Hebrews 7:26

In this verse the apostle renders a reason of his whole preceding discourse, and why he laid so great weight upon the description of our high priest. And he hath probably in it a respect unto what he had last asserted in particular, concerning his ability to save them to the utmost that come to God by him.

Hebrews 7:26. Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεὺς, ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμαρτωλῶν, καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος . [11]

[11] VARIOUS READING. Καὶ is prefixed to ἔπρεπεν by Scholz and Tischendorf; the latter of whom cites in support of it MSS. A B D E.. EXPOSITION. Conybeare and Howson, as also Ebrard, explain κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τ. ἀμ. in reference to the obligation resting on the high priest to keep aloof from any one Levitically unclean, Leviticus 21:1-12. ED.

Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν. Syr., דַּאֵיךְ חָנָא גֵיר כּוּמָרָא אַף זָדֵק הֲוָא לַן, “for yet also this high priest was just to us;” that is, it was just, right, or meet, that we should have this high priest. All others, “talis nos decebat.”

Ὅσιος. Syr., דַכְיָא, “pure;” “sanctus,” “holy.”

Ἄκακος. Syr., דְלָא בּישׁו, “without malice.” Beza, “ab omni malo alienus.” “Innocens.” “Free from all evil.”

Ἀμίαντος. Syr., דְלָא טולשָא, “without spot.” Vulg., “impollutus;” Beza, “sine labe:” “unpolluted,” “without spot.”

Κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. Syr., דְפַרִיק מֵן חַטָּהֵא, “separate from sins;” all others, “from sinners.”

The words will be further explained in our inquiry into the things signified by them.

Hebrews 7:26. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.

There is something supposed and included in this assertion, namely, that if we intend to come unto God, we had need of a high priest to encourage and enable us thereunto; for if in particular we need such a high priest, it is supposed that without a high priest in general we can do nothing in this matter. This, therefore, is the foundation which in this argument the apostle proceedeth on, namely, that sinners, as we are all, can have no access unto God but by a high priest. And there was no need for him much to labor with those Hebrews in the confirmation hereof; for, from the first constitution of their church, they had no other way of approach unto God in and with their sacred services. And God had not only by the institution of that office among them, declared that this was the way whereby he would be worshipped; but also by legal prohibitions, fortified with severe penalties, he had forbidden all men, the highest, the greatest, the best and most holy, to come unto him any other way. Hereby were they taught the everlasting necessity of a high priest, and the discharge of his office, whatever end or issue their typical priests came unto. And herein lies a great aggravation of the present misery of the Jews: High priest of their own they have none, nor have had for many ages. Hereon all their solemn worship of God utterly ceaseth. They are the only persons in the world who, if all mankind would give them leave and assist them in it, cannot worship God as they judge they ought to do. For if Jerusalem were restored into their possession, and a temple re-edified in it more glorious than that of Solomon, yet could they not offer one lamb in sacrifice to God; for they know that this cannot be done without a high priest and priests infallibly deriving their pedigree from Aaron, of whom they have amongst them not one in all the world. And so must they abide under a sense of being judicially excluded and cast out from all solemn worship of God, until the veil shall be taken from their hearts, and, leaving Aaron, they return unto Him who was typed by Melchisedec, unto whom even Abraham their father acknowledged his subjection.

Whence this necessity of a high priest for sinners arose, I have so largely inquired into and declared, in my Exercitations on the Original and Causes of the Priesthood of Christ, as that there is no need again to make mention of it. Every one's duty it is to consider it, and rightly improve it for himself. The want of living up unto this truth evacuates the religion of most men in the world.

Upon this supposition, of the necessity of a high priest in general, the apostle declares what sort of high priest was needful for us. And this he shows,

1. In his personal qualifications;

2. In his outward state and condition, Hebrews 7:26;

3. In the nature of his office and the manner of its discharge, Hebrews 7:27.

And he confirmeth the whole by the consideration of the person who was this priest, and of the way and manner how he became so, compared with them and their consecration unto their office who were priests according unto the law, Hebrews 7:28.

The first two are contained in this verse, namely,

1. The personal qualifications of him who was meet to be a priest for us, by whom we might come unto God; and,

2. His outward state and condition.

And in the first place, the necessity of such a high priest as is here described, is expressed by ἔπρεπε, “became us;” “decuit,” “decebat,” “it was meet,” “it was just for us,” as the Syriac renders it. And respect may be had therein either unto the wisdom of God, or unto our state and condition, or unto both; such a high priest it was meet for God to give, and such a high priest it was needful that we should have. If the condecency of the matter, which lies in a contrivance of proper means unto an end, be intended, then it is God who is respected in this word; if the necessity of the kind of relief mentioned be so, then it is we who are respected.

The word is applied unto God in this very case, Hebrews 2:10, “It became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.” Consider God as the supreme ruler and governor of the world, as the first cause and last end of all, and “it became him,” was necessary unto his infinite wisdom and holiness, that having designed the “bringing of many sons unto glory,” he should “make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” So the condecency here intended may respect,

1. The wisdom, grace, and goodness of God. It became him to give us such a high priest as we stood in need of, namely, one that was able in the discharge of that office to save all to the uttermost that come unto God by him; for to design our salvation by a high priest, and not to provide such a one as was every way able to effect it, became not the wisdom and grace of God. 2. Respect may be had herein unto our state and condition. Such this was, as none but such a high priest could relieve us in, or save us from. For we stand in need of such a one, as our apostle declares, as

(1.) Could make atonement for our sins, or perfectly expiate them;

(2.) Purge our consciences from dead works, that we might serve the living God, or sanctify us throughout by his blood;

(3.) Procure acceptance with God for us, or purchase eternal redemption;

(4.) Administer supplies of the Spirit of grace unto us, to enable us to live unto God in all duties of faith, worship, and obedience;

(5.) Give us assistance and consolation in our trials, temptations, and sufferings, with pity and compassion;

(6.) Preserve us by power from all ruining sins and dangers;

(7.) Be in a continual readiness to receive us in all our addresses to him;

(8.) To bestow upon us the reward of eternal life.

Unless we have a high priest that can do all these things for us, we cannot be “saved to the uttermost.” Such a high priest we stood in need of, and such a one it became the wisdom and grace of God to give unto us. And God, in infinite wisdom, love, and grace, gave us such a high priest as, in the qualifications of his person, the glory of his condition, and the discharge of his office, was every way suited to deliver us from the state of apostasy, sin, and misery, and to bring us unto himself, through a perfect salvation. This the ensuing particulars will fully manifest.

The qualifications of this high priest are expressed first indefinitely, in the word τοιοῦτος . A difference from other high priests is included herein. He must not be one of an ordinary sort, but one so singularly qualified unto his work, so exalted after his work, and so discharging his work unto such ends. In all these things we stood in need of such a high priest as was quite of another sort, order, and kind, than any the church had enjoyed under the law, as the apostle expressly concludes, Hebrews 7:28.

FIRST, His personal, inherent qualifications are first expressed; and we shall consider first some things in general that are common unto them all, and then declare the especial intendment of every one of them in particular: “Such a high priest became us as is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” And,

First, There is some allusion in all these things,

1. Unto what was typically represented in the institution of the office of the priesthood under the law. For the high priest was to be a person without blemish, not maimed in any part of his body. He was not to marry any one that was defiled; nor to defile himself among the people. On his forehead, in his ministrations, he wore a plate of gold with that inscription, “Holiness to the LORD.” And no doubt but personal holiness was required of him in an especial manner; for want whereof God cast out the posterity of Eli from the priesthood.

But all those things were only outward representations of what was really required unto such a high priest as the church stood in need of. For they were mostly external, giving a denomination unto the subject, but working no real change in it. And where they were internal, they were encompassed with such a mixture of sins, weaknesses, infirmities, and the intercision of death, as that they had no glory in comparison of what was required. All these things the apostle observes, reducing them unto two heads, namely, that they were obnoxious unto sin and death; and therefore as they died, so they offered sacrifices for their own sins. But the church was taught by them, from the beginning, that it stood in need of a high priest whose real qualifications should answer all these types and representations of them.

2. It is possible that our apostle, in this description of our high priest, designed to obviate the prejudicate opinion of some of the Hebrews concerning their Messiah. For generally they looked on him as one that was to be a great earthly prince and warrior, that should conquer many nations, and subdue all their enemies with the sword, shedding the blood of men in abundance. In opposition unto this vain and pernicious imagination, our Savior testifies unto them that he came not to kill, but to save and keep alive. And our apostle here gives such a description of him, in these holy, gracious qualifications, as might attest his person and work to be quite of another nature than what they desired and expected. And their frustration herein was the principal occasion of their unbelief. See Malachi 3:1-3.

3. I am sorry that it hath fallen from the pen of an able expositor of our own on this place, that “the time when the Lord Christ was thus made a high priest for ever, and that by an oath, was after he had offered one sacrifice, not many; for the people, not for himself; once, not often; of everlasting virtue, and not effectual for some petty expiations for a time; and after he was risen, ascended, and set at the right hand of God.”

If by being “made a high priest,” only a solemn declaration of being made so is intended, these things may pass well enough; for we allow that in the Scripture, then a thing is ofttimes said to be, when it is first manifested or declared. So was the Lord Christ “determined to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.” But if it be intended, as the words will scarce admit of any other interpretation, that the Lord Christ was first made a high priest after all this was performed, then the whole real priesthood of Christ and his proper sacrifice are overthrown. For it is said he was not made a high priest until “after that he had offered his one sacrifice;” and if it were so, then he was not a priest when he so offered himself. But this implies a contradiction; for there can be no sacrifice where there is no priest. And therefore the Socinians, who make the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his sacerdotal office to be by his entrance into heaven, do utterly deny his death to have been a sacrifice, but only a preparation for it, as they fancy the killing of the beast of old to have been. And the truth is, either the Lord Christ was a priest before and in the oblation of himself on the cross, or he was never any, nor needed so to be, nor could he so be; for after he was freed from death, he had nothing to offer. And it is a strange order of things, that the Lord Christ should first offer his only sacrifice, and after that be made a priest. But the order, time, and manner of the call and consecration of the Lord Christ unto his priesthood I have elsewhere declared. Wherefore,

4. We may observe, that all these qualifications of our high priest were peculiarly necessary on the account of the sacrifice which he had to offer. They were not only necessary for him as he was to be the sacrificer, but also as he was to be the sacrifice; not only as he was to be the priest, but as he was to be the lamb. For the sacrifices were to be “without blemish,” as well as the sacrificers. So were we

“redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19.

But however the sacrifices were chosen under the law without blemish, yet were they still in their own nature but calves, and goats, and lambs; and therefore priests who had weaknesses, and infirmities, and sins of their own, might be meet enough to offer them: but here both priest and sacrifice were to be equally pure and holy. 5. We must not pass by the wresting of this text by the Socinians, nor omit its due vindication. For they contend that this whole description of our high priest doth “not respect his internal qualifications in this world, before and in the offering of himself by his blood, but his glorious state and condition in heaven.” For they fear (as well they may) that if the qualifications of a priest were necessary to him, and required in him whilst he was in this world, then he was so indeed. He who says, “Such an high priest became us, as is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” doth affirm that when he was so he was our high priest. In that state wherein these things were necessary unto him he was a priest. To avoid this ruin unto their pretensions, they offer violence unto the text, and the signification of every word in it, and dangerously insinuate a negation of the things intended, to be in Christ in this world. So speaks Schlichtingius on the place:

“Unde apparet sequentibus verbis, seu epithetis Christo tributis, non mores ipsius seu vitam ab omni peccati labe puram, sed felicem ac beatum stature describi ac designari, ob quem fiat ut in aeternum vivens, nostri quoque perpetuam gerat curam. Licet enim omnia ista ratione vitae et morum de Christo intellects verissima sint, tamen nihil ad praesens auctoris institutum faciunt.”

So also argues Smalcius, de Reg. Christi, cap. 23, whom we have elsewhere refuted.

The paraphrase of one of our own seems to comply herewith; which is as followeth: “And this was a sort of high priests which we sinful, weak creatures had need of,” (which, by the way, I do not understand; for we stood not in need of a new “sort of high priests,” but of one single individual high priest,) “one that, being mercifully disposed, is also incapable of suffering any hurt, of being defiled or corrupted, and consequently of dying; and to that end is exalted unto a pitch above our sinful, corruptible condition here.” So ἄκακος and ἀμίαντος are rendered in the margin, “free from evil, and undefilable.” The sense is plainly the same with that of Schlichtingius, though there be some variety in the expressions of the one and the other. And therefore is Christ said to be exalted that he might be such as he is here described; as though he was not so before in the sense here intended by the apostle, however the words here in another sense might be applied unto him. Three things seem to be aimed at in this exposition:

(1.) To make way for another corrupt notion on the next verse, wherein these men, with Grotius, would have Christ in some sense offer for his own sins also; which there can be no pretense for, if these things be ascribed unto him as he was a priest in this world.

(2.) To take care that the innocency, holiness, and absolute purity of our high priest, be not supposed to be necessary unto our justification, neither as the material nor formal cause of it. For if the Lord Christ in the sacrifice of himself died for our justification, and that he might do so, it was necessary that he should antecedently be “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners;” then was his being so necessary unto our justification, as a cause thereof.

(3.) To obviate an apprehension of his being a high priest before his death, and to have offered his one sacrifice therein. For if he had not the qualifications necessary unto a high priest before his ascension into heaven, he could not be so before.

But these things are none of them compliant with the truth; and,

(1.) This exposition is contrary to the concurrent sense of all sober ancient and modern expositors; and, which is more, it is contrary to the common sense of all Christians. Not one of them who knoweth aught of these things, unless their minds are perverted with these men's glosses, and that merely to comply with other opinions wherein the text is no way concerned, but hold, in their first and last consideration of these words, that they respect Jesus Christ as to his personal holiness in this world. And that exposition had need be well confirmed, which is not only contrary to the judgment of all learned men, but also destructive of the common faith of Christians. But as yet we have nothing beyond crude assertions offered in the proof of it.

(2.) It is contrary unto, or inconsistent, with, the sense and use of the words in all good authors, sacred and profane; and contrary unto the application of them unto the Lord Christ in other places of the Scripture, as we shall see immediately.

(3.) It is contrary to the order of the apostle's words; for he placeth all these properties as qualifications of his person antecedently unto his exaltation. He was first “holy, harmless, undefiled,” and then “made higher than the heavens;” but according unto this exposition, his being made higher than the heavens is the antecedent cause of his being made holy, etc.

(4.) It is highly false, that the blessed state pretended to be here set forth was antecedently unto his being a priest, and the sacrifice which he offered; yea, such an estate was inconsistent with the oblation of himself. For he offered himself unto God in his blood, Hebrews 9:14; and that with strong cries and tears, Hebrews 5:7: which were inconsistent with such a state; for it is so described on purpose to be exclusive of every thing required thereunto.

(5.) Schlichtingius pleads,” That although all these things were true with respect unto the life and manners of Christ, yet it was no way unto the purpose of the apostle to mention them unto the end designed.” But,

[1.] If that be the sense of the words which he contends for, not one of them is true with respect unto the life and manners of Christ in this world; for they all belong unto his blessed estate in the other.

[2.] We shall see on the next verse how far he will allow them to be true of the life and manners of Christ in any sense, seeing in some sense he affirms him to have offered sacrifice for his own sins. And this he doth with an express contradiction unto his own main hypothesis: for by “sins” he understands weaknesses and infirmities; and whereas he will not allow Christ to have offered himself before his entrance into the holy place, and makes it necessary that he should be antecedently freed from all weaknesses and infirmities, it is the highest contradiction to affirm that he offered for them, seeing he could not offer himself until he was delivered from them.

[3.] We have only his bare word for it, that the ascription of those things unto our high priest as inherent qualifications, was not unto the purpose of the apostle. And his assertion is built on a false supposition, namely, that the Lord Christ was not a high priest on the earth, nor did offer himself unto God in his death; which overthrows the foundation of the gospel.

Secondly, The vanity and falsehood of this novel exposition will yet further and fully be evinced, in an inquiry into the proper signification of these words as here used by the apostle; every one whereof is wrested to give countenance unto it:

1. He is, or was to be, ὅσιος, “sanctus,” “holy;” that is, חָסִיד. For, Acts 2:27, חֲסִידְךָ is rendered Τὸν ὅσιόν σου, “Thine Holy One,” Psalms 16:10. And the Lord Christ is there said to he ὅσιος antecedently unto his resurrection; which must be with respect unto his internal holiness: “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” And in the New Testament the word is everywhere used for him that is internally holy, 1 Timothy 2:8; Titus 1:8. The Syriac renders it in this place by דּכְיָא, “pure;” which is an inherent qualification; as it doth, 1 Timothy 2:8, and Titus 1:8, by חסְיָא, “pious,” “holy.” Οσιος, saith Hesychius, καθαρός, δίκαιος, εὐσεβής, εἰρηνικός, ἅγιος, “ pure,” “righteous,” “godly,” “peaceable,” “chaste.” So ὁσίως is used only for “holily,” 1 Thessalonians 2:10; and ὁσιότης is “internal holiness,” Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24. Nowhere is it used for a merciful disposition, much less for venerable and sacred, upon the account of an immortal nature, or any other privilege as it is pretended. Neither is the word used in any other good author to signify any one but him that is holy and righteous, or free from all sin and wickedness.

It is therefore the holy purity of the nature of Christ that is intended in this expression. His life and actions are expressed in the ensuing epithets. His nature was pure and holy, absolutely free from any spot or taint of our original defilement. Hence, as he was conceived in the womb, and as he came from the womb, he was that τὸ ἅγιον , “holy thing” of God, Luke 1:35. All others since the fall have a polluted nature, and are originally unholy. ‘But his conception being miraculous, by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, and his nature not derived unto him by natural generation, (the only means of the propagation of original defilement,) and, in the first instant of its being, filled with all habitual seeds of grace, he was ὅσιος, “holy.” And such a high priest became us as was so. Had he had a nature touched with sin, he had not been meet either to be a priest or sacrifice. This holiness of nature was needful unto him who was to answer for the unholiness of our nature, and to take it away. Unholy sinners do stand in need of a holy priest and a holy sacrifice. What we have not in ourselves we must have in him, or we shall not be accepted with the holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.

2. He was to be ἄκακος. That is, saith Schlichtinius, “omnis mali expers, nullis amplius miseriis obnoxius.” “Incapable of suffering any hurt,” saith another, to the same purpose.

(1.) The word is but once more used in the New Testament, and that in a sense remote enough from “one not exposed to misery,” or “incapable of suffering:” Romans 16:18, ἐξαπατῶσι τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων, men “simple and harmless;” who for the most part are exposed to most evils and troubles in the world.

(2.) It is never used in any good author in such a sense, nor can any instance be produced unto that purpose; but it constantly signifies one innocent, harmless, free from malice, who doth no evil. Nor did any one before these interpreters dream of a passive interpretation of this word. It is he who doth no evil; not he who can suffer no evil. Κακός is “mains,” or “qui dolo malo utitur;” an evil, malicious person. Κακία is “vitiositas,” in the judgment of Cicero. [Tusc. Quaest., lib. 4:cap. 15.] “Virtutis,” saith he, “contraria est vitiositas: sic enim malo quam malitiam appellare eam, quam Graeci κακίαν appellant; ham malitia certi cujusdam vitii nomen est: vitiositas, omnium.” We render it sometimes “naughtiness,” James 1:21; sometimes “malice,” or “maliciousness,” 1 Peter 1:16; all manner of evil with deceitful guile. Wherefore ἄκακος is he that is free from all evil, fraud, or sin; the same absolutely with that of the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 2:22, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”

῞Οσιος, “holy,” is his epithet with respect unto his nature; ἄκακος, “harmless,” respects his life. The first includes all positive holiness; the other, an abnegation of all unholiness. As he was ὅσιος, he had not κακὸν παρακείμενον, “sin present,” as we have with us, Romans 7:18; Romans 7:21; or ἁμαρτίαν εὐπερίστατον, “sin easily besetting,” Hebrews 12:1. As he was ἄκακος, he was free from every effect of such a principle.

And we had need of such a high priest. Had he not been innocent and every way blameless himself, he would have had other work to do than always to take care of our salvation, as the apostle observes in the next verse. He must first have offered for his own sins, as the high priest did of old, before he had offered for us or ours. And this added unto the merit of his obedience. For whereas he was absolutely innocent, harmless, and free from all evil and guile, he was reproached and charged with every thing that is evil; a “seducer,” a “blasphemer,” a “seditious person,” the worst of malefactors. For herein also, as to the suffering part, “he was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And a great encouragement this is unto those who suffer in the like kind, according to their measure.

3. He was to be ἀμίαντος, “cujus felicitas et beatitas nulla vel minima adversitate quasi labe pollui inficique possit,” saith Schlichtingius; than which a more vain imagination or more absurd expression can hardly be thought on. But it is not for us to charge the apostle with such obscurity, and expressing of his mind in such uncouth terms, never used by any others, nor by himself in any other place in such a sense or signification. “Unpolluted,” “undefiled;” that is, “every way happy and blessed, not touched with the defilement of any adversity”! But the use of adversity is to purge and purify. And as that word doth properly signify “undefiled,” “unpolluted,” that is, morally, with any sin or evil, so it is not used in the New Testament in any other sense. See Hebrews 13:4; Jas 1:27; 1 Peter 1:4. The inquiry, therefore, is how this differs from ἄκακος, which contains a negation of all moral evil.

Ans. The one is, “he did no evil in himself;” the other, that “he contracted none from any thing else,” nor from any persons with whom he conversed. This may fall out sometimes. Hence the prophet, in his consternation at the appearance of the glory of God unto him, cried out he was “undone;” not only because of his own sinful defilements, but because of the uncleanness of the people among whom he dwelt, Isaiah 6:5. And on this ground there was an atonement of old to be made for the holy place and tabernacle. Not that they had any uncleanness of their own, but because of the uncleanness of the people, and their remaining among them in the midst of their uncleannesses, Leviticus 16:16.

And besides, many things might befall the high priests of old whereby they might be legally defiled, and so rendered incapable for the discharge of their office. And for this cause they always had a second priest in readiness, at the great solemn festivals, especially at the anniversary expiation, that in case any such pollution should befall the high priest, the other might for that time take his place and discharge his office. So it was with them principally with respect unto ceremonials, though immoralities might also defile them, and incapacitate them for their duty. But no such thing was our high priest liable unto, either from himself or from converse with others. As he was unconcerned in ceremonials, so in all moral obedience nothing could affix on him either spot or blemish. And “such an high priest became us;” for whereas it was his design and work to “sanctify and cleanse his church,” until it have “neither spot nor wrinkle,” but be “holy and without blemish,” as it was, Ephesians 5:26-27, how had he been meet to attempt or effect this work had not he himself been every way “undefiled?”

4. He was κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶ . That is, saith Schlichtingius, “loco et conditione, ut statim additur, ‘excelsior coelis factus.'“ He is at the bottom of his notions and end of his invention, so that he can find out no sense for this expression, but puts us off to the next words, which are quite of another signification, or express a thing of another nature, and are distinguished from this expression by the conjunction, “and.” “Separate from sinners;” that is, saith he, “made higher than the heavens”! We must therefore inquire after another sense of these words, which readily offers itself unto us. “Separate from sinners:” “from sins,” saith the Syriac. But that was sufficiently secured before. From sinners as sinners, and in their sins. He was like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. We must therefore consider wherein he was, and wherein he was not separate from sinners:

(1.) He was not separate from them as unto community of nature; for God sent his own Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Romans 8:3. He sent him in the flesh, for he sent him “made of a woman, made under the law,” Galatians 4:4; wherein “the Word was made flesh,” John 1:14: but he sent him only “in the likeness of sinful flesh;” and that because “he made him sin for us, who knew no sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21. He took our flesh, that is, our nature upon him, without sin; yet so as that, by reason of the charge of sin with the consequences thereof that was upon him, he was “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” He was not, therefore, really separate from sinners as they were flesh, but as they were sinful flesh. He “took upon him the seed of Abraham;” and “because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself also partook of the same.” Without this relation unto us, and union with us in one common nature, whereby “he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are of one,” he could not have been a high priest or sacrifice for us. He was not, therefore, so separated from sinners, as to be of another nature from them. “He took not on him the nature of angels,” nor was a mere spirit, but had “flesh and bones,” as he declared unto his disciples. And the same nature he hath still with him in heaven; and in the same will appear at judgment. It is equally destructive unto our faith and comfort, to suppose our high priest not separate from us in point of sin, and to be separate from us as to his nature.

(2.) He was not separate from sinners as to the duties of outward conversation. He lived not in a wilderness, nor said unto the children of men, “Stand off, I am holier than you.” He conversed freely with all sorts of persons, even publicans and harlots; for which he was reproached by the proud, hypocritical Pharisees. His work was to call sinners to repentance, and to set before their eyes an example of holiness. This he could not have done had he withdrawn himself from all communication with them. Yea, he condescended unto them beyond the legal austerities of the Baptist, Matthew 11:18-19. Hence those who of old, pretending more than ordinary holiness and devotion, did withdraw themselves into wildernesses from the converse of men, did quite forget the example and work of their Master: yea, they did avowedly prefer the example of the Baptist, as they supposed, before that of our Savior; which sufficiently reflects on his wisdom and holiness. Nor indeed, did they in the least express the pattern which they proposed unto themselves for imitation. For although John lived in the wilderness of Judea for the most part, yet was he “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” He lived there where it was most convenient for him to discharge his ministry, and preach the word of God. And his austerities in food and raiment, were but to express outwardly the doctrine of repentance enforced by threats which he preached. But as these persons forsook the example of Christ and the gospel, to go back unto John and his ministry, so they utterly mistook their pattern, and instead of making their retirement a means and help to discharge the ministry in calling others unto faith and repentance, they made it a covert for their own ignorance and superstition. And for those votaries of the Roman church who pretend, in the foolish imitation of them, to fancy a wilderness in the midst of populous cities, there can be no course of life invented more alien from the conduct of natural light, more useless unto the glory of God and the good of the community of mankind, nor more contrary to the example and commands of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles.

(3.) He is not said to be separate from sinners so in state and condition as kings and potentates are from persons poor and mean; and who therefore, out of a sense of their own meanness, and the others'state and greatness of mind, dare not approach unto them. No; but as he was meek and lowly, and took up his whole converse with the lower sort of the people, the poor of this world, so he did by all ways and means invite and encourage all sorts of sinners to come unto him.

(4.) He is not said to be separate from sinners, as though he had been ever in any communion with them, in any thing wherein he was afterwards separated from them. The participle, κεχωρισμένος, hath the sense of an adjective, declaring what is, and not how he came so to be. He was always in such a state and condition, so holy, so harmless, and undefiled, as never to have a concern in any thing from which he was to be separated.

It appeareth hence plainly wherein it was that he was “separate from sinners;” namely, in sin, in its nature, causes, and effects. Whatever of that sort he underwent was upon our account, and not his own. He was every way, in the perfect holiness of his nature and his life, distinguished from all sinners; not only from the greatest, but from those who ever had the least taint of sin, and who otherwise were most holy. And so it became us that he should be. He that was to be a middle person between God and sinners, was to be separate from those sinners in that thing on the account whereof he undertook to stand in their stead.

And these are the properties of the human nature of our high priest, and which were necessary antecedently unto the discharge of any part or duty of his office.

SECONDLY, His present state and condition is in the next place expressed: “And made higher than the heavens.”

῾Υψηλότερος γενόμενος, “made higher.” God is called אֵל עֵלִיון Θεὸς ϋψιστος, “the most high God,” “God above.” And glory is to be ascribed unto him ἐν ὑψίστοις, “in the highest,” Luke 2:14. And the Lord Christ in his exaltation is said to “sit down at the right hand of the Majesty ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, Hebrews 1:3, “on high.”

He was for a season “made lower than the angels,” made on the earth, and “descended into the lower parts of the earth;” and that for the discharge of the principal part of his priestly office, namely, the offering of himself for a sacrifice unto God. But he abode not in that state, nor could he discharge his whole office and all the duties of it therein; and therefore was “made higher than the heavens.” He was not made higher than the heavens that he might be a priest: but being our high priest, and as our high priest, he was so made, for the discharge of that part of his office which yet remained to be performed; for he was to live for ever to make intercession for us.

῾Υψηλός, as may be seen in the foregoing instances, hath a double signification;

1. Of place;

2. Of state and condition.

1. If it be place that is meant, then by “the heavens” which he is made above, those aspectable heavens with all their glory are intended. He is no longer on the earth, but exalted into a throne of majesty above these heavens. So it is said that he “passed through the heavens,” when he went into the presence of God, Hebrews 4:14-15. And there he abides. For although “the heaven of heavens cannot contain him,” as unto the immensity of his divine nature, yet as unto his human nature, here spoken of, “the heaven must receive him, until the times of the restitution of all things,” Acts 3:21. He is in this sense no more on the earth, nor subject unto any of those inconveniencies which his abode here below must be exposed unto. Yea, had he always continued here, he could not have been such a high priest as became us, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 8:4.

2. ῾Υψηλός may respect state and condition, or the glorious state on the right hand of the Majesty on high which he is exalted unto. And in this sense, by “the heavens,” than which Christ is “made higher,” exalted above, the angels, the sacred inhabitants of those heavenly places, are intended. And this our apostle in other places often insists upon, as a great manifestation of the glory of Christ. See Ephesians 1:21-22; Philippians 2:10-11; Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 2:7-8.

I see no reason but that both these may be included in this expression. He was so exalted, as to the place of his residence, from the earth, above these aspectable heavens, as withal to be placed, in honor, dignity, and power, above all the inhabitants of heaven, He only excepted who puts all things under him.

And so we have finished the exposition of these words, with the vindication of the proper meaning of them.

Two ends there are why the apostle gives us such a description of the high priest that “became us,” or which we stood in need of: 1. To manifest that the Levitical priests were in no way qualified for this office, no way meet or able to bring us unto God. Some things they did represent, but nothing of themselves they did effect. They all of them came short in every qualification which was necessary unto this end. They were all sinners; and living and dying on the earth, they never attained unto that condition of glory and dignity which was necessary unto the full and final discharge of that office. So he declares his mind to have been expressly in the next verses.

2. To encourage the faith of believers, by evidencing unto them, that whatever was needful in a high priest, to bring them to God, and to save them to the utmost, was found in all perfection in Christ Jesus. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 1. Although these properties of our high priest are principally to be considered as rendering him meet to be our high priest, yet are they also to be considered as an exemplar and idea of that holiness and innocency which we ought to be conformable unto. If we will give up ourselves to the conduct of this high priest, if by him alone we design to approach unto God, conformity unto him in holiness of nature and life, according unto our measure, is indispensably required of us. None can more dishonor the Lord Christ, nor more perniciously deceive and betray their own souls, than by professing him to be their priest, with their trust thereby to be saved by him, and yet not endeavor to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” like unto him.

Obs. 2. Seeing all these properties were required unto Christ. and in him, that he might be our high priest, he was all that he is here said to be for us, and for our sakes; and benefit from them doth redound unto us. For seeing he was a priest for us, all that he was that he might be a priest was for us also. “Such a high priest became us,” and such a high priest we have.

Obs. 3. The infinite grace and wisdom of God are always to be admired by us, in providing such a high priest as was every way meet for us, with respect unto the great end of his office, namely, the bringing of us unto himself.

Obs. 4. The dignity, duty, and safety of the gospel church, depend solely on the nature, qualifications, and exaltation of our high priest. Or, our high priest every way answering the mind, the holiness, and wisdom of God, as also all our wants and necessities, our whole state and condition, the work of our salvation is absolutely secured in his hand. The great design of the gospel is to satisfy believers herein. And God would have it so, that he might provide not only for our future salvation, but for our present consolation also.

Obs. 5. If such a high priest “became us,” was needful unto us, for the establishment of the new covenant, and the communication of the grace thereof unto the church, then all persons, Christ alone excepted, are absolutely excluded from all interest in this priesthood. He that takes upon himself to be a priest under the gospel, must be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” that is, absolutely so; or he is an impostor, who endeavors to deceive the souls of men.

Obs. 6. If, therefore, we consider aright what it is that we stand in need of, and what God hath provided for us, that we may be brought unto him in his glory, we shall find it our wisdom to forego all other expectations, and to betake ourselves unto Christ alone.