had from circumcision and the ceremonies of the law: to the Romans, that even the moral precepts and works of the law were insufficient without the grace of Christ: and in this to the Hebrews, he shews that our justice could not be had from the sacrifices of the old law. As to the chief contents: He exhorts them to the faith of Christ, by shewing his dignity and pre-eminence above the Angels, and above Moses, Chap. i, ii, iii.; that Christ's priesthood was above that of Aaron, from the 4th to the 8th chap. ver. 6; that the new law and testament is preferable to the old, form thence to the middle of chap. x.; he commends faith by the example of the ancient Fathers, Chap. xi. and in the beginning of the twelfth; then he exhorts them to patience, constancy, brotherly love, &c. The like exhortations are mixed in other parts of this Epistle. (Witham) --- We must here remark, that our separated brethren, relying solely upon tradition, admit in general this Epistle into their canon of Scriptures, though they are necessitated to allow that for some centuries great doubts were entertained on the subject. According to Mr. Rogers, in his Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, whilst several among the Protestants have rejected as apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and Jude, others have as strenuously maintained that they ought to be admitted into the sacred canon. The Catholic Church admits them as deutero-canonical books, and of equal authority with the proto-canonical books....After the arguments had been justly weighed on both sides, they seem to have been admitted by the general consent of the Latin Church, as they had all along been admitted by the Greek Church. The canon, as it now stands, both of the Old and New Testament, we find enumerated in Pope Innocent's letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, an. 405 [the year A.D. 405], in St. Augustine, (lib. ii. de doct. christ. chap. viii.) and in the decrees of an African Council, an. 419 [the year A.D. 419], consisting of 217 bishops, who declare that in giving a catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, they only confirm and ratify what they have received from their Fathers. This canon is attributed to the third Council of Carthage, an. 397 [the year A.D. 397]. Dr. Cosin, an eminent Protestant divine, tells us in his canon of Scripture, p. 4, "that to know the books of Scripture, there is no safer course to be taken than to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the Church." The sixth of the thirty-nine articles gives a similar rule, which excludes private judgment. And "what is this," asks Hooker, "but to acknowledge ecclesiastical tradition?" The mind of man, naturally fickle and unsettled, stands in need of a guide in the road to eternal life. I shall never hesitate, says a spirited author, to take for my guide the Catholic Church, which contains in herself the authority of past and future ages. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, which is deservedly allowed to be of greatest antiquity and authority, comprises the same deutero-canonical books as the canon of the Council of Trent; a convincing proof that the Church of Syria, immediately after the times of the apostles, considered them as part of the sacred canon, no less than the Catholics of the present day. For a very satisfactory account respecting the authenticity and inspiration of this Epistle, as also for an excellent commentary with notes moral, doctrinal, and critical, see a late work entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, by the Rev. Henry Rutter. --- What can be the reason why Protestants admit the deutero-canonical books of the New and reject those of the Old Testament? --- This Epistle merits the particular attention of Christians of every denomination, since it points out to them their various duties in respect to the necessity of faith and the practice of a holy life. In opposition to the Socinians, it tends to shew not only the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that his death was a true and real sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. See Chap. i, ver. 5, &c. In opposition to other sectarists, it proves that the bloody sacrifice of Christ, once offered on the cross, though a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of redemption, does not exclude the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by which he is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. See Chap. v, &c. It is no less applicable to Catholics, in order to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the saints, and to point out the dreadful consequences of abandoning that religion which Jesus Christ came to establish in the world. The just man lives by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Let us, therefore, hold fast the confession of our hope, without wavering, or forsaking our assembly, the Catholic Church, as many have done to follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other separatists. But we, says the apostle, are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who have faith unto the saving of the soul. (Hebrews x. 39.)

====================

Gill: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius ^a observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul ^b; though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine ^c. It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's ^d; and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Heb 1:2 with Col 1:15 and Heb 5:12 with 1Co 3:1 and Heb 12:1 with 1Co 9:24 and Heb 13:7 with 1Th 5:11, and Heb 13:9 with Eph 4:14 and Heb 13:18 with 2Co 1:12 and Heb 13:20 with Rom 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Heb 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2Pe 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1Pe 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Heb 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Heb 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Heb 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Gen 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Jos 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins ^e; though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Gen 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus ^f, of Jonathan ben Uzziel ^g, of R. Nehemiah ^h, of Aben Ezra ⁱ, and Kimchi ^k, and others; 2Co 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients ^l, that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Heb 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Gill: Hebrews 5 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS 5

The apostle having made mention of Christ as an high priest, in the preceding chapter, proceeds in this to give an account of an high priest, and applies the character of him to Christ; and shows that he is of another order of priesthood than that of Aaron, even of the order of Melchisedec; of whom he could say many things, but the Hebrews were dull of hearing them; which leads him to blame them for their rudeness, and non-proficience. The description of the high priest is taken from his relation to men, separation from them, and ordination for them; from his oblation of their gifts and sacrifices; from his sympathy with them, and from his call of God, Heb 5:1 all which are accommodated to Christ; as his vocation of God, Heb 5:5 confirmed by two testimonies out of Psa 2:7 his being a man, and having infirmities, though sinless ones, and his sympathy with men, and compassion on them, Heb 5:7 his obedience and sufferings, and the oblation of himself, whereby he became the author of salvation to his people, which is the main thing in his priesthood, Heb 5:8 and which was not of the order of Aaron, though in some things there was an agreement with it, but of the order of Melchizedek, Heb 5:10 of whom the apostle could say many surprising things; but these Hebrews were dull of apprehension, and incapable of receiving them, Heb 5:11. And then he proceeds to blame them for their dulness, which he aggravates by the time they had been in the school of Christ, when it might have been expected they would have been teachers of others; by their being yet scholars, and of the lowest class, who had need to be taught the first rudiments of the Christian religion; yea, by their being as babes that stood in need of milk, and could not bear meat, Heb 5:12. And then follows a description both of babes, and of adult persons; such as are unskilful in the word of righteousness are babes, and use milk; but those who exercise their spiritual senses, to discern between good and bad doctrine, are adult, and can digest strong meat, Heb 5:13.

College: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Hebrews for understanding the nature of the new covenant. No other document in the New Testament canon comments as directly and extensively upon this covenant as does Hebrews. Its description of Jesus as the great high priest of the believer is a unique contribution to New Testament Christology.

Yet Hebrews is perhaps as well known for the difficulties it presents as it is for its distinctive contributions to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus and the nature of our salvation. It is difficult to be certain about who wrote it, when and to whom. It is a letter and not quite a letter. Many find its line of argument intricate and complex, its theology abstract and obscure, and its use of the Old Testament puzzling if not problematic. This commentary will begin by addressing some of these considerations.

AUTHORSHIP

Over the years, most of the debate about the authorship of Hebrews has focused on whether or not Paul wrote this letter. Arguments have been made for other possible authors as well. What we can know for certain about the author is best gleaned from the letter itself, but many will want to know how this debate affects our confidence in the authority and inspiration of the letter.

Did Paul write the Letter to the Hebrews?

Though few defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews today, in the past this view has enjoyed the support of significant church leaders and traditions. The earliest extant copy of Hebrews (early third century) has been received as part of a collection of Paul's letters, in which it was placed after Romans. Pauline authorship was defended by notable church fathers in the East, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Origen (185-253) who, despite reservations, defended it as essentially Pauline, at least in part on the weight of what was then received tradition. Later, Jerome and Augustine helped to shift opinion in the West and the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419) established a tradition of support for Pauline authorship which lasted until the Reformation.

However, the weight of the evidence - both historical and texual - is far from clear. Early church opinion was far from universal. In the West, prior to Jerome and Augustine, such leaders as Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline. The Muratorian Canon (a list of documents accepted as New Testament Scripture, c. 170) included thirteen letters identified as Pauline but excluded Hebrews. When reformers such as Calvin and Luther reexamined the question centuries later, neither concluded that Paul was its author. Contemporary critics consider Pauline authorship implausible in light of clear differences between the vocabulary and style of Hebrews and epistles known to be Pauline. Further, it has been argued as improbable for Paul to refer to himself as the author does in 2:3 ("This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him") in light of what he says of himself in Galatians 1:11-12 ("I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ").

Who else could have written the letter to the Hebrews?

As early as the second century, Tertullian identified Barnabas as the author of the letter. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:26), and there is much about levitical ritual in the epistle. He was also a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the Jerusalem church and a missionary partner of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 12:1-14:28). All of this evidence is circumstantial, however, and nothing but Tertullian's opinion connects him to the letter directly.

Clement of Alexandria first suggested that Luke translated a Hebrew text written by Paul. Calvin affirmed this possiblity centuries later. There are some similarities in the Greek style of Luke-Acts and Hebrews. But there is little other evidence and there are also some differences in style. Calvin also suggested Clement of Rome as a possibility. However, Clement of Rome widely quoted from the letter himself. It is unlikely that he would quote himself and his use of the Old Testament is often at variance with that in Hebrews.

Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the possible author of Hebrews, a view which continues to enjoy some popularity. He was a "learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" who "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28). Presumably, he would have been capable of the careful handling of the LXX found in Hebrews. Also, he probably had some connection to the Pauline mission (1 Corinthians 1-4). But concluding that he was therefore the author of Hebrews is, at best, conjecture.

Among others, arguments have been made for Peter, Jude, Stephen, Aristion, Priscilla, Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, Philip and Mary the mother of Jesus as possible authors of Hebrews. Two other possibilities remain. An associate of Paul could have written the letter for him (a view first suggested by Origen in 220). It is also possible that Hebrews was written by some other anonymous Christian unknown to us. The letter itself does not clearly identify its author. Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that advanced by Origen, in spite of his inclination to defend Pauline authorship: "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth."

How does the debate about authorship affect our view of the letter?

It is important to note that, although the debate over authorship has extended over the centuries, the question of the letter's canonicity (i.e., its inspiration and authority) has not. Even though church fathers in the East may have had doubts about its authorship, there is no evidence that they ever questioned its canonicity. Though the Muratorian Canon excluded Hebrews (as well as James and 1-2 Peter), all four books were included in the New Testament canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage. Subsequent questions about its authorship during the Reformation had no effect at all upon the reformers' view of its authority or inspiration.

It is clear that apostolicity, as well as other issues such as universality and the "rule of faith," were important in the early decisions about the New Testament canon. We must keep in mind, however, that a document's "canonical" status is the result of a human process which does not bestow divine authority or inspiration upon a document but recognizes the authority and inspiration which it inherently possesses because it has been "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). In other words, if it is true that Hebrews is a divinely inspired and authoritative document, its inspiration and authority remain factual in an objective sense apart from our own inability to clearly discern the identity of its author. In his providence, God bore witness to the inspiration and authority of this letter in a manner that left little room for doubt, as Hebrews persistently silenced the questions of men who soon found that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

What do we know about the author?

Though the question of authorship is not determinative of either the letter's inspiration or authority, it is significant for our interpretation of Hebrews. Knowing as much as we can about the author can be helpful for discerning the meaning of a text. We may not be able to know the identify of our author with any degree of certainty, but there is much that we can know about him.

He was probably a Hellenistic Jew for he was both steeped in the LXX and possessed of an excellent vocabulary and a polished style for writing in the Greek language. Presumably, then, he was well educated. He was probably a second generation Christian (2:3) but one with direct connection to apostolic influence since he was a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly an associate of Paul. It is possible that he wrote from Italy, although 13:24 could also be taken to mean that the recipients were in Italy and some in his own party were from there as well. The rhetoric of the letter and his description of it as "my word of exhortation" (13:22) suggest that he was probably a preacher. His "short letter" reveals a compassionate pastor, a keen theologian and a superior logician who applies all the resources of revelation and rhetoric at his command so that his dear friends will "not drift away" (2:1).

DATE, DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

Three important facts suggest at least a general date for the letter. First, Clement of Rome cited Hebrews frequently. 1 Clement was written in A.D. 95 or 96 and thus Hebrews would not only have been completed but well circulated by this date. Second, there is thus little reason to doubt that the Timothy of 13:23 was the associate of Paul referred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Though we do not know how old Timothy was when he joined Paul in his work, it is unlikely that this reference would place the letter very late in the first century. Finally, much is made of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Although it is possible that the author would not have referred to this event if it had happened by the time of writing, it seems improbable that he would omit reference to an event that not only had a significant effect on the lives of first-century Jews (including Christians) but would have added great force to his own argument. Further, he refers to old covenant worship rituals in the present tense (8:4-5; 10:1-3).

Other considerations as to the probable date of the letter pertain to the identity and location of its recipients. The title "To the Hebrews" may have been added later and reflect later opinions about its contents but it accompanies the letter in all of the oldest Greek manuscripts and there is no evidence that the letter ever bore any other title. Some suggest that the phrase could be translated "against the Hebrews" but it is the same formula used in Paul's letters which were hardly "against" the Romans, Galatians, etc. The title of the letter thus suggests that its recipients were Jewish, and the content that they were both Jewish and Christian.

The letter itself indicates that its recipients were enduring persecution (10:33-34; 12:4; 13:3, 23). The more natural reading of 13:24 suggests that the author wrote to Italy rather than from Italy (for which the expression "those in Italy send you their greetings" would have been more appropriate). The Edict of Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 but many had returned by the time of the persecution begun by Nero in 64. Since our earliest quotes of Hebrews come to us from Clement of Rome, its circulation there was likely at an early date. The cumulative evidence thus suggests that the letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome who suffered under the persecutions of Nero.

The combination of these circumstances and statements in the letter suggest its purpose. Though some have suggested that Hebrews was written foremost to combat an early Jewish perversion of Christian doctrine or as a generic tract to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, key verses in the letter suggest that it was addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need. The following verses are all suggestive:

Passage Exhortation End in View

2:1 We must pay more careful attention so that we do not . . . to what we have heard drift away

3:1 fix your thoughts on Jesus (cp. 12:2)

3:6 hold on to our courage and the

3:6 hope of which we boast

3:12 See to it . . . that none of you has a

. . . heart that turns away from the

living God

3:13 encourage one another daily so that none of you

may be hardened by

sin's deceitfulness

3:14 . . . if we hold firmly till the end the We have come to

confidence we had at first share in Christ . . .

4:1 let us be careful that none of you be

found to have fallen

short of it [rest]

4:11 Let us . . . make every effort to enter so that no one will

that rest fall

4:14 let us hold firmly to the faith we

profess

6:11 show this same diligence to the very in order to make your

end hope sure

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the

hope we profess

10:35 So do not throw away your it will be richly

confidence rewarded

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you

have done the will of

God, you will receive

what he has promised.

12:1 Let us run with perseverance the

12:1 race marked out for us

12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus (cp. 3:1)

12:3 Consider him who endured such so that you will not

opposition from sinful men grow weary and lose

heart

Hebrews is, without doubt, a theologically valuable document which presents a well arranged argument in defense of the superiority of the new covenant. Yet these verses suggest that the author had an immediate purpose in mind for his theology and his rhetoric - the encouragement of Christian brothers and sisters who, suffering under persecutions which threatened even martyrdom, were tempted to abandon their strength. In the midst of their suffering, our author sends his "short letter" and "word of exhortation" (13:22) that they might fix their eyes on Jesus (3:1; 12:2), whose greatness he demonstrates from their own beloved Scriptures and cherished heritage.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

Since Hebrews includes some of the formal features of an epistle (e.g., personal greetings and closing formula) but not others (e.g., typical introductory greeting or address), there has been much debate as to whether it is more of a letter or a sermon. However, this particular formulation of the genre question probably reads a sharper distinction between written and oral communication back into an era when rhetoric rarely made such a rigid separation. Other epistles in the New Testament were clearly written in the knowledge that they would be read in the presence of congregations. It is thus possible to argue that, though written, they should be viewed primarily as oral documents. Writing lengthy treatises with significant oral features was a typical "rhetorical" practice for the ancients (e.g., the "template" or model speeches of Isocrates and others). Hence, Hebrews could well have been constructed as a "written homily," i.e., a letter with sermonic features.

This is to propose a variation of Deissmann's suggestion that Hebrews could have been an example of Christian literary art (i.e., a kind of treatise). Guthrie's criticism - that the writer's purpose was too serious to be regarded in this light - assumes that literary art cannot be addressed to particular communities and urgent occasions, when in fact, rhetoric is chiefly defined by (1) its "addressed" nature and (2) its "contingent" character. The fact that it is addressed to specific communities, their circumstances and the demands of those circumstances is precisely what, according to Aristotle, distinguishes "rhetoric" from its counterpart "dialect." It is quite in keeping with at least one significant ancient rhetorical tradition to regard Hebrews as a written homily - an extended written treatise with significant oral features, addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need.

Of what import is this conclusion? There is little value in examining Hebrews for exact correspondence to any particular classical scheme of rhetoric as some have done for (1) a strong case has been made that there is no single classical tradition of rhetoric and (2) our uncertainty about the identity of the author makes it impossible for us to do anything more than speculate about the possible significance of any such similarities.

There are several values, however, in recognizing the "rhetorical" nature of the document. First, this encourages us to keep in mind that, above all, Hebrews is an attempt to persuade its recipients (to take action, i.e., a case of deliberative rhetoric). Close attention should thus be paid to its argumentative dimensions. Also, as we attempt to follow the writer's development of thought, we should be alert for the use of rhetorical devices which signal transitions from argumentative sections to hortatory sections that address the contingiences of the community's situation. Further, apart from the complexities which separated competing rhetorical traditions in the ancient world, it is not inappropriate to look for evidence of the kinds of topoi (argumentative commonplaces) more widely employed and with which a well educated author was likely to be familiar. This should aid our understanding of the nature of the proofs employed by our author. Finally, it reminds us to seek the relevance of the subject matter of Hebrews in relationship to particular sets of life circumstances (persecution, suffering, temptation, and discouragement among them).

Hebrews is organized around a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are not only presented as argument but also developed with a variety of exegetical procedures (see below). If we use these quotations as a guideline for discerning its structure, the following picture of Hebrews emerges.

Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter is full of Old Testament quotations demonstrating Jesus' superiority over angels.

Chapter Two appeals to Psalm 8. Jesus rescues man by coming down beneath angels, joining man in flesh and blood, dying, and then returning to his place of exaltation above the angels. All who cling to him in faith return with him to the throne.

Chapters Three and Four deal with Psalm 95. God offers rest to all who trust him. The land of Canaan was not that rest, for this Psalm spoke of a rest long after the Israelites who wandered in the desert hardened their hearts and lost the rest which God offered to them. God's rest is still available for all who believe him.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are organized around Psalm 110. Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek, who was also superior to the priesthood of the old covenant. Jesus, in fact, is a priest forever by God's oath.

Chapter Eight introduces Jeremiah 31. The new covenant, created by Jesus our great high priest, is superior to the old covenant. It is founded on better promises than the old covenant, which was a mere copy and shadow of this new covenant.

Chapters Nine and Ten treat Psalm 40. Jesus' living sacrifice of himself through obedience is far superior to the Old Testament sacrifices of dead bulls and goats repeatedly offered in the old tabernacle. Jesus took this sacrifice into the very presence of God, thus fully taking away sins and cleansing our consciences.

Chapter Eleven develops a theme from Habakkuk 2, that the righteous will live by faith. This principle by which we live is illustrated by numerous examples of people living by faith.

Chapter Twelve treats Proverbs 3. We must accept the discipline God brings upon us, for God disciplines those he loves.

Chapter Thirteen is the conclusion. It is full of exhortations on how to give ourselves to God in the life of faith.

Remove the introductory and concluding chapters for a moment and an interesting picture of the structure of the main body of thought emerges. The new covenant (chapter 8) is central, tying together his priesthood (chapters 5-7) and his sacrifice (chapters 9-10). This is prepared for by the offer of rescue (chapter 2) and rest (chapters 3-4) and followed by the re

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric . Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

____________ . On Rhetoric . Edited and translated by George A. Kennedy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews . Hermeneia Commentaries. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Translated by William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 1. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Bietenhard, H. "Name." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 2. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blowers, Paul. "Patterns of Perfection in Hebrews." Unpublished paper presented to a Fellowship of Professors at Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, September. 21, 1990.

Boatman, Don Earl. Helps From Hebrews . Bible Study Textbook. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1960.

Bromiley, Geoffery, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . 4 Vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Brown, Francis, et al . The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon . Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1980.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews . Trans. by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Chamberlain, William. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941. Reprinted 1979.

Crouch, Owen. God Has Spoken: Expository Preaching and Teaching - Hebrews . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983. Reprinted 1990.

Davidson, A.B. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Dods, Marcus. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Vol. IV in The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.

Douglas, J.D., ed. The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd. Ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992.

Ellingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Enos, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age . New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Fant, Clyde E. and Pinson, William E., eds. Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching . 23 Vols. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971.

Feinberg, C.L. "Tithe." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Fensham, F.C. "Oath." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. III, ed. by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Gooding, D.W. and D.J. Wiseman. "Censer." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Gregory, T.M. "Oath." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Guthrie, Donald. "Epistle to the Hebrews," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. 2. Edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

____________ . Hebrews . Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

____________ . New Testament Introduction . 3rd ed. rev. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint . Two Volumes including supplement. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck - Univ. Verlagstalt, 1954.

Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities . Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

____________ . The Jewish War . Books IV-VII. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . 10 Vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews . New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Konig, Eduard. "Tabernacle." The Jewish Encyclopedia . Ed. by Isadore Singer. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

____________ . Hebrews 9-13 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James . Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . 9th ed. Rev. and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies Vol. 35 (1989), pp. 382-406.

Louw, Johannes and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains . 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament . New York, London: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975.

Meyer, F.B. The Way into the Holiest: Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1982.

Milligan, R. Epistle to the Hebrews . The New Testament Commentary, Vol. IX. Cincinnati: Standard Pub., n.d.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Reprinted 1968.

Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1964. Reprinted 1987.

Morris, Leon, et al. The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Moule, Charles F. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Reprinted 1980.

Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963-79.

Moulton, W.F. and A.S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. 5th ed., 1978.

Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

Paterson, J. H. "Sea." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta . 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Stiftung, 1935.

Schiappa, Edward. "Protagoras." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication . ed. by Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Silva, Moises. "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews." Westminster Theological Journal . Vol. 39 (1976), pp. 60-71.

Singer, Isadore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Spicq, C. L'Épitre Aux Hebreux . Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952.

Soulen, Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism . 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976, 1981.

Swetnam, J. "Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrew 9, 26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 30 (1968), pp. 227-254.

Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974-76.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament . 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Thompson, James. The Letter to the Hebrews . The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., 1971.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpeting the Epistle to the Hebrews . Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Waltke, B.K. "Melchizedek." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-76.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . 2nd Edition. 1892. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994.

Wiseman, D.J. "Weights and Measures." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Ed. By J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament . Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Press, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDB New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English

Lexicon

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley)

KJV King James Version

LN Louw & Nida's Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

MHT Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar

MM Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Hebrews (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS - 1:1-14

A. The Preeminence of the Son - 1:1-4

B. The Son Superior to the Angels - 1:5-14

II. JESUS RESCUES MAN - 2:1-18

A. Warning Not to Ignore Such a Great Salvation - 2:1-4

B. Jesus Became a Man to Bring Men to Glory - 2:5-18

III. GOD OFFERS REST TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM - 3:1-4:16

A. Jesus Is Superior to Moses - 3:1-6

B. Psalm 95:7-11 - 3:7-11

C. Hold Firm to the End - 3:12-15

D. Unbelieving Israelites Fell in the Desert - 3:16-19

E. A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God - 4:1-5

F. A Sabbath-Rest Remains - 4:6-11

G. The Message from God Does Its Part to Save Us - 4:12-13

H. Jesus, the Great High Priest - 4:14-16

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER BY GOD'S OATH - 5:1-7:28

A. Requirements of the High Priest - 5:1-4

B. Jesus Fulfills the Requirements and Offers Eternal Salvation - 5:5-10

C. [Excursus: Responding to God] - 5:11-6:12

1. Still Infants - 5:11-14

2. On to Maturity - 6:1-3

3. Those Who Fall Away - 6:4-8

4. Confident of Better Things - 6:9-12

D. God's Oath Makes His Purpose Sure - 6:13-20

E. Melchizedek Like the Son of God - 7:1-3

F. Melchizedek Greater than Abraham - 7:4-10

G. Jesus Is High Priest Based on His Resurrection which Introduces a Better Hope - 7:11-19

H. Jesus Is High Priest Based on God's Oath which Produces a Better Covenant - 7:20-22

I. Jesus' Resurrection Creates a Permanent Priesthood - 7:23-25

J. Jesus' Death Provides the Perfect Sacrifice - 7:26-28

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR TO THE OLD COVENANT - 8:1-13

A. Our High Priest Reigns and Serves in the True Tabernacle, Prefigured by Old Testament Shadows - 8:1-5

B. Our High Priest Is Mediator of the New Covenant, Promised through the Prophet Jeremiah - 8:6-13

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN - 9:1-10:39

A. The Tabernacle and Its Tools - 9:1-5

B. The Day of Atonement - 9:6-10

C. Jesus' Sacrifice Cleanses Our Conscience - 9:11-14

D. Jesus' Death Inaugurates the New Covenant - 9:15-22

E. Jesus' Sacrifice Was Once for All - 9:23-28

F. Old Covenant Sacrifices Could Not Take Away Sin - 10:1-4

G. Christ Offered His Body to Make Us Holy - 10:5-10

H. Our High Priest Now Reigns - 10:11-14

I. Witness of the Holy Spirit through Jeremiah - 10:15-18

J. Let Us Draw Near to God and Spur One Another On - 10:19-25

K. The Judgment of God on Those Who Keep Sinning - 10:26-31

L. Reminder of Earlier Suffering - 10:32-34

M. The Need to Persevere - 10:35-39

VII. GOD EXPECTS US TO SHOW FAITH - 11:1-40

A. The Nature of Faith - 11:1-3

B. Faith Illustrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah - 11:4-7

C. Faith Illustrated by Abraham - 11:8-19

D. Faith Illustrated by Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph- 11:20-22

E. Faith Illustrated by Moses - 11:23-28

F. Faith Illustrated in Israel - 11:29-38

G. God Planned to Make Them Perfect with Us - 11:39-40

VIII. GOD EXPECTS US TO ENDURE DISCIPLINE - 12:1-29

A. A Call to Perseverance - 12:1-3

B. The Word of Encouragement - 12:4-6

C. God Disciplines His Children - 12:7-11

D. Practical Actions - 12:12-17

E. Terrifying Mt. Sinai - 12:18-21

F. Mt. Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem - 12:22-24

G. A Kingdom which Cannot Be Shaken - 12:25-29

IX. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS - 13:1-25

A. Keep Loving Each Other - 13:1-3

B. Stay Pure - 13:4-6

C. Remember Your Leaders - 13:7-8

D. Counterparts to Old Covenant Practices - 13:9-16

E. Obey Your Leaders and Pray for Us - 13:17-19

F. Benediction and Closing Exhortations - 13:20-22

G. Personal Greetings - 13:23-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV