Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 5

Hebrews 5:1. Instead of the Recepta δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read merely δῶρα καὶ θυσίας. But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the condemnation of the particle, τε is protected by A C D*** (D*: τε δῶρα) E K L א, of, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:9.

Hebrews 5:3. Elz.: διὰ ταύτην. Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, al.: διʼ ταὐτήν. To be preferred on account of the better attestation by A B C* D* א, 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret (alic.).

Instead of the Recepta ἑαυτοῦ, there is placed in the text by Lachm., after B D*, αὐτοῦ; by Tisch. 1, αὑτοῦ.

But ἑαυτοῦ is found in A C D*** E K L א, almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others.

The preference over the Recepta ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν (supported by C*** D*** E K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al.; defended by Bleek, and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* א, 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because περί might easily, on account of the περί placed twice before, be altered into ὑπέρ, in conformity with ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, Hebrews 5:1.

Hebrews 5:4. ἀλλὰ καλούμενος] So rightly already the Editt. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the preponderating authority of A B C* D E K א, 23, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. Damasc. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: ἀλλὰ ὁ καλούμενος, is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophylact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic τις is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to the significant οὐχ ἐαυτῷ.

Instead of the Recepta καθάπερ (C** D*** E K L א*** Theodoret), approved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: καθώς; Tisch., with Alford, after A B D* א* Damasc.: καθώσπερ. The last, in favour of which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious combinations.

The article ὁ before Ἀαρών in the Recepta was already with justice deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty authority of A B C D E K L א, many min. and Fathers.

Hebrews 5:9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ πᾶσιν! But preponderating witnesses (A B C D E א, 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ. Already recommended by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring out the more noticeably the paronomasia of τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν with the foregoing τὴν ὑπακοήν.

Hebrews 5:12. καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς] So Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, al.; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, א* Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς. But καί is protected by A B* D E K L א*** the majority of the min., many versions, and several Fathers.

Hebrews 5:1-2. Justification of the δύνασθαι συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, Hebrews 4:15, as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indispensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. γάρ does not glance back to Hebrews 4:16, as is maintained by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 395) and Delitzsch. for Hebrews 5:1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, Hebrews 4:16. The supposition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that γάρ logically controls the whole section, Hebrews 5:1-10, is arbitrary, inasmuch as Hebrews 5:4 ff. is logically and grammatically bounded off from Hebrews 5:1-3, and the assertion that the aim in the section, Hebrews 5:1-10, is to enforce the exhortation, Hebrews 4:16, by a reminder “of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priesthood of Melchisedec” (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of Jesus” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, Hebrews 5:5-10, Aaron and Melchisedec are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation—in which the one stands to the other—is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec.

πᾶς] refers, as is evident from ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος, and from Hebrews 5:3, to the earthly, i.e. the Levitical, high priest. Wrongly, because going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle, Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges inirent sacerdotium. But neither is ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος a part of the subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wetstein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp. also Tholuck).—for then the order πᾶς γὰρἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ἀρχιερεύς would have been chosen,—nor is it intended “to lay stress upon the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to represent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.),—for thereby a reference altogether foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by its like; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man should represent angels,—but it contains a note of cause to ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται. The twice occurring ἀνθρώπων stands full of emphasis, and presents a correspondence between the two. By the ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος the ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται is explained and justified. For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he also appointed or installed in his office as mediator with God.

καθίσταται] not middle, so that τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν were accusative of object thereto (Calvin: Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive, so that τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, as Hebrews 2:17, is to be taken as an accusative absolute.

ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] epexegetic amplification of ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

δῶρα—[קָרְבָּן מִנְחָה] and θυσίαι are properly distinguished as gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction, however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LXX. Leviticus 2:1 ff., Numbers 5:15 ff., Genesis 4:3; Genesis 4:5, where θυσία is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Genesis 4:4, Leviticus 1:2-3; Leviticus 1:10, al., where δῶρα is used of bloody sacrifices. In our passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in mind; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular.

ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν] i.e. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to θυσίας (Grotius, Limborch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας (Owen, Alford), but to the whole clause of the design.

Hebrews 5:2 is to be coupled with Hebrews 5:1 without the placing of a comma, in such wise that the participial clause: μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος, connects itself immediately with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he presents them as one who is capable of μετριοπαθεῖν.[71] ΜΕΤΡΙΟΠΑΘΕῖΝ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟς is therefore neither to be resolved into ἽΝΑ ΔΎΝΗΤΑΙ ΜΕΤΡ. (Heinrichs), nor is it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like ΛΑΜΒΑΝΌΜΕΝΟς with ἈΡΧΙΕΡΕΎς (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis loco” (Böhme).

ΜΕΤΡΙΟΠΑΘΕῖΝ] stands not in opposition to ΣΥΜΠΑΘῆΣΑΙ, Hebrews 4:15, for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and the divine one (Tholuck); it is not, however, identical in meaning with ΣΥΜΠΑΘΕῖΝ (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr, Abresch, al.), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its composition equivalent to μετρίως or ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸ ΜΈΤΡΟΝ ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ, and is accordingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute ἈΠΆΘΕΙΑ which the Stoics demanded of the sage. Comp. Diogen. Laert. 5:31: ἜΦΗ ΔΈ (sc. Aristotle), τὸν σοφὸν μὴ εἶναι μὲν ἀπαθῆ, μετριοπαθῆ δέ. Further instances in Wetstein and Bleek. Here the moderation or tenderness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbour is intended, as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable.

τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the ignorant and erring. Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however, designedly chosen (comp. also Hebrews 9:7 : ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of precipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had sinned ἈΚΟΥΣΊΩς; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah, Numbers 15:22-31; Leviticus 4:13 ff.

ἘΠΕῚ ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤῸς ΠΕΡΊΚΕΙΤΑΙ ἈΣΘΈΝΕΙΑΝ] Confirmation of the ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟς: since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it). ἀσθένεια is to be understood, as Hebrews 7:28, of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, comprehended under this expression; comp Hebrews 5:3.

The construction περίλειμαί τι, which in the N. T. occurs likewise Acts 28:20, is genuine Greek; comp. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiii. 14: ὕβριν τᾶς ὀργᾶς περικείμενος Kühner, Gramm. II. p. 231; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 215.

[71] When for the rest Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the expression of this relation of thought only καθίσταται … ἵνα προσφέρῃ Could be chosen, and not καθίσταται … εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν, since the latter would “only be a declaration of the vocation” of the high priest, while the former “can take to itself the participial clause μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος, and thereby signify to what end it serves in the exercise of his office, that he has been in this way appointed thereto,” this is grammatically altogether baseless. Either turn of discourse was equally open to the choice of the author. Only, in case the latter was chosen, the nominative δυνάμενος must naturally be changed into the accusative δυνάμενον.

Hebrews 5:1-3. The first qualification: the capacity, as man, who himself is subject to human weakness, to deal leniently with erring humanity. To what extent and under what modification this characteristic of the earthly high priest is applicable also to Christ, is not discussed by the author in our passage. This might appear remarkable, since with respect to the second necessary qualification of the earthly high priest, further added Hebrews 5:4, the parallel relation in the case of Christ is expounded in detail from Hebrews 5:5 onwards. But yet there was no need of an express application to Christ, of that which was observed Hebrews 5:1-3. What the author had had to say with regard to this was already clear to the readers from the earlier disquisitions of the epistle itself. The element of the homogeneity of Christ with the Jewish high priest, namely, that He, like the Jewish high priest, can have sympathy with sinful man, since He had become in all points like unto men His brethren, had been fully traced out in the second chapter, and attention is called anew to it in Hebrews 4:15 by the δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν and πεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθʼ ὁμοιότητα. The element of the dissimilarity, on the other hand, namely, that while the Jewish high priest had to offer for his own sins, Christ was without sin, is first brought prominently forward in Hebrews 4:15 by means of χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, and, besides this, followed already from the exalted position the author had, in the opening chapters of the epistle, assigned to Christ as the Son of God.

That, in reality, also the paragraph Hebrews 5:7-10, no less than Hebrews 5:5-6, is subordinate to the second main consideration, expressed Hebrews 5:4, has been denied, it is true, by Beza, Schlichting, Hammond, Limborch, Storr, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others. They are of opinion that from Hebrews 5:5 onwards an application of all the statements, Hebrews 5:1-4, to Christ ensues; that this, however, takes place in inverse order, so that Hebrews 5:5-6 refer back to Hebrews 5:4, Hebrews 5:7-8 to Hebrews 5:2, and finally, Hebrews 5:9-10 to Hebrews 5:1. The untenable character of such opinion is self-evident. For—(1) Hebrews 5:7-8 cannot have the design of applying to Christ that which was observed Hebrews 5:2, because only the parenthetic clause of Hebrews 5:7 (δεήσεις … εὐλαβείας) adapts itself to any extent to the contents of Hebrews 5:2, and this parenthetic clause stands in logical subordination to Hebrews 5:8 as the main point of the argument, consequently just Hebrews 5:8 and Hebrews 5:2 must present a similarity of contents, which is not the case. (2) That Hebrews 5:9-10 should be referred back to Hebrews 5:1 cannot be accepted as correct, because Hebrews 5:1 forms in itself no independent and complete statement, but stands in closest concatenation with Hebrews 5:2, so that only with this verse comes in what is for Hebrews 5:1 the all-essential point of nearer definition.

From the foregoing it results that the harmonizing view of Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 444, 447) is unwarranted. According to this view, Hebrews 5:7-8 are indeed, “in the first place,” or “formally,” a link in the demonstration that Christ did not become high priest by an act of arbitrary self-glorification, but as regards the “contents” or “tenor” form, “at the same time also an indication corresponding to Hebrews 5:1-3, and pointing out that Christ upon His path of suffering has passed through experiences which were adapted not only to make Him acquainted with the human ἀσθένεια, but also to prove in Him the capacity for the μετριοπάθεια.”

With Tholuck, for the rest, to take Hebrews 5:1-3 still in relation to the preceding chapter, as an antithesis to Hebrews 5:14, and to begin a new section with Hebrews 5:4, is not permissible. For a comparison of the main contents of Hebrews 5:1-3 with the main contents of Hebrews 4:15, points to the fact that the author designs to bring out a relation of resemblance and affinity. We cannot possibly, therefore, attach, with Tholuck, to the particle γάρ, Hebrews 5:1, the sense: “the distinction namely arises, that.” The consideration, moreover, presents itself, that Hebrews 5:4 can only appear in relation to Hebrews 5:1-3, alike as regards tenor of contents as with regard to its lax grammatical nexus, as a further co-ordinate link in an enumeration, before begun, of the qualifications essential to the character of every earthly high priest, consequently is not appropriate to the introduction of a section entirely separated from that which precedes.

Hebrews 5:1-10. Emphasizing of two main qualifications of the earthly high priest, in which Christ likewise is not wanting.

Hebrews 5:3. Logical consequence from the second half of Hebrews 5:2 The words form a merely incidental observation. They would be on that account better regarded as an independent statement than, with de Wette, Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew, II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 397), and Woerner, thought of as still dependent on ἐπεί, Hebrews 5:2.

διʼ αὐτήν] sc. ἀσθένειαν. Quite untrue is the assertion that the feminine is used Hebraistically instead of the neuter, which even Bengel and others, with a mistaken appeal to Matthew 21:42 (see Meyer ad loc.), still hold to be possible.

ὀφείλει] Reference not, as is supposed by Böhme and Hofmann, l.c., to the precept in the law of Moses (Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 9:7; Leviticus 16:6, al.), but, as Hebrews 2:17, to the inner necessity arising from the nature of the case. Non-natural the view of Delitzsch and Moll, that both alike are intended.

προσφέρειν] stands, as Luke 5:14, Numbers 7:18, absolutely. With Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), to look upon περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν as definition of object to προσφέρειν is inadmissible, inasmuch as only the singular form περὶ ἁμαρτίας is employed to indicate the notion of “sin-offering” with the LXX., as also in our epistle. Comp. Reiche, Commentarius Criticus ad loc. p. 35.

Hebrews 5:4. The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same.

καί] Progress, not from Hebrews 5:3, nor yet from Hebrews 5:1, in such wise that λαμβάνει, Hebrews 5:4, should form a paronomasia with λαμβανόμενος, Hebrews 5:1 (Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, Maier), but from Hebrews 5:1-3.

And not to himself does any one take the honour (here under consideration), i.e. not any one appropriates or arrogates to himself the high-priestly dignity on his own authority. Comp. Xiphilinus, Galb. p. 187: νομίζων οὐκ εἰληφέναι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀλλὰ δεδόσθαι αὐτῷ

ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ] sc. λαμβάνει αὐτήν, he receives it. The λαμβάνει here to be supplied has consequently—what is wrongly denied by Delitzsch, Hofmann, and Woerner—another notion than the λαμβάνει before placed. This diversity of notion, nevertheless, comes out more strongly in German, where two different verbs must be chosen to indicate it, than in Greek, where one and the same verb combines both significations in itself.

καθώσπερ καὶ Ἀαρών] sc. κληθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτὴν εἴληφεν. These words still belong to that which precedes. They are unnaturally referred by Paulus to the sequel, as its protasis.

Aaron and his descendants were, according to Exodus 28:1; Exodus 29:4 ff., Leviticus 8:1 ff., Numbers 3:10; Numbers 3:16-18, called by God Himself to the high-priesthood. Comp. Bammidbar rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234. 4 (in Schöttgen and Wetstein): Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicumque igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra ipsum Deum surgit. Not until the time of Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10. 5; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. That, however, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others conjecture, the author intended by the words of Hebrews 5:4 at the same time to indicate that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto.

Hebrews 5:5. In like manner also Christ appointed not Himself to be High Priest, but God the Father has appointed Him. The main emphasis in the verse falls upon οὐχ ἑαυτὸν … ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας. With Hofmann for the rest (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398, 2 Aufl.), to take the opening words of the verse: οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός, separately as an independent clause, is not warranted on any ground. οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα] He did not glorify (comp. John 8:54) Himself (arbitrarily encircle Himself with honour and glory) in order to be made a high priest.

ἐδόξασεν] is to be taken quite generally, so that it first acquires its nearer definition and completion, under the form of the intention, by means of γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 298. The referring of the verb, with de Wette, specially to the glorification, mentioned Hebrews 2:9, is forbidden by the parallel relation to Hebrews 5:4, in that οὐχ ἑαντὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα manifestly corresponds exactly to the foregoing statement, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν. On account of this parallel relationship in itself, clearly indicated as it is above by the οὕτως καί, is the view of Hofmann too (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398 f. 2 Aufl.) entirely erroneous, namely, that οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν acquires its nearer defining of signification from Hebrews 5:7-8, in that this relative clause denotes the same thing as that negative clause, and consequently is to be brought into relief; not a path of self-glorification was it, but a path of anguish and suffering, by which Christ attained to glory. The violence done in this explanation is already shown, in the fact that the relative clause, Hebrews 5:7 ff., is logically subordinate to the οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν, as a farther demonstration of the truth thereof; and, moreover, in this relative clause the mention of the suffering of Christ forms not the main element, but only a subsidiary member.

ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.] sc. αὐτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα. The participle aorist λαλήσας is anterior in point of time to the ἐδόξασεν. Thus ὁ λαλήσας: He who had said, sc. before the creation of the world; comp. Hebrews 1:1-3. Inasmuch as the connection with that which precedes, and the opposition οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας, place it beyond doubt that the author can here only design to mention the person or authority by virtue of which Christ possesses His high-priesthood, it results that in the words υἱός μου εἰ σὺ κ.τ.λ. a proof for the fact that Christ is High Priest is not to be sought. Against Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Peirce, Stengel, Ebrard, Maier, and others. If it were here already a question with the author of adducing a proof, he would have written without an article ἀλλʼ ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας (“but God, in saying to Him,” etc.), instead of writing with the article ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας. But why does not the author simply say ὁ θεός? Why does he employ the periphrasis of the idea of God by means of the words (already cited, Hebrews 1:5) from Psalm 2:7? In order to render already apparent, by this designation of God, how little ground can exist for surprise that He who occupies the rank of the Son of God should, moreover, also of God be appointed High Priest.

Hebrews 5:5-10. Demonstration of the presence of the qualification, mentioned Hebrews 5:4, in the case of Christ also.

Hebrews 5:6 now introduces the proof from Scripture that Christ, the Son of God, has also been appointed High Priest.

καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει] as He (sc. God) accordingly speaks in another place of Scripture (namely Psalm 110:4; comp. Hebrews 1:13).

καί] belongs not to ἐν ἐτέρῳ, so that we should have to assume that the author has already found in the citation, Hebrews 5:5, a Scripture proof for the high-priesthood of Christ, and now in Hebrews 5:6 is adding thereto a second Scripture proof for the same thing (Schlichting, Ebrard, and others), but it belongs to the whole relative clause καθὼς λέγει, and is just the ordinary καί after a particle of comparison; comp. Hebrews 5:4. By means of this correct apprehension of the force of καί the objection is further set aside, that Hebrews 5:6, if a Scripture proof was first to be given in this place, must have been joined on to that which precedes simply with λέγων, as Hebrews 2:6, Hebrews 4:7, or with μαρτυρεῖ γάρ, as Hebrews 7:17 (Abresch), or with λέγει γάρ, or at least with καθώς without καί (Ebrard).

ἐν ἑτέρῳ] See on ἐν τούτῳ, Hebrews 4:5.

ἱερεύς] for the author equivalent to ἀρχιερεύς; comp. Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 6:20. This equalization is likewise warranted. For Melchisedec (Genesis 14:18 ff.), with whom the person addressed is compared, was at the same time king and priest; but with the attributes of a king the attributes of an ordinary priest are irreconcilable; the character sustained by a superior or high priest alone comports therewith.

κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ] not: in the time of succession (Schulz), but: after the order or manner (עַל־דִּבְרָתִי) of Melchisedec, in such wise that thou obtainest the same position, the same character, as he possessed. Comp. Hebrews 7:15 : κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδέκ.

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] the author combines (contrary to the sense of the original) with ἱερεύς into a single idea, comp. Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 7:8.

Hebrews 5:7. Ὅς] refers back to the last main idea, thus to ὁ Χριστός, Hebrews 5:5. The tempus finitum belonging thereto is ἔμαθεν, Hebrews 5:8, in that Hebrews 5:7-10 form a single period, resolving itself into two co-ordinate statements (ὃς ἔμαθεν … καὶ ἐγένετο). To connect the ὄς first with ἐγένετο, Hebrews 5:9 (so Abresch, Dindorf, Heinrichs, Stengel, and others), is impossible, since Hebrews 5:8 cannot be taken as a parenthesis.

ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ] in the days of His flesh, i.e. during the time of His earthly life. Theodoret: Ἡμέρας δὲ σαρκὸς τὸν τῆς θνητότητος ἔφη καιρόν, τουτέστιν ἡνίκα θνητὸν εἶχε τὸ σῶμα. On the whole expression, comp. Hebrews 2:14; on αἱ ἡμέραι, in the more general sense of ὁ χρόνος, Hebrews 10:32, Hebrews 12:10. False, because opposed to the current linguistic use of σάρξ (Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 10:3; Php 1:22; Php 1:24; 1 Peter 4:2, al.), and because ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ obtains its opposition in τελειωθείς, Hebrews 5:9,—whereby, in general, the period of Christ’s life of humiliation is contrasted with the period of His life of exaltation,

Schlichting: what is specially meant is “tempus infirmitatis Christi, et praesertim illud, quo infirmitas ejus maxime apparuit … dies illi, quibus Christus est passus.” The note of time: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, however, is to be construed with the main verb ἔμαθεν, not with the participles προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθείς, which latter form a simply parenthetic clause.

As the occasion of this parenthetic clause δεήσεις … εὐλαβείας,—in connection with which we have neither, with Theophylact, Peirce, Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Bisping, Maier, Kurtz, and others, to derive the colouring of the linguistic expression from the author’s having respect to certain utterances of the Psalms (as Psalm 22:25 [24], ibid. Psalm 5:3 [2], Psalm 116:1 ff.), nor with Braun, Akersloot, Böhme, al., to suppose a reference to the loud praying of the Jewish high priest on the great day of atonement; neither is there an underlying comparison, as Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 399 f. 2 Aufl.) strangely supposes, of the supplication of Jesus, which He before (!) the learning of obedience offered for Himself as a sacrifice on account of weakness (!), with the sin-offering which, according to Hebrews 5:3, the Levitical high priest had on this day to present for himself before he could yet offer on behalf of the people,—the author has present to his mind, according to the prevailing and, beyond doubt, correct view, the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, as this was made known to him by oral or written tradition. Comp. Matthew 26:36 ff.; Mark 14:32 ff.; Luke 22:39 ff. It is true we do not read in our Gospels that Christ at that time prayed to God μετὰ δακρύων. But, considering the great emotion of mind on the part of the Saviour, which is also described in the account given by our evangelists (comp. in particular, Matthew 26:37 : ἤρξατο λυπείσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν; Mark 14:33 : ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν; Luke 22:44 : καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρῶς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν), that fact has nothing improbable about it; comp. also Luke 19:41; John 11:35. On account of the addition μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς, others will have us understand the loud crying of Christ upon the cross (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34), either, as Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Owen, Limborch, Schulz, Stein, Stuart, Delitzsch, besides the prayer in Gethsemane, or, as Cajetan, Estius, Calov, Hammond, Kurtz, exclusively, or even, as Klee, the last cry, with which He departed (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46). The supposition of such references we cannot, with de Wette (comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 70 f. 2 Aufl.), characterize as “entirely-unsuitable.” For de Wette’s objection, that the author “manifestly regarded the prayer as the preparation and condition of the ἔμαθε,” that it must “thus precede the suffering,” does not apply, since προσενέγκας is not to be resolved into “after,” but into “in that,” or “inasmuch as.” Not as “preparation and condition of the ἔμαθε” is the prayer looked upon by the author, but rather is the historic fact of the fervent prayer of Christ mentioned by him as an evidence that Christ in reality submitted Himself to God, even in the severest sufferings. For that which Hofmann (l.c. p. 67) objects hereto, that the author, if he had meant this, would have written: μαθὼν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοὴν δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας προσήνεγκεν, is devoid of sense; because, by means of such a transposition, that which is merely a secondary statement would be made the main statement. Yet the supposing of such references is not necessary, since also the plural δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας, to which appeal has been made, is sufficiently explained by the repetitions of the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane.

To ἱκετηρία, which conjoined with δέησις further occurs LXX. Job 40:22 [27], as also with the classic writers, ἐλαία or ῥάβδος (not κλάδος) is originally to be supplemented, inasmuch as it denotes the olive branch which the supplicant pleading for protection bore in his hand. Later it acquired like signification with ἱκετεία or ἱκεσία. It implies thus the prostrate or urgent entreaty of one seeking refuge. As an intensifying of δέησις it is rightly placed after this.

πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου] is most naturally referred to προσενέγκας (so Calvin, Abresch, al.). To the connecting with δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας (Böhme, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll) we are forced neither by the position before μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς, nor by the fact of the combination of προσφέρειν with the dative being chosen elsewhere in the epistle (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 11:4), as it is also the more usual one with classical writers, since likewise the conjoining with πρός is nothing out of the way. Comp. e.g. Polyb. iv. 51. 2 : προσενεγκάμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἀχαιὸν (equivalent to τῷ Ἀχαιῷ) τὴν χάριν ταύτην. In the characteristic of God as the One who was able to deliver Christ from death, there lies, at the same time, the indication of that which Christ implored of God. σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου, however, may denote one of two things, either: to save from death, in such wise that it needs not to be undergone, thus to preserve from death, or: to save out of the death to which one is exposed, so that one does not remain the prey of death, but is restored to life. In favour of the former interpretation seems to plead the fact that Christ, according to the account in the Gospels, in reality prayed that He might be spared the suffering of death. Nevertheless what decides against this, and in favour of the second, is the consideration, in the first place, that Christ in reality still suffered death, and then the addition in our verse that the prayer of Christ was answered. And then, finally, we have to take into account the fact that, according to our Gospels also, Christ does not pray absolutely to be preserved from death, but makes this His wish dependent upon the will of the Father, thus entirely subordinates Himself to the Father.

καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας] and being heard by reason of His piety, or fear of God. In this sense is εὐλάβεια (cf. Hebrews 12:28) rightly taken by Chrysostom, Photius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, the Vulgate (Proverbs sua reverentia), Vigil. Taps., Primasius, Lyra, Luther, Castellio, Camerarius, Estius, Casaubon, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Rambach; Heinrichs, Schulz, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 327), Alford, Reuss, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, and others.[72] ἈΠΌ, as an indication of the occasioning cause, is also of very frequent occurrence elsewhere; cf. Matthew 28:4; Luke 19:3; Luke 24:41; John 21:6; Acts 12:14; Acts 20:9; Acts 22:11; Kühner, Gramm. II. p. 270. Christ, however, was heard in His prayer, inasmuch as He was raised out of death, exalted to the right hand of God, and made partaker of the divine glory. To be rejected is the explanation of the word preferred by Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Cameron, Scaliger, Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Hammond, Limborch, “Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Whitby, Carpzov, Abresch, Böhme, Kuinoel, Paulus, Klee, Stuart, Stein, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 665), Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 69, 2 Aufl.), and many others, according to which a pregnancy of meaning is assumed for the same, and εὐλάβεια is interpreted in the sense of “metus:” “heard (and delivered) from the fear.” There is then found expressed in it either the thought (and this is the common acceptation) that Christ was delivered from His agony of soul by the strengthening on the part of the angel, Luke 22:43, or εὐλάβεια is understood by metonymy of the object of the fear, i.e. death, from which Christ was delivered by the resurrection. So, among others, Calvin: “exauditum fuisse Christum ex eo, quod timebat, ne scilicet malis obrutus succumberet, vel morte absorberetur;” and Schlichting: “a metu i. e. ab eo, quod metuebat, nimirum morte.” But against the first modification of this view pleads the fact that the being heard must refer to the same thing as that for which Christ had prayed, but from that which precedes it is evident that Christ had besought God not for deliverance from the agony of soul, but for deliverance from death. Against both modifications pleads the fact that the strong signification of fear is never expressed by εὐλάβεια. Only the mild signification of timidity or awe (whether reverential awe of the Godhead, i.e. piety, or shyness of earthly things), as well as the notion arising from that of timidity, namely heedfulness, discretion, circumspectness in arranging that which is adapted to the bringing about of a definite result, lies in the word; as accordingly also the Greeks themselves, particularly the Stoics, expressly distinguished from each other φόβος and ΕὐΛΆΒΕΙΑ, and pronounced ΦΌΒΟς to be worthy of reprobation; ΕὐΛΆΒΕΙΑ, on the other hand, to be a duty. See the instances in Bleek. Nor. do the passages anew adduced by Grimm, l.c., Wis 17:8, 2Ma 8:16, Sir 41:3, in which the word is supposed to be used in the sense of fear, and the demonstrative force of which is acknowledged by Delitzsch (p. 190, and Observer and Correctt.), Riehm (l.c.), and Moll, prove what they are thought to prove. For in the first-mentioned passage we have to understand by κατεγέλαστος εὐλάβεια the perverted, idolatrous, and therefore ridiculous religious awe of the Egyptian magicians; the second passage is only a dissuasive against standing in any awe of the outward superiority in force of the hostile army; and the third, finally, against feeling any awe of death, since this is the common lot of all men. The notion of mere awe, however, is, on account of the preceding strong expressions, ΜΕΤᾺ ΚΡΑΥΓῆς ἸΣΧΥΡᾶς ΚΑῚ ΔΑΚΡΎΩΝ, unsuited to our passage.[73] In addition to this, the assumed constructio praegnans in connection with a verb like εἰσακουσθῆναι is, in any case, open to doubt, and is not yet at all justified by the alleged parallels which have been adduced, namely Psalm 22:22 [21] (וּמִקַּרְנֵי רֵמִים עֲנִיתָנִי, which, however, the LXX. did not understand, and reproduced without pregnancy); LXX. Job 35:12 (ἐκεῖ κεκράξονται καὶ οὐ μὴ εὐσακούσῃ [καὶ] ἀπὸ ὕβρεως πονηρῶν, where, however, ἀπὸ κ.τ.λ., as in the Hebrew, refers back to the first verb); Psalm 118:5 (καὶ ἐπήκουσέ μου εἰς πλατυσμὸν κύριος); Hebrews 10:22 (ἐῤῥαντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς).

The addition καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας contains, for the rest, logically regarded, merely a parenthetic remark, called forth only by the contents of the foregoing participial clause.

[72] In this explanation Linden on Hebrews 5:7-9 (Stud. u. Krit. 1860, H. 4, p. 753 ff.) likewise, concurs, only he would have ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας separated by a comma from that which precedes, and taken in conjunction with that which follows. This construction, however, is not natural, inasmuch as ἔμαθεν already has a nearer definition before and after it, and the linguistic symmetry with the foregoing participial clause is destroyed by the εἰσακουσθείς standing alone.

[73] According to Tholuck, the author has before his mind the first petition of the Redeemer in prayer at Gethsemane, the petition with εἰ δυνατόν, in which is expressed a condition of “lingering hesitancy,” of “detrectatio” (!), which also according to him εὐλάβεια exactly indicates. From this hesitancy, which with the Redeemer continued just so long as He was absorbed in an abstract manner in the greatness of the impending suffering, He was delivered. Thus, it is true, the first prayer uttered in this condition remained unfulfilled, but it was certainly annulled in the second, wherein His own will had become perfectly harmonized with the divine will. So Tholuck. But neither does εὐλάβεια ever signify “lingering hesitancy” (not even in Plutarch, Fab. Max. c. 1, where it denotes nothing more than caution or wariness).

Hebrews 5:7-10. Further proof—accessory to the Scripture testimony, Hebrews 5:6—that Christ did not on His own authority usurp to Himself the high-priesthood, but was invested with the same by God. Far removed from all self-exaltation, He displayed in His earthly life the most perfect obedience towards God. In consequence thereof He became, after His consummation and glorification, the Procurer (Vermittler) of everlasting blessedness for all believers, and was appointed by God High Priest after the manner of Melchisedec.

We have to reject the explanation—mainly called forth by the expression προσενέγκας (compared with Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 5:3)—of Schlichting, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Limborch, Akersloot, Cramer, Baumgarten, Heinrichs, Böhme, Klee, Bloomfield, and others, according to which the design in Hebrews 5:7-10 is to show that Christ already discharged the functions of the high-priestly office during His earthly life, in that He offered prayers as sacrifices to God. For evidently the main gist of Hebrews 5:7-10 lies in the words of Hebrews 5:8 : ἔμαθεν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν, to which the statements Hebrews 5:9-10 attach themselves only for the completion of the figure traced out Hebrews 5:7-8, and for leading back to Hebrews 5:6. But by the fact that Christ manifested obedience, it cannot by any means be shown that He was already executing the office of High Priest.

Quite mistaken also is the opinion of Kurtz, that, Hebrews 5:7-10, a “third requirement of the Levitical high-priesthood, namely, obedience to the will of Him that founded it” (?), is shown to be satisfied in Christ. For neither does the form of the grammatical annexing of Hebrews 5:7 to that which precedes point in any way to the conclusion that the author designed to string on to the two necessary qualifications of the earthly high priest yet a third one of equal value; nor, as regards the import, is anything else to be found in Hebrews 5:7-8 than a wider unfolding of the foregoing statement, οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἀδοξάσεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα, Hebrews 5:5.

Hebrews 5:8. Καίπερ ὢν υἱός] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others, to construe καίπερ with ἔμαθεν, and in this way to enclose Hebrews 5:8 within a parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since καίπερ is never combined with a tempus finitum. καίπερ ὢν υἱός, however, is to be connected neither, by virtue of an hyperbaton, with δεήσεις … προσενέγκας, which Photius (in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already shown to be impossible by means of the addition καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, nor yet with καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας itself (Chrysostom, Theophylact). For against the latter καίπερ is decisive, according to which the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however, strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard by the Father on account of his sonship. καίπερ ὢν υἱός belongs, therefore, to ἔμαθεν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν, and serves to bring the same into relief by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resignation to the will of the Father. Comp. Php 2:6-8.

The article before ὑπακοήν marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72, 2 Aufl.), the obedience “already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.” For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann brings out as the import of Hebrews 5:8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead of recognising, to wit, in Hebrews 5:7-8 the sharply and clearly defined leading statement: ὃς ἐν ταῖς ὃ μέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ … ἔμαθεν … τὴν ὑπακοήν in itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν, Hebrews 5:5, Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν, and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words: καίπερ ὢν υἱός, fall upon that same ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν! In this way the thought expressed in Hebrews 5:8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (!) for the averting of which He had made entreaty. The special point is not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (?!). He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now (!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised, where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions—that we have ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν written, and not even ἐν οἷς ἔπαθεν, which at least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that?

ἔμαθεν] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested in action. And this continued development of the disposition of obedience into the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of the virtue of obedience.

ἀπό with μανθάνειν, as Matthew 24:32; Matthew 11:29, denoting the starting-point.

ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν] well-known attraction in place of ἀπʼ ἐκείνων ἅ ἔπαθεν.

The combination ἔμαθεν … ἔπαθεν is also of frequent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo. Comp. Herod. i. 207: τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα, ἐόντα ἀχάριστα, μαθήματα γέγονεν; Soph. Trach. 142 f.: ὡς δʼ ἐγὼ θυμοφθαρῶ, μήτʼ ἐκμάθοις παθοῦσα; Xenoph. Cyrop. iii. 1. 17: πάθημα ἄρα τῆς ψνχῆς σὺ λέγεις εἶναι τὴν σωφροσύνην, ὥσπερ λύπην, οὐ μάθημα; Philo, de speciall. legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ἵνʼ ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν μάθῃ. Many other instances in Wetstein.