John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 5

For every high priest, etc. He compares Christ with the Levitical priests, and he teaches us what is the likeness and the difference between them. The object of the whole discourse is to show what Christ’s office really is, and also to prove that whatever was ordained under the law was ordained on His account. Hence, the Apostle passes on at last to show that the ancient priesthood was abolished.

He first says:

1. That the priests were taken from among men.
2. That they did not act in a private capacity but for the whole people.
3. That they were not to come empty to appease God, but furnished with sacrifices.
4. That they were not to be exempt from human infirmities, that they might more readily help the distressed.
5. And lastly, that they were not presumptuously to rush into this office, and that only then was the honor legitimate when they were chosen and approved by God.

We will consider briefly each of these points.

We must first, however, expose the ignorance of those who apply these things to our time, as though there is today the same need of priests to offer sacrifices. At the same time, there is no need for a long refutation. For what can be more evident than that the reality found in Christ is compared with its types, which, being prior in time, have now ceased? But this will appear more fully from the context. How extremely ridiculous then are they who seek by this passage to establish and support the sacrifice of the mass! I now return to the words of the Apostle.

Taken from among men, etc. He says this of the priests. Hence, it follows that it was necessary for Christ to be a real man. For, as we are very far from God, we stand, in a way, before Him in the person of our priest, which could not be if He were not one of us.

Therefore, the fact that the Son of God has a nature in common with us does not diminish His dignity but further commends it to us, for He is suited to reconcile us to God because He is man.

Therefore Paul, to prove that He is a Mediator, expressly calls Him man. For if He had been taken from among angels or any other beings, we could not by Him be united to God, as He could not reach down to us.

For men, etc. This is the second clause: the priest was not a minister privately for himself but was appointed for the common good of the people. But it is of great importance to notice this, so that we may know that the salvation of us all is connected with and centers on the priesthood of Christ.

The benefit is expressed in these words: ordains those things which pertain to God. These words may, indeed, be explained in two ways, as the verb καθίσταται has a passive as well as an active sense. Those who take it passively give this version, is ordained in those things, etc.; and thus they would have the preposition in to be understood. I approve more of the other rendering: that the high priest takes care of or ordains the things pertaining to God, for the construction flows better, and the sense is fuller.

But still, in either way, what the Apostle had in view is the same: namely, that we have no access to God unless there is a priest. For, as we are unholy, what have we to do with holy things? We are, in a word, alienated from God and His service until a priest intervenes and undertakes our cause.

That he may offer both gifts, etc. The third thing he mentions concerning a priest is the offering of gifts. However, there are two things here: gifts and sacrifices. The first word includes, as I think, various kinds of sacrifices and is therefore a general term, while the second denotes especially the sacrifices of expiation.

Still, the meaning is that the priest without a sacrifice is no peacemaker between God and man, for without a sacrifice sins are not atoned for, nor is the wrath of God pacified. Hence, whenever reconciliation between God and man takes place, this pledge must always precede.

Thus we see that angels are by no means capable of obtaining God’s favor for us, because they have no sacrifice. The same must be thought of Prophets and Apostles. Christ alone, then, is He who, having taken away sins by His own sacrifice, can reconcile God to us.

Who can, etc. This fourth point has some affinity to the first, yet it may be distinguished from it. For the Apostle previously taught us that mankind is united to God in the person of one man, as all men partake of the same flesh and nature. But now he refers to another thing: that the priest ought to be kind and gentle to sinners, because he partakes of their infirmities.

The word which the Apostle uses, μετριοπαθεῖν, is differently explained by both Greek and Latin interpreters. I, however, think that it simply means one capable of sympathy. All the things said here of the Levitical priests do not indeed apply to Christ; for Christ, we know, was exempt from every contagion of sin. He therefore differed from others in this respect: that he had no necessity of offering a sacrifice for himself.

But it is enough for us to know that he bore our infirmities, though free from sin and undefiled. Then, as to the ancient and Levitical priests, the Apostle says that they were subject to human infirmity, and that they also made atonement for their own sins, so that they might not only be kind to others who had gone astray, but also condole with or sympathize with them.

This part should be applied to Christ to the extent that it includes the exception he previously mentioned: that is, that he bore our infirmities, while yet being without sin. At the same time, though always free from sin, that previously described experience of infirmities is alone abundantly sufficient to incline him to help us, to make him merciful and ready to pardon, and to render him solicitous for us in our miseries. The sum of what is said is that Christ is a brother to us, not only because of unity in flesh and nature, but also by becoming a partaker of our infirmities, so that he is led, and, as it were, formed, to show forbearance and kindness.

The participle, δυνάμενος, is more forceful than in our common language, qui possit, “who can,” for it expresses aptness or fitness. He has used the terms The ignorant and those out of the way (or erring) instead of “sinners,” according to Hebrew usage. For שגגה (shegage) means every kind of error or offense, as I will explain shortly.

And no man, etc. It should be noted in this verse that there is partly a likeness and partly a difference. What makes an office lawful is the call of God, so that no one can rightly and orderly perform it unless God has made them fit for it. Christ and Aaron had this in common: God called them both. But they differed in this: Christ succeeded by a new and different way and was made a perpetual priest.

Therefore, it is evident that Aaron’s priesthood was temporary, because it was to cease. We see the Apostle's purpose: it was to defend the legitimacy of Christ’s priesthood, and he did this by showing that God was its author.

But this would not have been sufficient unless it was also made evident that an end had to be put to the old priesthood to make way for this new one. And this point he proves by directing our attention to the terms on which Aaron was appointed, for we are not to extend them further than God’s decree; and he will soon make it evident how long God had designed this order to continue.

Christ then is a lawful priest, for He was appointed by God’s authority. What is to be said of Aaron and his successors? That they had as much right as was granted them by the Lord, but not as much as men, according to their own fancy, concede to them.

But though this has been said with reference to the matter at hand, yet from this we may draw a general truth—that no government is to be set up in the Church by human will. Instead, we are to wait for God's command, and we also ought to follow a certain rule in electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own whim.

Both these things should be distinctly noted, for the Apostle here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; indeed, he denies that the office which men appoint without God’s command is lawful and divine. For since it belongs only to God to rule His Church, so He claims this right as His own, that is, to prescribe the way and manner of administration.

Therefore, I consider it indisputable that the Papal priesthood is spurious, for it has been framed in the workshop of men. God nowhere commands a sacrifice to be offered now to Him for the expiation of sins; nowhere does He command priests to be appointed for such a purpose.

So, when the Pope ordains his priests for the purpose of sacrificing, the Apostle denies that they should be considered lawful priests. They cannot, therefore, be such, unless by some new privilege they exalt themselves above Christ; for Christ Himself dared not take this honor upon Himself but waited for the Father's command.

This principle also applies to individuals: no one should seize this honor for himself without public authority. I am speaking now of divinely appointed offices.

At the same time, it may sometimes happen that someone not called by God is nevertheless to be tolerated—however little they may be approved—provided the office itself is divine and approved by God. For many often creep in through ambition or other bad motives, their call having no evidence; and yet they are not to be immediately rejected, especially when this cannot be done by the public decision of the Church.

For during two hundred years before the coming of Christ, the foulest corruptions prevailed regarding the priesthood, yet the right of honor, which proceeds from God's calling, still continued for the office itself; and the men themselves were tolerated, because the freedom of the Church was subverted.

Thus, it appears that the greatest defect lies in the nature of the office itself—that is, when men, on their own, invent what God has never commanded. Then, those Romish sacrificers are even less endurable, who prattle of nothing but their own titles so that they may be counted sacred, while yet they have chosen themselves without any authority from God.

Thou art my Son, etc. This passage may seem to be far-fetched; for though Christ was begotten of God the Father, he was not on this account made also a priest. But if we consider the end for which Christ was manifested to the world, it will plainly appear that this character necessarily belongs to him.

We must however bear especially in mind what we said on the first chapter: that the begetting of Christ, of which the Psalmist speaks, was a testimony which the Father rendered to him before men. Therefore the mutual relation between the Father and the Son is not what is here intended; but attention is rather given to men to whom he was manifested.

Now, what sort of Son did God manifest to us? One endowed with no honor, with no power? No, one who was to be a Mediator between himself and man; his begetting then included his priesthood.

As he says in another place, or, elsewhere, etc. Here is expressed more clearly what the Apostle intended. This is a remarkable passage, and indeed the whole Psalm from which it is taken, for there is hardly anywhere a clearer prophecy concerning Christ’s eternal priesthood and His kingdom.

And yet the Jews try all means to evade it, to obscure the glory of Christ, but they cannot succeed. They apply it to David, as though he was the person whom God commanded to sit on His right hand; but this is an instance of extreme effrontery, for we know that it was not lawful for kings to exercise the priesthood.

On this account, Uzziah, that is, for the sole crime of meddling with an office that did not belong to him, so provoked God that he was struck with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:18). It is therefore certain that neither David nor any one of the kings is intended here.

If they raise this objection and say that princes are sometimes called כהנים cohenim, priests, I indeed allow it, but I deny that the word can be so understood here. For the comparison made here leaves nothing doubtful: Melchizedek was God’s priest; and the Psalmist testifies that the king whom God has set on His right hand would be a kohen according to the order of Melchizedek.

Who does not see that this is to be understood of the priesthood? For as it was a rare and almost singular thing for the same person to be a priest and a king—at least an unusual thing among God’s people—therefore he presents Melchizedek as the type of the Messiah, as if he had said, “The royal dignity will not prevent him from exercising the priesthood also, for a type of such a thing has already been presented in Melchizedek.” And indeed all among the Jews who have any modesty have conceded that the Messiah is the person spoken of here, and that His priesthood is what is commended.

What is in Greek, κατὰ τάξιν according to the order, is in Hebrew, על-דברתי ol-deberti, and means the same. It may be rendered, “according to the way” or manner. This confirms what I have already said: that as it was an unusual thing among the people of God for the same person to hold the office of both a king and a priest, an ancient example was brought forward by which the Messiah was represented. The rest the Apostle himself will explain in more detail in what follows.