Hebrews 7:26

Τοιοῦτος γὰρ … ἀρχιερεύς. “ Such seems to refer to the Melchizedek character delineated in the preceding part of the chapter, or to all that was said of the nature and character of the Son from Hebrews 4:14 onward. The sense will not differ if it be supposed to refer to the epithets and statements that follow, for these but summarise what went before” (Davidson and others). But it must not be overlooked that ὃς (Hebrews 7:27) is one of the usual relatives after τοιοῦτος (cf. Hebrews 8:1, and Soph., Antig., 691, λόγοις τοιούτοις οἷς; cf. also Longinus, De Sublim., ix. 2. So that Farrar's statement on chap. Hebrews 8:1, “ τοιόσδε is prospective, τοιοῦτος is retrospective,” is incorrect), and that the adjectives ὅσιος, κ. τ. λ. prepare for and give the ground of the statement made in the relative clause. The sentence therefore reads: “So great a high priest as need not daily, etc., … became us,” ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν, not, as in Hebrews 8:1, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα (cf. Hebrews 4:14-15), because the writer wishes to draw attention to the needs of those for whom the priest was appointed [ἡμῖν emphatic] and his suitableness to those needs. We, being what we are, sinful and dependent on the mediation of others, need a priest in whom we can wholly trust, because He Himself is holy, separate from sinners, without human weakness. Westcott's distribution of the terms is neat, although of doubtful validity. “Christ is personally in Himself holy, in relation to men guileless, in spite of contact with a sinful world, undefiled. By the issue of His life He has been separated from sinners in regard to the visible order, and, in regard to the invisible world, He has risen above the heavens ”. ὅσιος frequently in the Psalms, where it translates חֶסֶד] denotes personal holiness, while ἅγιος and ἱερός express the idea of consecration. [See Trench, Synon.] Weiss, however, says: “ ὅσιος, ein Synonym von ἅγιος ” (Vulg., Psalms 4:4; Psalms 16:10) “bezeichnet die religiöse Weihe des Gottangehörigen” (Titus 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:8). Peirce understands that here the word means “merciful”. But this is scarcely consistent with N.T. usage. ἄκακος, “innocent,” and frequently with the idea of inexperience which attaches to the English word [cf. the definition which Trench, Synon., p. 197, quotes from Basil; and see also the use of ἀκακία in Ps. 36:37, and of ἄκακοι in Ps. 24:21. Its use in Jeremiah 11:19 is significant, ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ θύεσθαι.] Here the word seems to point to that entire absence of evil thought and slightest taint of malice which might prompt disregard of human need. ὅσιος denotes His oneness with God, ἄκακος His oneness with His fellow-men. He is not separated from them, or rendered indifferent by any selfishness. Neither has His contact with the world left any soil; He is ἀμίαντος, “stainless,” and so fit to appear before God. Cf. the stringent laws regarding uncleanness and blemish laid down for the Levitical priests in Leviticus 21:1; Leviticus 22:9. And as the high priest in Israel was not permitted to go out of the sanctuary nor come near a dead body, though of his father or mother (Leviticus 21:11-12), and as the later law enjoined a seven-days' separation of the high priest before the day of Atonement (Schoettgen in loc.), so our Lord fulfilled this symbolic isolation by being in heart and life κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. If there is anything in the symbol, then this separation occurred before the sacrifice was made, and as a preparation for it, but almost all modern interpreters (Grotius, Bengel, “separatus est, relicto mundo,” Peirce, Tholuck, Bleek, Alford, Davidson, Rendall, von Soden, but not Milligan) refer the separation to His exaltation. “In virtue of His exaltation He is now for evermore withdrawn from all perturbing contact with evil men” (Delitzsch). Being co-ordinate with the previous adjectives, while the ὑψηλότερος γεν. is added by καὶ, it would seem that κεχωρ. refers to the result achieved by His earthly life with all its temptations. By the seclusion of the high priest it was hinted that before entering God's presence the priest must be isolated from the contamination of human intercourse: there must be a period of quarantine; but our High Priest has carried through all the confusion and turmoil and defilement and exasperation of life an absolute immunity from contagion or stain. He was with God throughout, and throughout was separated by an atmosphere of His own from sinners. καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος, “and made higher than the heavens,” which apparently has a meaning similar to Hebrews 4:14, “We have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens,” cf. also Ephesians 4:10. It is not “and has been set,” but γενόμενος, has by His own career and character attained that dignity. It is by right, as the necessary result of His life, that He is above the heavens. “He is now become, strictly speaking, as to His mode of being, supra-mundane” (Delitzsch). [For the word, cf. Lucian, Nigr., 25, ἑαυτὸν ὑψηλότερον λημμάτων παρέχειν, to show himself superior to gains.] ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην … “who does not need daily, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices first for His own sins, then for the people's; for this He did once for all by offering Himself”. As shown by the relative, this is the main affirmation to which the preceding clauses lead up. The one offering of Christ is contrasted with the continually repeated offerings of the Levitical high priests; and His Sonship priesthood to which He was instituted by an oath is set over against the service of men who had first to be cleansed from their own defilements before they could sacrifice for the sins of the people. In the words καθʼ ἡμέραν, when κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν (Hebrews 10:1) might have been expected, a difficulty has been found. It was on the Day of Atonement, once a year, that the high priest offered first for himself and then for the people, see Hebrews 9:7. Accordingly, several interpreters, such as Bleek, Lünemann, Davidson, adopt the idea that the writer blends in one view the ordinary daily sacrifice and the sacrifice of the day of Atonement. Others again, as Hofmann, Delitzsch, Alford, maintain that the position of καθʼ ἡμέραν shows that it belongs only to ὃς [Christ], not to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, so that the sentence really means: “Who has not need day by day, as the high priests had year by year”. Weiss renders this interpretation more probable by pointing out that the words have a reference to πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν of Hebrews 7:25. His intercession is continuous, from day to day, but in order to accomplish it He does not need day by day to purify Himself and renew His sacrifice. Cf. also the seven days' purification of the high priest on entering his office, Exodus 29:13-18. θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, a phrase resulting from the carrying up of the sacrifice to the raised altar, and only found in Hellenistic, frequently in LXX. The more usual word in this Epistle (twenty times and frequently in LXX) is προσφέρειν. “ ἀναφέρειν properly describes the ministerial action of the priest, and προσφέρειν the action of the offerer (Leviticus 2:14; Leviticus 2:16; 6:33, 35), but the distinction is not observed universally; thus ἀναφέρειν is used of the people (Leviticus 17:5), and προσφέρειν of the priests (Leviticus 21:21)” (Westcott). πρότερον … ἔπειτα, as in Hebrews 5:3, “they must first offer for themselves, because they may not approach God sin-stained; they must also offer for the people, because they may not introduce a sin-stained people to God” (Weiss). τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν … This, i.e., offering for the sins of the people. But it must be borne in mind that this writer keeps in view that Christ also had a preparation for His priestly ministry in the sinless temptations and sufferings He endured, Hebrews 7:7-10. The emphasis is on ἐφάπαξ, in contrast to the καθʼ ἡμέραν, and the ground of the ἐφάπαξ is given in ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας, an offering which by the nature of the case could not be repeated, Hebrews 9:27-28, and which by its worth rendered repetition superfluous. This difference between the new priest and the old is based upon their essential difference of nature, “For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness,” which especially gives the reason, as in Hebrews 5:3, why they must sacrifice for themselves. In Hebrews 5:3 the weakness is ascribed to the same source as here; the high priest is ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος. In c. 5, however, the fact that the high priest is taken from among men is introduced chiefly for the sake of illustrating his sympathy: here it is introduced in contrast to υἱόν of the next clause, which is thus raised to a higher than human dignity. For had this contrast not been intended, τούς would have been used, and not ἀνθρώπους. The law only made provision for the appointment of priests who had human weakness: the word of the oath (already explained in Hebrews 7:20-22), τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον, “which [oath-swearing] came after the law,” and therefore showed that the law needed revisal and supplementing [“Debent posteriora in legibus esse perfectiora” (Grotius)]. It might have been argued that the Law coming after Melchizedek introduced an improved priesthood. It is therefore worth while to point out that the adoption of the Melchizedek priesthood as the type of the Messianic was subsequent to the Law, and consequently superseded it. υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον [appoints], “a son who has been made perfect for ever”. υἱὸν, without the article, because attention is called to the nature of the new priest, as in Hebrews 1:1. “Son,” in the fullest sense, as described in Hebrews 1:1-4, and in contrast to ἀνθρώπους. He also, though a Son, became man, and was exposed to human temptations, but by this experience was “perfected” as our Priest. Cf. Hebrews 7:7-10. “For ever perfected” is directly contrasted with the sinful yielding to infirmity exhibited by the Levitical priests, and must therefore be referred to moral perfecting, as explained in chap. 5. This perfectness of the Son is confirmed and sealed by His exaltation; He is for ever perfected in the sense, as Grotius says, “ut nec morti nec ullis adversis subjaceat”. Cf. Hebrews 9:27-28. The A.V. translates “consecrated,” which Davidson denounces, with Alford, as “altogether false”. But this translation at any rate suggests that it is perfectness as our priest the writer has in view; and the use of τελειόω in Leviticus 21:10 and other passages cannot be thus lightly set aside.