Hebrews 5:1

Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ τρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν.

᾿Εξ ἀνθρώπων. Syr., דְּמֵן בְּגַי נָשָׁא “who is of” (or “from amongst”) “the sons of men.” ῾Υπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται. Syr. לָף בְּנַי נָשָׁא קָאֵם “stands for men;” that is, in their stead. τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Syr, אִילֵין דְּדַאלָהָא אִנֵין, “over the things which are of God,” or which belong to him; not so properly, as we shall see. The Arabic renders τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,” in the things that are offered unto God;” a good sense of the words. And the Ethiopic is, “appointed for men with” (or “before”) “God;' that is, to do for them what is to be done with God. Vulg. Lat., “in iis quae sunt ad Deum,” “in the things appertaining unto God,” or which are to be done with him. So Arias, “ea quae ad Deum,” to the same purpose. Beza, “in iis quae sunt apud Deum peragenda,” “in the things that are to be performed towards God;” more properly than ours and the Rhemists, “in things pertaining to God,” for so do things innumerable, on one account or other, that are not here intended. Δῶρα. Syr., קיּרְבָּנא, “oblations,” “offerings;” a general name for all sacrifices.

Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεύς, that is, כָּל כֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, “even chief” or “great priest.” Or as the Syriac, כֻּל רַב כּוּמָרֵא “prince” or “chief of the priests.” The first mention of a high priest is Leviticus 21:10, הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָין הַכֹּהֵן “the priest that is great among his brethren.” LXX., ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ. Jun., “sacerdos qui maximus est fratrum suorum.” All the males of the family of Aaron were equal, and brethren, as to the priesthood; but there was one who was the head and prince of the rest, whose office was not distinct from theirs, but in the discharge of it, and preparation for it there were many things peculiarly appropriated unto him. And these things are distinctly appointed and enumerated in several places. The whole office was firstly vested in him, the remainder of the priests being as it were his present assistants, and a nursery for a future succession. The whole nature of the type was preserved in him alone. But as in one case our apostle tells us of these high priests themselves, that by the law they “were many,” that is, succession one after another, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death,” Hebrews 7:23, (one single high priest had been sufficient to have represented the priesthood of Christ, but because God would have that done constantly during the continuance of that church-state, and every individual person of them died. in his season, they were to be multiplied by succession;) so because of their weakness, and the multiplied carnal services which they had to attend unto, no one man was able to discharge the whole office, there were others therefore added unto the high priest for the time being, as his assistants, which were so far also types of Christ as they were partakers of his office. But because the office was principally collated on and vested in the high priest, and because many important parts of the duty of it were appropriated unto him; as also, because the glorious vestments peculiar to the office, made “for glory and for beauty,” to represent the excellency and holiness of the person of Christ, were to be worn by none but him; he alone is singled out as the principal representative of the Lord Christ in this office.

And the high priest was a single person, there was but one at one time, the better to type out the office of Christ. It is true in the gospel there is mention τῶν ἀρχιερέων, of the “high priests” that then were, Matthew 2:4; Matthew 16:21, which we render “chief priests.” So Sceva, the father of the vagabond exorcists, is said to be ἀρχιερεύς, Acts 19:14. But these were only such as were ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ, Acts 4:6, of the stock and near kindred of him who was at present high priest, or of that family wherein at present the high priesthood was; for out of them in an ordinary course a successor was to be taken. It may be, also, that those who were the heads or chiefs of the several orders or courses of the priests were then so called. But absolutely by the law the high priest was but one at one time.

And it is of the high priest according to the law of Moses that the apostle speaks. Grotius thinks otherwise:

“Non tantum legem hic respicit; sed et morem ante legem, cum ant primogeniti familiarum, aut a populis electi reges, inirent sacerdotium;”

“He respects not only the law, but the manner before the law, when the firstborn of the families, or kings chosen by the people, took and exercised the priesthood.” But it is of a high priest distinctly concerning whom the apostle speaks; and that there were any such among the people of God, either by natural descent or the consent of many, before the law, is not true. And this supposition is contrary to the design of the apostle, who treats with the Hebrews about the privileges and priesthood which they enjoyed by virtue of the law of Moses. So he says expressly, Hebrews 7:11, “If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood.” That is it whereof he speaks. And verse 28, “The law maketh men high priests.” He discourseth of the priests appointed by the law, that is, of Moses, and of them only.

Some expositors of the Roman church, as our Rhemists, take occasion to assert the necessity of a Christian priesthood to offer sacrifices to God, as also to dispose of all things wherein the worship of God is concerned, and to reprove kings and princes if they interpose aught therein, it being a matter wherewith they have not any thing to do. But they cannot really imagine that the apostle had the least intention to teach any such thing in this place; and therefore the most sober interpreters amongst them do confine their discourses unto the Levitical priesthood. Yea, indeed, the purpose of the apostle is to prove that all priesthood properly so called, and all proper sacrifices to be offered up by virtue of that office, were issued in the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, seeing the sole use and end of them were to represent and prefigure these in the church. And to deny them now to be passed away, or to plead the continuance of any other proper priesthood and sacrifice, is to deny that Jesus is come in the flesh; which is “that spirit of antichrist,” 1 John 4:3.

᾿Εξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, “taken from among men.” This expression is not part of the subject of the proposition, or descriptive merely of that which is spoken of, as if the whole should be, “every high priest taken from among men;” in which way and sense they are restrictive of the subject spoken of, as containing a limitation in them, and so intimate that it is thus with every high priest who is taken from amongst men., though it may be otherwise with others who are not so. But this is one of the things which is attributed unto every high priest, every one that is so absolutely; he who is so is to be “taken from among men.” And “ex hominibus assumptus” is as much as “ex hominibus assumitur,” is taken from amongst men; and the whole sense may be supplied by a copulative interposed before the next words, “is taken from amongst men, and is ordained.” This is, then, the first thing that belongs unto a high priest, and which here is ascribed unto him, “he is taken from amongst men.” And two things are here considerable:

1. That he is from amongst men; and,

2. That he is taken from amongst them.

1. He is ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, and herein two things are included:

(1.) That he is “naturae humanae particeps.” He is, and must be, partaker in common of human nature with the rest of mankind, or he is not, on many reasons, meet for the discharge of this office. Neither the divine nature nor angelical is capable of the exercise of it for men; and this is principally intended.

(2.) That antecedently unto his assumption unto this office he was among the number of common men, as having nothing in his nature to prefer him above them. So was it with Aaron; he was a common man amongst his brethren, yea, a mean man in bondage, before his call to office. The first of these declares what every high priest is and ought to be; the latter, what the first legal high priest actually was.

I showed before that in this description of the office of a high priest, and the application of it unto Jesus Christ, those things which are essential thereunto, and without which it could not be duly executed, are found in him, and that in a far more perfect and excellent manner than in the priests of the law; but those things which, although they were found necessarily in all that were vested with this office, yet belonged not to the office itself, nor the execution of it, but arose from the persons themselves and their imperfections, they had no place in him at all. So is it here. It was essential to the office itself that he should be partaker of human nature; and that it was so with the Lord Christ our apostle signally declares, with the reason of it, Hebrews 2:14: but it was not so that he should be absolutely in the common state of all other men, antecedently to his call to office; for so the apostle declares that he was not, but he was the Son, the Son of God, Hebrews 5:8. So “the Son was consecrated,” that is, a priest, “forevermore,” Hebrews 7:28. For he was born into this world king, priest, and prophet unto his church.

2. Λαμβανόμενος, “assumptus,” or “is taken,” is separated from them. Being made a high priest, he is no more of the same rank and quality with them.

῾Υπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται, τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, “is ordained for men.” ῾Υπὲρ is sometimes “vice,” or “loco,” “in the stead,” John 10:11; John 10:15; John 13:38; sometimes “pro,” only as it denotes the final cause, as to do a thing for the good of men, 2 Timothy 2:10. And both these senses may have place here; for where the first intention is, the latter is always included. He that doth any thing in the stead of another, doth it always for his good. And the high priest might be so far said to stand and act in the stead of other men, as he appeared in their behalf, represented their persons, pleaded their cause, and confessed their sins, Leviticus 16:21.

But ‘in their behalf,'or ‘for their good and advantage, to perform what on their part is with God to be performed,'is evidently intended in this place.

Καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Some suppose that because καθίσταται is, as they say, “verbum medium,” it may in this place have an active signification; and then the sense of it would be, that he might “appoint,” “ordain,” or “order the things of God.” But as it is used most frequently in a neuter or a passive sense, so in this place it can be no otherwise. So the apostle explains himself, Hebrews 8:3, Πᾶς ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ ζυσίας καθίσταται, “Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices;” which place expoundeth this. And two things are intended in the word:

1. God's designation and appointment;

2. Actual consecration according to the order of the law. For so it was in the case of Aaron.

1. God gave command that he should be set apart to the office of the priesthood. “Take Aaron thy brother, saith God to Moses, מִתּוֹךְ בּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, “from amongst the children of Israel” (that is, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, “from among men”) “that he may minister unto me in the priest's office,” Exodus 28:1. This was the foundation of his call, separation, and function.

2. He was actually consecrated unto his office by sundry sacrifices, described at large, Exodus 29. So was he ordained τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Now this latter part of his ordination belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of that priesthood, that he could not be consecrated without the sacrifice of other things. But the Lord Christ, being both priest and sacrifice himself, he needed no such ordination, nor was capable thereof. His ordination, therefore, consisted merely in divine designation and appointment, as we shall see. And this difference there was to be between them who were made high priests by the law, and which had infirmity, and him who was made by the word of the oath of God, who is the Son, Hebrews 7:28.

Τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. The expression is elliptical and sacred; but what is intended in it is sufficiently manifest, namely, the things that were to be done with God, or towards God, in his worship, to answer the duties and ends of the office of the priesthood, that is, to do the things whereby God might be appeased, atoned, reconciled, pacified, and his anger turned away. See Hebrews 2:17.

῞Ινα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπέρ ἁμαρτιῶν, “that he may offer,” וַיּקְרֵב the word compriseth the whole sacerdotal performance from first to last, in bringing, slaying, and burning the sacrifice, according to the law; of which see Leviticus 1-5 and our former Exercitations concerning the sacrifices of the Jews. The object of this sacerdotal action is δῶρα καὶ ζυσίαι. Interpreters are much divided about the application of these words unto the ancient sacrifices. Some think they answer מנְחוֹת and עוֹלוֹת, any “offering” in common, and “whole burnt-offerings;” some שְׁלָמים and עוֹלֹת, “peace-offerings” and “burnt-offerings;” some חַטָּאת and אָשְׁם, the “sin” and “trespass-offering.” The most general opinion is, that by “gifts” all offerings of things inanimate are intended, as meats, drinks, oils, first-fruits, meal, and the like; and by “sacrifices,” the offerings of all creatures that were slain, as lambs, goats, doves, whose blood was poured on the altar. And this difference the words would lead us unto, the latter signifying directly the offering of things killed or slain. But our Savior seems to comprise all offerings whatever under the name or “gifts” Matthew 5:23. And if a distinction be here to be supposed, I should think that by “gifts” all “freewill offerings” might be intended; and by “sacrifices,” those that were determined, as to occasions, times, and seasons, by the law. But I rather judge that the apostle useth these two words in general to express all sorts of sacrifices for sin whatever; and therefore that expression, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, “for sins,” may refer to δῶρα, “gifts,” as well as to θυσίας, “sacrifices.”

Hebrews 5:1. For every high priest, taken from amongst men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

What is the relation of these words unto the discourse of the apostle, both in general and particular, hath been declared before. I shall pursue that only which is particular and immediate. Having therefore proposed the priesthood of Christ as a matter of great advantage and comfort unto believers, he engageth into the confirmation thereof, by declaring the nature of that office, making application of what he observes therein unto the Lord Christ, as our high priest. In this verse we have, as was said, a general description of a high priest, as his office was constituted and consummated by the law. For,

1. he is described from his original. He is one “taken from among men,” from amongst those for whom he is to be a priest, that so he may be one partaker of the same nature with them, Exodus 28:1. He was not to bean angel, whose nature was incapable of those compassionate impressions which are required unto a due discharge of this office. Besides, the administrations of an angel amongst sinners would have been attended with dread and terror, and have taken away that spiritual boldness and confidence which a high priest is to encourage men unto. Moreover, there would not have been hereby any representation of that union between the Lord Christ and us which was indispensably necessary unto our high priest, who was to be himself both priest and sacrifice. Wherefore a high priest was to be “taken from among men,” and so was our Lord Christ, as hath been at large declared on Hebrews 2:10-16. And we are taught that,

Obs. 1. Christ's participation of our nature, as necessary unto him for the bearing and discharge of the office of a high priest on our behalf, is a great ground of consolation unto believers, a manifest evidence that he is and will be tender and compassionate towards them. The reader may consult what hath been discoursed to this purpose on Hebrews 2:10-11, etc.

2. He is described from the nature of his office in general, he is “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” There are things to be done with God on the behalf of men as sinners, and with respect unto sin, as is declared in the close of the verse. Hence arose the necessity of priests, as we have showed elsewhere. Had there been no sin, no atonement to be made with God for sin, every one in his own person should have done that which appertained unto God, or what he had to do with God. For God required nothing of any man but what he might do for himself. But now, all men being sinners, God will not immediately be treated withal by them; and besides, there is that now to be done for them which in their own persons they cannot perform. It was therefore upon the account of the interposition of Jesus Christ, with respect unto his future priesthood, that any one was ever admitted to treat with God about an atonement for sin; and this was the ground of the typical priesthood of old. Those priests were “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.”

Obs. 2. It was the entrance of sin that made the office of the priesthood necessary. This hath been abundantly confirmed elsewhere.

Obs. 3. It was of infinite grace that such an appointment was made. Without it all holy intercourse between God and man must have ceased; for neither,

1. were the persons of sinners meet to approach unto God, nor,

2. was any service which they could perform, or were instructed how to perform, suited unto the great end which man was now to look after, namely, peace with God.

For the persons of all men being defiled, and obnoxious unto the curse of the law, how should they appear in the presence of the righteous and holy God? Isaiah 33:14; Micah 6:6-7. It may be it will be said, ‘That these priests themselves, of whom the apostle treateth in the first place, were also sinners, and yet they were appointed for men in things appertaining unto God; so that sinners may appear in such matters before the Lord.'I answer, It is true, they were so. And therefore our apostle says that they were to offer for their own sins as well as for the sins of the people, verse 3; but then they did none of them officiate in that office merely in their own names and on their own account, but as they were types and representatives of him who had no sin, and whose office gave virtue and efficacy unto theirs. Again, men in their own persons had nothing to offer unto God but their moral duties, which the law of their creation and the covenant of works required of them. Now these, as is known, for many reasons were no way meet or able to make atonement for sin, the great work now to be done with God, and without which every thing else that can be done by sinners is of no consideration. God therefore appointing a new service for this end, namely, that of sacrifices, appointed also a new way, with performance by a priest in the name and behalf of others. And a most gracious appointment it was, as that on which all blessed intercourse with God and all hopes of acceptance with him do solely depend. Though the occasion was grievous, the relief is glorious.

Obs. 4. The priest is described by the especial discharge of his duty or exercise of his office; which is his “offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” This is the proper and principal work of a priest, as we have at large declared in our Exercitations. Priests and sacrifices are so related as that they cannot be separated. Take away the one, and you destroy the other. And these sacrifices here are “for sin;” that is, offered unto God to make atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation for sin.

Obs. 5. Where there is no proper propitiatory sacrifice there is no proper priest. Every priest is to “offer sacrifices for sin;” that is, to make atonement. And therefore,

Obs. 6. Jesus Christ alone is the high priest of his people; for he alone could offer a sacrifice for our sins to make atonement. This our apostle designs to prove, and doth it accordingly, in this and the ensuing Chapter s.

Obs. 7. It was a great privilege which the church enjoyed of old, in the representation which they had, by God's appointment, of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in their own typical priests and sacrifices. In themselves they were things low and carnal, such as could by no means expiate their sins: that is a work not to be done by the blood of bulls and goats. An expectation of that issue and effect by the mere virtue of such sacrifices, is the highest affront to the nature, rule, holiness, and righteousness of God. But this was their glory and excellency, that they typed out and represented that which should really accomplish the great and mighty work of taking up the controversy between God and man about sin.

Obs. 8. Much more glorious is our privilege under the gospel, since our Lord Jesus hath taken upon him, and actually discharged, this part of his office, in offering an absolutely perfect and complete sacrifice for sin. Here is the foundation laid of all our Peace and happiness. And this is now plainly proposed unto us, and not taught by types or spoken in parables. Their teachings of old were obscure, and therefore many missed of the mind of God in them. Hence some thought that they must trust to their sacrifices for their righteousness and pardon. Of these, some took up with them, and rested in them to their ruin. Others, more galled with their convictions, thought of other ways, and how they might outdo what God required, seeing they could not trust unto what he did so require, Micah 6:6-7. But now all things are clearly revealed and proposed unto us; for Jesus Christ in the gospel is “evidently crucified before our eyes,” Galatians 3:1. Our way is made plain, so that “wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein,” Isaiah 35:8. The veil being removed, “we all with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord,” 2 Corinthians 3:18. The sum of all is,

Obs. 9. What is to be done with God on the account of sin, that it may be expiated and pardoned, and that the people of God who have sinned may be accepted with him and blessed, is all actually done for them by Jesus Christ, their high priest, in the sacrifice for sin which he offered on their behalf. He was ordained τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, to do all things with God that were to be done for us; namely, that we might be pardoned, sanctified, and saved. This he undertook when he took his office upon him. His wisdom, faithfulness, and mercy, will not allow us to suppose that he hath left any thing undone that belonged thereunto. If any thing be omitted, as good all were so: for none besides himself in heaven or earth could do aught in this matter. He hath therefore faithfully, mercifully, fully done all that was to be done with God on our behalf. Particularly, he hath offered that great sacrifice which was promised, expected, represented, from the foundation of the world, as the only means of reconciliation and peace between God and man. So saith the text he was to do: he was to offer sacrifice for sin. How he did it, and what he effected thereby, must be declared in our progress. For the present it may suffice, that there is no more to be done with God about sin, as to atonement, propitiation, and pardon. There needs no more sacrifice for it, rune masses, no merits, no works of our own.