Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 5

HEBREWS CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this chapter, the subject of the priestly office of Christ is continued and further illustrated. It had been introduced in Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 4:14–16.

The Jews regarded the office of high priest as an essential feature of the true religion. It, therefore, became of the highest importance to show that in the Christian system there was a High Priest in every way equal to that of the Jews. In his rank, character, and the sacrifice he offered, he was more than equal to the Jewish high priest. Those who had forsaken Judaism and embraced Christianity had lost nothing in this respect by the change and had gained much.

It, therefore, became necessary, in making out this point, to institute a comparison between the Jewish high priest and the great Author of the Christian religion. This comparison is pursued in this and the following chapters. The comparison in this chapter turns mainly on the qualifications for the office, and the question of whether the Lord Jesus had those qualifications. The chapter embraces the following points.

I. The qualifications of a Jewish high priest (Hebrews 5:1–4). They are these:

1. He must have been ordained or appointed by God, for the purpose of offering gifts and sacrifices for sins (Hebrews 5:1).
2. He must be tender and compassionate in his feelings, so that he can sympathize with those for whom he ministers (Hebrews 5:2).
3. He must have an offering to bring to God, and be able to present a sacrifice alike for himself and for the people (Hebrews 5:3).
4. He could not take this honor on himself, but must have evidence that he was called by God, as was Aaron (Hebrews 5:4).

II. An inquiry whether these qualifications were found in the Lord Jesus, the great High Priest of the Christian dispensation (Hebrews 5:5–10). In considering this, the apostle specifies the following qualifications in him, corresponding to those which he had said were required of the Jewish high priest:

1. He did not take this honor on himself, but was called directly by God, and after an order superior to the Aaronic priesthood—the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:5–6, 9-10).
2. He was kind, tender, and compassionate, and showed that he was able to sympathize with those for whom he had undertaken the office. When on earth, he had evinced all the tenderness that could be desired in one who had come to pity and save mankind; he had a tender, sensitive, human nature. He felt deeply as a man, under the pressure of the great sufferings which he endured, and thus showed that he was abundantly qualified to sympathize with his people (Hebrews 5:7–8).

III. In Hebrews 5:10, the apostle had introduced, incidentally, a topic of great difficulty. He adds (Hebrews 5:11–14) that he had much to say on that subject, but that those whom he addressed were not qualified then to understand it. They ought to have been so far advanced in knowledge as to have been able to embrace the more abstruse and difficult points connected with the doctrines of Christianity.

But they needed, he says, instruction even yet in the more simple elements of religion, and he feared that what he had to say of Melchizedek would be far above their comprehension. This point, therefore, he drops for the present. In Hebrews 6, he states again, and at greater length, the danger of apostasy and the importance of perseverance in endeavoring to comprehend the sublime mysteries of the Christian religion; and then in Hebrews 7, he resumes the subject of the comparison between Christ and Melchizedek.

For every high priest. That is, among the Jews, for the remarks relate to the Jewish system. The Jews had one high priest who was regarded as the successor of Aaron. The word "high priest" means chief priest; that is, a priest of higher rank and office than others.

By the original regulation, the Jewish high priest was to be of the family of Aaron (Exodus 29:9), though in later times the office was frequently conferred on others. In the time of the Romans, it had become venal, and the Mosaic regulation was disregarded (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 15, Chapter 3, Section 1). It was no longer held for life, so there were several persons at one time to whom the title of high priest was given.

The high priest was at the head of religious affairs and was the ordinary judge of all that pertained to religion, and even of the general justice of the Hebrew commonwealth (Deuteronomy 17:8–12; Deuteronomy 19:17; Deuteronomy 21:5; Deuteronomy 23:9–10). He only had the privilege of entering the most holy place once a year, on the great day of atonement, to make expiation for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16). He was to be the son of one who had married a virgin and was to be free from any corporeal defect (Leviticus 21:13).

The dress of the high priest was much more costly and magnificent than that of the inferior order of priests (Exodus 39:1–9). He wore a mantle or robe—meil—of blue, with the borders embroidered with pomegranates in purple and scarlet; an ephod—made of cotton, with crimson, purple, and blue, and ornamented with gold, worn over the robe or mantle, without sleeves, and divided below the armpits into two parts or halves, of which one was in front, covering the breast, and the other behind, covering the back. In the ephod was a breastplate of curious workmanship, and on the head a mitre.

The breastplate was a piece of broidered work about ten inches square and was made double, so as to answer the purpose of a pouch or bag. It was adorned with twelve precious stones, each one having the name of one of the tribes of Israel. The two upper corners of the breastplate were fastened to the ephod, and the two lower to the girdle.

The cut is supposed to give an illustration of this part of the dress of the high priest. It is copied from Taylor's Fragments, appended to Calmet. As there is frequent reference to the high priest of the Jews in this epistle, and as he performed so important an office among the Hebrews, it may be useful to have a view of the appearance of this officer in full dress. The following cuts will illustrate this.

The first represents him with the robe and the ephod. On each shoulder is seen an onyx stone, upon each of which were engraved the names of six of the tribes of the children of Israel. The breastplate is also seen with a wrought chain of gold fastened to each corner, and passing under the arms and over each shoulder. The dress is described at length in Exodus 28.

The second cut exhibits the dress of the high priest on the day of expiation and is very plain and simple, consisting only of plain linen, with a sash and girdle (Leviticus 16:4, 23).

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

Is ordained for men. Is set apart or consecrated for the welfare of men. The Jewish high priest was set apart to his office with great solemnity. See Exodus 29.

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

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

And sacrifices for sins. Bloody offerings; offerings made of slain beasts. The blood of expiation was sprinkled by him on the mercy-seat, and he was the appointed medium by which such sacrifices were to be presented to God. See Barnes on Hebrews 4:6 and following.

We may remark here:

1. That the proper office of a priest is to present a sacrifice for sin.
2. It is improper to give the name priest to a minister of the gospel. The reason is, that he offers no sacrifice; he sprinkles no blood. He is appointed to "preach the word," and to lead the devotions of the church, but not to offer sacrifice. Accordingly, the New Testament preserves entire consistency on this point, for the name priest is never once given to the apostles, or to any other minister of the gospel.

Among the Papists there is consistency—though gross and dangerous error—in the use of the word priest. They believe that the minister of religion offers up "the real body and blood of our Lord;" that the bread and wine are changed by the words of consecration into the "body and blood, the soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus," (Decrees of the Council of Trent; ) and that this is really offered by him as a sacrifice.

Accordingly, they "elevate the host;" that is, lift up or offer the sacrifice, and require all to bow before it and worship; and with this view they are consistent in retaining the word priest. But why should this name be applied to a Protestant minister, who believes that all this is blasphemy, and who claims to have no sacrifice to offer when he comes to minister before God? The great sacrifice—the one sufficient atonement—has been offered; and the ministers of the gospel are appointed to proclaim that truth to men, not to offer sacrifices for sin.

Who can have compassion. A marginal note reads: Reasonably bear with. The idea is that of sympathizing with. The high priest is taken from among men, so that he may have fellow-feeling for those on whose behalf he officiates. Aware of his own ignorance, he is able to sympathize with those who are ignorant; and since he himself is beset with infirmity, he is able to help those who have similar infirmities.

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

For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity (Hebrews 7:28). He is liable to err, is subject to temptation, and must die and appear before God. Encompassed with these infirmities, he is better qualified to minister on behalf of guilty and dying men.

For this same reason, ministers of the gospel are chosen from among men. They are of like passions with others. They are sinners; they are dying men. They can enter into the feelings of those who are conscious of guilt; they can sympathize with those who tremble in dread of death; they can share the emotions of those who expect soon to appear before God.

And by reason hereof. On this account: because he is a sinner—an imperfect man.

As for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. To make an expiation for sins. He needs the same atonement; he offers the sacrifice for himself which he does for others (Leviticus 9:7).

The same thing is true of ministers of religion now. They come before God feeling that they need the benefit of the same atonement which they preach to others; they plead the merits of the same blood for their own salvation, which they show to be indispensable for the salvation of others.

And no man taketh this honor to himself. No one has a right to enter on this office unless he has the qualifications which God has prescribed. There were fixed and definite laws regarding the succession in the office of the high priest, and the qualifications of the one who should hold the office.

But he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Aaron was designated by name. It was necessary that his successors should have as clear evidence that they were called of God to the office, as though they had been mentioned by name.

The manner in which the high priest was to succeed to the office was designated in the Law of Moses, but in the time of Paul these rules were little regarded. The office had become venal, and was conferred at will by the Roman rulers.

Still, it was true that, according to the Law, to which alone Paul here refers, no one might hold this office unless he had the qualifications which Moses prescribed, and which showed that he was called of God. We may remark here,

1. That this does not refer so much to an internal as to an external call. He was to have the qualifications prescribed in the Law; but it is not specified that he should be conscious of an internal call to the office, or be influenced by the Holy Spirit to it. Such a call was, doubtless, in the highest degree desirable, but it was not prescribed as an essential qualification.

2. This has no reference to the call to the work of the Christian ministry, and should not be applied to it. It should not be urged as a proof-text to show that a minister of the gospel should have a "call" directly from God, or that he should be called according to a certain order of succession. The object of Paul is not to state this, whatever may be the truth on this point. His object is to show that the Jewish high priest was called of God to his office in a certain way, showing that he held the appointment from God, and that therefore it was necessary that the great High Priest of the Christian profession should be called in a similar manner. To this alone the comparison should be understood as applicable.

So also Christ did not glorify Himself. (See Barnes on John 8:54).

The meaning is that Jesus was not ambitious; He did not intrude Himself into the great office of high priest; He did not enter upon its duties without being regularly called to it. Paul claimed that Christ held that office; but, as He was not descended from Aaron, and as no one might perform its duties without being regularly called to it, it was necessary for Paul to show that Jesus was not an intruder, but had a regular calling to that work. This he shows by a reference to two passages of the Old Testament.

But He that said to Him. That is, He who said to Him, Thou art my son, exalted Him to that office. He received His appointment from Him. This was decisive in the case, and this was sufficient, if it could be established; for the only claim which Aaron and his successors could have to the office was the fact that they had received their appointment from God.

Thou art My Son (Psalms 2:7). See this passage explained, and refer to Barnes on Acts 13:33.

It is here used with reference to the designation to the priestly office, though in the Psalm more particularly to the anointing to the office of king. The appropriateness of this application is founded on the fact that the language in the Psalm is of so general a character that it may be applied to any exaltation of the Redeemer, or to any honor conferred on Him. It is here used with strict appropriateness, for Paul is saying that Jesus did not exalt Himself, and in proof of that he refers to the fact that God had exalted Him by calling Him His "Son."