| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP 
THERE are three general parts of this chapter; — First, A description of the office and duties of a high priest, verses 1-4. Secondly, The application of this general description unto the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ in particular, verses 5-10. Thirdly, An occasional diversion into a reproof of and expostulation with.the Hebrews, for and about their backwardness in learning the mysteries of the gospel, begun in this, and carried on in the beginning of the next chapter, verses 11-14. In the first part, the general description of a high priest is given: 1. From his original; he is “taken from among men.” 2. From the nature of his office; he is “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” 3. From the especial end of it; to “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,” verse 1:4. From the qualification of his person for the discharge of his office; for he must be one that “can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way:” whereunto is subjoined the ground of that qualification; for “he himself also is compassed with infirmity,” verse 2:5. From the continual duty arising from his office and personal qualification for it, in respect of others and himself; for “by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins,” verse 3. 6. From his call to his office: which is, — (1.) Asserted to be from God, “And no man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God;” (2.) Exemplified in the instance of Aaron’s, “As was Aaron,” verse 4. Secondly, The ajpo>dosiv , or “application” of this description unto the person of Jesus Christ (which is the second part of the chapter), is not to show an exact conformity thereunto, as though all things should be the same, and even or equal, in the high priest which he had described and him whom he would now represent unto them. This would have been contrary to the design of the apostle. For the description he hath given us of a high priest is of him, or such a one as the Hebrews had under the law; and his purpose was to show them how much more excellent a priest he was of whom he treated. There must, therefore, of necessity be sundry differences between them. Wherefore, in the application of this description of a legal high priest unto the person and office of Christ, three things (as we shall show afterwards in particular) the apostle aimeth at: — 1. To demonstrate that there was nothing essentially requisite unto the constituting of any one to be a high priest, or in the discharge of that office, but it was found in and agrees unto the Lord Jesus Christ; 2. Whatever was of weakness or infirmity in the high priest of old, on the account of his infirm and frail condition, that Jesus Christ was free from; 3. That he had in this office several pre-eminences and advantages which the old high priest was not partaker of or sharer in: which things will in our progress be explained. Hence the application made by the apostle of the precedent description is not to be expected such as should exactly correspond with it in all particulars. Wherefore, — 1. By a u[steron pro>teron , he insisteth first, in the application, on the last instance of his description, namely, the call of a high priest. And this as to the person of Christ is expressed, — (1.) Negatively, “He glorified not himself to be made a priest:” (2.) Positively, it was of God; which he proves by a double testimony, one from Psalm 2:7, the other from <19B004> Psalm 110:4-6. 2. On the discharge of his office whereunto he was so called of God: which he describes, — (1.) From the season of it; “it was in the days of his flesh:” (2.) The manner of its performance; “he offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears: (3.) The general issue of it; he “was heard in that he feared,” verse 7. 3. He proceeds by the anticipation of an objection, and therein the declaration of a singular pre-eminence that he had above all other priests, with the love and condescension with which the discharge of his office was accompanied; together with the great benefit which ensued thereon: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” verse 8. 4. The glorious end of his priesthood, manifesting the incomparable excellency of it above that of Aaron, is expressed verse 9. All issuing, — 5. In a summary description of his call and office, as he intends afterwards to enlarge upon them, verse 10. The third part of the chapter contains a diversion unto a reproof of and expostulation with the Hebrews, about the things concerning which he intended to treat with them: wherein is expressed, — 1. The occasion; and that, — (1.) On the part of the things which he treated about, not absolutely, but with respect unto them, “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered;” (2.) On their part, “Seeing that ye are dull of hearing,” verse 11. 2. This fault of theirs, occasioning their reproof, is aggravated, — (1.) From the means and advantages to the contrary which they had enjoyed, verse 12; (2.) By a particular elegant description of the nature of that weakness, evil, and defect which he blamed in them, verses 12,13; (3.) By a declaration of the contrary virtue, the want whereof in them he complains of, verse 14. This is the substance of the discourses of this chapter, considered apart by themselves. We must also inquire into their relation unto those foregoing, and the design of the apostle in them, which is twofold; for, — First, They have respect unto his general purpose and aim. And herein they contain an entrance into a full and particular description of the sacerdotal office of Christ, with the excellency of it, and the benefits which thereby redound unto the church. This was the principal intention of the apostle in the writing of this epistle; for besides the excellency of the doctrine hereof in itself, and the inestimable benefits which the whole church receiveth thereby, it was peculiarly for many reasons necessary for the Hebrews, as hath been showed. Wherefore in the first chapter he lays down a description of the person of Christ, which, under the new testament, is vested with all those sacred offices in and over the church of God which were typically exercised by others under the old. Of these, in the following chapters he more particularly treats of his kingly and prophetical; comparing him therein with Moses and Joshua, showing in sundry instances his pre-eminence above them. He had also by the way interserted several things concerning his sacerdotal office, with a general description whereof, and declaration of the advantage of the church thereby, he closeth the foregoing chapter. In all these things it was the purpose of the apostle not to handle them absolutely, but with respect unto that exercise of them which, by God’s appointment, was in use in the church of the Hebrews under the old testament; for that the nature of his treaty with them did require. And herein he effected two things, both apposite unto his principal end; for, — 1. He declares what it was in all those institutions which God intended to instruct them in, seeing they were all “shadows of good things to come.” So he lets them know that whatever esteem they had of them, and however they rested in them, they were not appointed for their own sakes, but only for a time, to foresignify what was now, in the person and mediation of Christ, actually and really exhibited unto them. 2. He makes it evident how exceedingly the way and worship of God which they were now called unto, and made partakers of under the gospel, did excel those which before they were intrusted with; whence the conclusion was easy and unavoidable, unto the necessity of their stead-. fastness in the profession of the gospel, — the principal thing aimed at in the whole. On these grounds, the apostle undertaketh a comparison between the priesthood of Aaron and his successors and that of Jesus Christ, which was prefigured thereby. And this he doth with respect unto both the ends mentioned; for, first, he shows them how they were of old instructed in the nature and use of that priesthood which, according to the promise of God, was to be introduced and erected in the church in the person of his Son. Hence he lays down sundry things which they knew to belong unto the priesthood of old, whence they might learn somewhat, yea much, of the nature of this now exhibited, seeing they were instituted on purpose to declare it, although they did it but obscurely. And then also he makes known the excellency of this priesthood of Christ above that of old, as the substance excels the shadow, and the permanent thing represented, the obscure and fading representations of it. Unto the handling of these things an entrance is here made, which, with sundry occasional diversions, is pursued to the end of the 10th chapter. Secondly, In particular, the present discourse of this chapter hath relation unto what immediately precedes in the close of the foregoing; for having therein proposed to their consideration the priestly office of Christ, and given a glorious description of it in general, with respect unto his person and exaltation, he shows how greatly this conduces to the advantage and’ consolation of the church, as may be seen in the text, and our exposition of it. To confirm what be had so proposed, and to strengthen our faith in expectation of the benefits expressed, he enters upon a particular description of that office as exercised by Christ; and in this respect the ensuing discourse renders the reasons and gives the grounds of what he had immediately before laid down and declared. VERSE 1. Pa~v ga And the Ethiopic is, “appointed for men with” (or “before”) “God;’ that is, to do for them what is to be done with God. Vulg. Lat., “in iis quae sunt ad Deum,” “in the things appertaining unto God,” or which are to be done with him. So Arias, “ea quae ad Deum,” to the same purpose. Beza, “in iis quae sunt apud Deum peragenda,” “in the things that are to be performed towards God;” more properly than ours and the Rhemists, “in things pertaining to God,” for so do things innumerable, on one account or other, that are not here intended. Dw~ra . Syr., anB;r]Yq , “oblations,” “offerings;’“ a general name for all sacrifices.
Pa~v ga And the high priest was a single person, there was but one at one time, the better to type out the office of Christ. It is true in the gospel there is mention tw~n ajrciere>wn , of the “high priests” that then were, Matthew 2:4, 16:21, which we render “chief priests.” So Sceva, the father of the vagabond exorcists, is said to be ajrciereu>v , Acts 19:l4. But these were only such as were ejk ge>nouv ajrcieratikou~ , Acts 4:6, of the stock and near kindred of him who was at present high priest, or of that family wherein at present the high priesthood was; for out of them in an ordinary course a successor was to be taken. It may be, also, that those who were the heads or chiefs of the several orders or courses of the priests were then so called. But absolutely by the law the high priest was but one at one time.
And it is of the high priest according to the law of Moses that the apostle speaks. Grotius thinks otherwise: “Non tantum legem hic respicit; sed et morem ante legem, cum ant primogeniti familiarum, aut a populis electi reges, inirent sacerdotium;” — “He respects not only the law, but the manner before the law, when the firstborn of the families, or kings chosen by the people, took and exercised the priesthood.” But it is of a high priest distinctly concerning whom the apostle speaks; and that there were any such among the people of God, either by natural descent or the consent of many, before the law, is not true. And this supposition is contrary to the design of the apostle, who treats with the Hebrews about the privileges and priesthood which they enjoyed by virtue of the law of Moses. So he says expressly, Hebrews 7:11, “If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood.” That is it whereof he speaks. And verse 28, “The law maketh men high priests.” He discourseth of the priests appointed by the law, that is, of Moses, and of them only.
Some expositors of the Roman church, as our Rhemists, take occasion to assert the necessity of a Christian priesthood to offer sacrifices to God, as also to dispose of all things wherein the worship of God is concerned, and to reprove kings and princes if they interpose aught therein, it being a matter wherewith they have not any thing to do. But they cannot really imagine that the apostle had the least intention to teach any such thing in this place; and therefore the most sober interpreters amongst them do confine their discourses unto the Levitical priesthood. Yea, indeed, the purpose of the apostle is to prove that all priesthood properly so called, and all proper sacrifices to be offered up by virtue of that office, were issued in the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, seeing the sole use and end of them were to represent and prefigure these in the church. And to deny them now to be passed away, or to plead the continuance of any other proper priesthood and sacrifice, is to deny that Jesus is come in the flesh; which is “that spirit of antichrist,” 1 John 4:3. jEx ajnqrw>pwn lambano>menov , “taken from among men.” This expression is not part of the subject of the proposition, or descriptive merely of that which is spoken of, as if the whole should be, “every high priest taken from among men;” in which way and sense they are restrictive of the subject spoken of, as containing a limitation in them, and so intimate that it is thus with every high priest who is taken from amongst men., though it may be otherwise with others who are not so. But this is one of the things which is attributed unto every high priest, every one that is so absolutely; he who is so is to be “taken from among men.” And “ex hominibus assumptus” is as much as “ex hominibus assumitur,” is taken from amongst men; and the whole sense may be supplied by a copulative interposed before the next words, “is taken from amongst men, and is ordained.” This is, then, the first thing that belongs unto a high priest, and which here is ascribed unto him, “he is taken from amongst men.”
And two things are here considerable: — 1. That he is from amongst men; and, 2. That he is taken from amongst them. 1. He is ejx ajnqrw>pwn , and herein two things are included: — (1.) That he is “naturae humanae particeps.” He is, and must be, partaker in common of human nature with the rest of mankind, or he is not, on many reasons, meet for the discharge of this office. Neither the divine nature nor angelical is capable of the exercise of it for men; and this is principally intended. (2.) That antecedently unto his assumption unto this office he was among the number of common men, as having nothing in his nature to prefer him above them. So was it with Aaron; he was a common man amongst his brethren, yea, a mean man in bondage, before his call to office. The first of these declares what every high priest is and ought to be; the latter, what the first legal high priest actually was.
I showed before that in this description of the office of a high priest, and the application of it unto Jesus Christ, those things which are essential thereunto, and without which it could not be duly executed, are found in him, and that in a far more perfect and excellent manner than in the priests of the law; but those things which, although they were found necessarily in all that were vested with this office, yet belonged not to the office itself, nor the execution of it, but arose from the persons themselves and their imperfections, they had no place in him at all. So is it here. It was essential to the office itself that he should be partaker of human nature; and that it was so with the Lord Christ our apostle signally declares, with the reason of it, Hebrews 2:14: but it was not so that he should be absolutely in the common state of all other men, antecedently to his call to office; for so the apostle declares that he was not, but he was the Son, the Son of God, Hebrews 5:8. So “the Son was consecrated,” that is, a priest, “for evermore,” Hebrews 7:28. For he was born into this world king, priest, and prophet unto his church. 2. Lambano>menov , “assumptus,” or “is taken,” is separated from them.
Being made a high priest, he is no more of the same rank and quality with them.
JUpe But ‘in their behalf,’ or ‘for their good and advantage, to perform what on their part is with God to be performed,’ is evidently intended in this place.
Kaqi>statai ta< pro Now this latter part of his ordination belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of that priesthood, that he could not be consecrated without the sacrifice of other things. But the Lord Christ, being both priest and sacrifice himself, he needed no such ordination, nor was capable thereof.
His ordination, therefore, consisted merely in divine designation and appointment, as we shall see. And this difference there was to be between them who were made high priests by the law, and which had infirmity, and him who was made by the word of the oath of God, who is the Son, Hebrews 7:28.
Ta< pro But our Savior seems to comprise all offerings whatever under the name or “gifts” Matthew 5:23. And if a distinction be here to be supposed, I should think that by “gifts” all “freewill offerings” might be intended; and by “sacrifices,” those that were determined, as to occasions, times, and seasons, by the law. But I rather judge that the apostle useth these two words in general to express all sorts of sacrifices for sin whatever; and therefore that expression, uJpe Ver. 1. — For every high priest, taken from amongst men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
What is the relation of these words unto the discourse of the apostle, both in general and particular, hath been declared before. I shall pursue that only which is particular and immediate. Having therefore proposed the priesthood of Christ as a matter of great advantage and comfort unto believers, he engageth into the confirmation thereof, by declaring the nature of that office, making application of what he observes therein unto the Lord Christ, as our high priest. In this verse we have, as was said, a general description of a high priest, as his office was constituted and consummated by the law. For, — 1. he is described from his original. He is one “taken from among men,” from amongst those for whom he is to be a priest, that so he may be one partaker of the same nature with them, Exodus 28:1. He was not to be an angel, whose nature was incapable of those compassionate impressions which are required unto a due discharge of this office. Besides, the administrations of an angel amongst sinners would have been attended with dread and terror, and have taken away that spiritual boldness and confidence which a high priest is to encourage men unto. Moreover, there would not have been hereby any representation of that union between the Lord Christ and us which was indispensably necessary unto our high priest, who was to be himself both priest and sacrifice. Wherefore a high priest was to be “taken from among men,” and so was our Lord Christ, as hath been at large declared on Hebrews 2:10-16. And we are taught that, — Obs . 1. Christ’s participation of our nature, as necessary unto him for the bearing and discharge of the office of a high priest on our behalf, is a great ground of consolation unto believers, a manifest evidence that he is and will be tender and compassionate towards them. The reader may consult what hath been discoursed to this purpose on Hebrews 2:10,11, etc. 2. He is described from the nature of his office in general, lie is “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” There are things to be done with God on the behalf of men as sinners, and with respect unto sin, as is declared in the close of the verse. Hence arose the necessity of priests, as we have showed elsewhere. Had there been no sin, no atonement to be made with God for sin, every one in his own person should have done that which appertained unto God, or what he had to do with God. For God required nothing of any man but what he might do for himself. But now, all men being sinners, God will not immediately be treated withal by them; and besides, there is that now to be done for them which in their own persons they cannot perform. It was therefore upon the account of the interposition of Jesus Christ, with respect unto his future priesthood, that any one was ever admitted to treat with God about an atonement for sin; and this was the ground of the typical priesthood of old. Those priests were “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” Obs . 2. It was the entrance of sin that made the office of the priesthood necessary. This hath been abundantly confirmed elsewhere. Obs . 3. It was of infinite grace that such an appointment was made.
Without it all holy intercourse between God and man must have ceased; for neither, 1. were the persons of sinners meet to approach unto God, nor, 2. was any service which they could perform, or were instructed how to perform, suited unto the great end which man was now to look after, — namely, peace with God. For the persons of all men being defiled, and obnoxious unto the curse of the law, how should they appear in the presence of the righteous and holy God? Isaiah 33:14; Micah 6:6,7. It may be it will be said, ‘That these priests themselves, of whom the apostle treateth in the first place, were also sinners, and yet they were appointed for men in things appertaining unto God; so that sinners may appear in such matters before the Lord.’ I answer, It is true, they were so. And therefore our apostle says that they were to offer for their own sins as well as for the sins of the people, verse 3; but then they did none of them officiate in that office merely in their own names and on their own account, but as they were types and representatives of him who had no sin, and whose office gave virtue and efficacy unto theirs. Again, men in their own persons had nothing to offer unto God but their moral duties, which the law of their creation and the covenant of works required of them. Now these, as is known, for many reasons were no way meet or able to make atonement for sin, the great work now to be done with God, and without which every thing else that can be done by sinners is of no consideration. God therefore appointing a new service for this end, namely, that of sacrifices, appointed also a new way, with performance by a priest in the name and behalf of others. And a most gracious appointment it was, as that on which all blessed intercourse with God and all hopes of acceptance with him do solely depend. Though the occasion was grievous, the relief is glorious. Obs . 4. The priest is described by the especial discharge of his duty or exercise of his office; which is his “offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” This is the proper and principal work of a priest, as we have at large declared in our Exercitations. Priests and sacri-rices are so related as that they cannot be separated. Take away the one, and you destroy the other. And these sacrifices here are “for sin ;” that is, offered unto God to make atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation for sin. Obs . 5. Where there is no proper propitiatory sacrifice there is no proper priest. Every priest is to “offer sacrifices for sin;” that is, to make atonement. And therefore, — Obs . 6. Jesus Christ alone is the high priest of his people; for he alone could offer a sacrifice for our sins to make atonement. This our apostle designs to prove, and doth it accordingly, in this and the ensuing chapters. Obs . 7. It was a great privilege which the church enjoyed of old, in the representation which they had, by God’s appointment, of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in their own typical priests and sacrifices. In themselves they were things low and carnal, such as could by no means expiate their sins: that is a work not to be done by the blood of bulls and goats. An expectation of that issue and effect by the mere virtue of such sacrifices, is the highest affront to the nature, rule, holiness, and righteousness of God. But this was their glory and excellency, that they typed out and represented that which should really accomplish the great and mighty work of taking up the controversy between God and man about sin. Obs . 8. Much more glorious is our privilege under the gospel, since our Lord Jesus hath taken upon him, and actually discharged, this part of his office, in offering an absolutely perfect and complete sacrifice for sin. Here is the foundation laid of all our Peace and happiness. And this is now plainly proposed unto us, and not taught by types or spoken in parables. Their teachings of old were obscure, and therefore many missed of the mind of God in them. Hence some thought that they must trust to their sacrifices for their righteousness and pardon.
Of these, some took up with them, and rested in them to their ruin.
Others, more galled with their convictions, thought of other ways, and how they might outdo what God required, seeing they could not trust unto what he did so require, Micah 6:6,7. But now all things are clearly revealed and proposed unto us; for Jesus Christ in the gospel is “evidently crucified before our eyes,” Galatians 3:1. Our way is made plain, so that “wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein,” Isaiah 35:8. The veil being removed, “we all with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord,” 2 Corinthians 3:18. The sum of all is, — Obs. 9. What is to be done with God on the account of sin, that it may be expiated and pardoned, and that the people of God who have sinned may be accepted with him and blessed, is all actually done for them by Jesus Christ, their high priest, in the sacrifice for sin which he offered on their behalf. He was ordained ta< pro How he did it, and what he effected thereby, must be declared in our progress. For the present it may suffice, that there is no more to be done with God about sin, as to atonement, propitiation, and pardon.
There needs no more sacrifice for it, rune masses, no merits, no works of our own.
VERSE 2.
Two things the apostle hath proposed unto himself, which in this and the ensuing verses he doth yet further pursue. 1. A description of a high priest according to the law. 2. The evincing, (1.) That whatever was useful or excellent in such a high priest was to be found in a more eminent manner in Jesus Christ, the only real and proper high priest of the church; as also, (2.) That whatever was weak and infirm in such a priest, necessarily attending his frail and sinful condition, which either eclipsed the glory or weakened the efficacy of the office as by him discharged, had no place in him at all.
For whereas the affections and infirmities of our human nature are of two sorts, — (1.) Such as arise from the essence and constitution of it, and so are naturally and absolutely necessary unto all that are partakers thereof as created; (2.) Such as came occasionally on it by the entrance of sin, which adhere to all that are partakers of our nature as corrupted; — the former sort were necessary unto him that should be a high priest, and that not only unto his being so, as is the participation of our nature in general, but also as to such a qualification of him as is useful and encouraging unto them for whose good he doth exercise and discharge his office; but the latter sort are such as that although they did not evacuate the office in their discharge of it who were obnoxious unto them, as to the proportion of their interest therein, yet was it an impeachment of its perfection, and absolutely hindered it from being able to attain the utmost end of the priesthood.
Wherefore the first sort of these affections, such as are compassion, love, condescension, care, pity, were not only in Christ, our high priest, but also, as graciously prepared, did belong unto his holy qualification for the effectual and encouraging discharge of his office. The latter sort, as death natural, sickness, distempers of mind, producing personal sins inevitably, with other frailties, as they were found in the high priest according to the law, and belonged unto the imperfection of that priesthood; so being either sinful or penal, with respect unto the individual person in whom they were, they had no place in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. To understand, therefore, aright the comparison here made between the high priest under the law and Jesus Christ, or the application of it as spoken concerning a high priest by the law, unto him, we must observe that the apostle designs the two things mentioned in the second particular before laid down: — 1. That all real, necessary, useful conditions and qualifications of a high priest, as required in him by the law, were all of them found in Jesus Christ as our high priest, whereby he did answer and fulfill the representation and prefigurations that were made of him under the old testament. 2. That whatever did adhere necessarily unto the persons of the high priests of old as they were sinful men, partakers of our nature as depraved or corrupted, was not to be sought for nor to be found in him. And unto these there is added, as a necessary exurgency of both, — 3. That sundry things, wherein the peculiar eminency, advancement, and perfection of this office doth consist, were so peculiar unto him, as that they neither were nor could be represented by the high priest made so by the law.
Wherefore it is not an exact parallel or complete resemblance between the legal high priest and Christ, the Son of God, which the apostle designeth, but such a comparison as wherein, there being an agreement in things substantial with respect unto a certain end, yet the differences are great and many; which only can take place where one of the comparates is indeed on many accounts incomparably more excellent than the other. To this purpose is the observation of Chrysostom on the place:
Te>wv ou+n a[ koina> ejsti ti>qhsi prw~ta? kai< to>te dei>knusin o[ti uJpere>cei? hJ ga The words of the second verse are, — Ver. 2. — Metriopaqei~n duna>menov toi~v ajgnoou~si kai< planwme>noiv ¸ejpei< kai< aujto Metrispaqei~n duna>menov . Vulg. Lat., “qui condolere possit,” “that can grieve with.” Rhem., “that can have compassion.” Arias, “mensurate pati potens,” “that is able to bear moderately.” Syr., µ[æ vjænew] Hvep]næ ËmenæD] hKæv]m, an;yaewi , “and who can let down” (or “humble himself”) “his soul, and suffer with,” or condescend to suffer with. Arab., “who can spare and forgive.” The Ethiopic translation, referring this wholly to the high priest under the law, by way of opposition, not comparison, reads it, “who cannot relieve them who err under their hands,” or by their conduct. Eras., “qui compati possit,” “who can suffer together with,” or have compassion on. Beza, “qui quantum saris est possit miserari vicem ignorantium;” that is, “who can sufficiently pity and have compassion on the condition,” etc.
There is not only a variety of expression used, but various senses also are intended by these interpreters, as we shall see in the examination of them.
Ours, “who can have compassion on;” and in the margin, “reasonably bear with.”
Toi~v ajgnoou~si kai< planwme>noiv , “ignorantibus et errantibus.” Bez., “aberrantibus;” whence is ours, “out of the way.” One “out of the way” is properly “aberrans.” Rhem., “and do err.” Arab., “who deal foolishly and err.”
Peri>keitai ajsqe>neian . Syr., vybil] , is “clothed,” compassed with infirmity, as a man is with his clothing that is about him and always cleaving to him.
Ver. 2. — Who can have compassion on [is able mercifully to bear with ] the ignorant, and those that wander from the way, seeing that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
The discourse begun in the preceding verse is here continued, and all things spoken in it are regulated by the first words of it, “Every high priest;” — ‘Every high priest is one who can have compassion.’ And the same construction and seine is carried on in the next verse.
There are three things in the words: — 1. A great and necessary qualification or endowment of a high priest; he is, he was to be, one who is “able to have compassion.” 2. The peculiar object of his office acts, proceeding from and suited unto that qualification; which is, “those who are ignorant, and do wander from the way.” 3. A special reason, rendering this qualification necessary unto him, or the means whereby it is ingenerated in him; “he himself is compassed with infirmity:” which things must be particularly inquired into. 1. Metriopaqei~n duna>menov . Du>namai doth first and properly signify natural ability , a power for the effecting of any thing. And it is used concerning God and man, according to their distinct powers and abilities; — the one original and absolutely infinite; the other derived, dependent, and variously limited. This is the first and proper signification of the word, which is so known as that it needs no confirmation by instances. Secondly, It signifies a moral power, with respect unto the bounds and limits of our duty. So, “Illud possumus quod jure possumus,” — “That we can do which we can do lawfully.” Men can do many things naturally that they cannot do morally, — that is, justly; and they do so every day. Corinthians 10:21, Ou< du>nasqe poth>rion Kuri>ou pi>nein kai< poth>rion daimoni>wn , — “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils;” ‘ye cannot do it righteously, ye ought not to do it.’ Corinthians 13:8, Ouj ga Metrispaqei~n . This word is nowhere used in the New Testament but in this place only; and, as most suppose, it is here used in a sense new and peculiar. Hence have interpreters so variously rendered this word, as we before observed. Nor are expositors less divided about its sense, though the differences about it are not great nor of importance, seeing all ascribe a sound and useful meaning unto it. In other writers it signifies constantly to “moderate affections.” Metriopaqh>v is “modicè,” or “moderatè affectus; qui modum tenet in animi perturbationibus;” — “one who is moderate in his affections; who exceeds not due measure in perturbations of mind.”
And metriopa>qeia is rendered by Cicero, “Modus naturalis in omni perturbatione;” that is, in the consideration of such things as are apt to disturb the mind and affections, especially anger, to observe a mean, not to be moved above or beyond due measure. So metriopaqe>w is “moderate ferre,” to “bear any thing,” especially provocations unto anger, “moderately,” without any great commotion of affections, so as to be stirred up to wrath, severity, and displeasure. So Arias, “mensurate” (better “ moderate”) “pati potens.” An example hereof we may take in Moses. He was metriopaqh>v in a high and excellent manner; whence is that character given of him by the Holy Ghost, Numbers 12:3, “Now the man Moses was daom] wn;[; (prau~>v sfo>dra ), “very meek above all men.” It is spoken of him with respect unto his quiet and patient bearing of exasperating provocations, when he was opposed and reproached by Miriam and Aaron. He was metriopaqh>v ; but as the best in the best of men is but weak and imperfect, so God in his wisdom hath ordered things that the failings of the best should be in their best, or that wherein they did most excel; that no man should glory in himself, but that “he that glorieth should glory in the Lord.” Thus Abraham and Peter failed in their faith, wherein they were so eminent. And the failure afterwards of Moses was in this meekness or moderate bearing with provocations. He was not able in all things metriopaqei~n , but, upon the provocation of the people, “spoke unadvisedly” and in wrath, saying, “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Numbers 20:10. This privilege is reserved in every case for Christ alone; he can always bear “quantum satis est,” so much as shall assuredly prevent any evil consequent whatever.
If the word be used in this sense, then respect is had to what is of provocation and exasperation in those who are “ignorant and out of the way.” ‘The high priest is one who is fit and able to bear moderately and quietly with the failings, miscarriages, and sins of those for whom he executes his office; not breaking out into any anger or excess of indignation against them by reason of their infirmities.’ And this, as applied unto Jesus Christ, is a matter of the highest encouragement and consolation unto believers. Were there not an absolute sufficiency of this disposition in him, and that as unto all occurrences, he must needs cast us all off in displeasure.
Erasmus expresseth it by “qui placabilis esse possit,” one “who may be appeased,” who is ready to be pleased again when he is angry or provoked.
But the apostle doth not teach us herein how the high priest may be appeased when he is angry, but how remote he is, or ought to be, from being so on any occasion.
The Vulg. Lat., as we saw, reads, “qui condolere possit;” which is the same with duna>menov sumpaqh~sai , Hebrews 4:15, “can be touched with a feeling.” And it is not improbable but that metriopaqei~n may be used here in the same sense with sumpaqh~sai , Hebrews 4:15. But then it may be questioned whether “condoleo,” “to grieve with,” be as extensive and significant as “compatior;” which also it may, seeing the proper signification of “doleo” is to have a sense of pain. And thus no more should be intended than what we have already opened on those other places, What is said belongs to the description of the nature of a high priest as he is merciful, and of his disposition unto pity and compassion, with his readiness thereon to relieve and succor them that are tempted.
But I cannot judge that the apostle useth this word merely as it were for change, without a design to intimate something further and peculiar therein.
Hence is that translation of Beza, “qui quantum satis est miserari possit vicem,” — “Who can meetly and sufficiently pity the condition of the ignorant.” By me>triov , in this composition, the apostle intends the just and due measure of a disposition unto compassion. Not that he sets bounds unto it with respect unto any excess, as if he had said, ‘He hath no more compassion or condolency than becomes him, — he shall observe a measure therein, and not exceed it;’ which, although it be true, yet is not the intimation of it in this place unto his purpose. But he is one that doth not come short herein, who will not fail in any instance, who hath a sufficient measure of it to answer the condition and necessities of all with whom he hath to do. And this doth not infer a new sense, distinct from that last before mentioned, but only further explains it, according to the intention of the apostle in the peculiar use of this word.
I see no reason to confine myself unto either of these senses precisely, but do rather think that the apostle on purpose made use of this word to include them both. For, — Suppose the object of this qualification of the high priest, in them that are ignorant and do wander out of the way, be their ignorance and wanderings, that is, their sins, and those considered as containing a provocation of himself, as every sin is attended with provocation; then duna>menov metriopaqei~n is “qui potest moderate ferre,” “who is able to bear with them with that due moderation of mind and affections,” as not to have any vehement commotion of the one or the other against them: for if he should be liable unto such impressions provoked to call them “rebels as did Moses; and to he would be to say, as in the prophet, “I will feed you no more; let that that dieth die,” Zechariah 11:9. But he is able to bear with them patiently and meekly, so as to continue the faithful discharge of his office towards them and for them. This, as we observed, Moses was not able always to do, as he also complains, Numbers 11:12, “Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child?” Yet this is required in a high priest, and that he should no more cast off poor sinners for their ignorance and wanderings than a nursing father should cast away a sucking child for its crying or frowardness; which whoso is ready to do is very unfit for that duty. So our apostle, in his imitation of Jesus Christ, affirms that in the church he was “gentle among them, even as a nurse cherisheth her children,” 1 Thessalonians 2:7; — not easy to be provoked, not ready to take offense or cast off the care of him. So it is said of God, Acts 13:18, that for forty years ejtropofo>rhse , “he bare with the manners of the people in the wilderness;” or as some read it, ejtrofofo>rhse , “he bare” or “fed them, as a nurse feedeth her child.” Thus ought it to be with a high priest, and thus is it with Jesus Christ. He is able, with all meekness and gentleness, with patience and moderation, to bear with the infirmities, sins, and provocations of his people, even as a nurse or a nursing father beareth with the weakness and frowardness of a poor infant.
Again; suppose the immediate object of this qualification of the high priest to be the sins, temptations, and infirmities of his people, as they are grievous, troublesome, and dangerous unto themselves; then this duna>menov metriopaqei~n signifies his nature and disposition as meet, prepared, and inclined, so to pity and commiserate, and consequently relieve in the way of his office, as shall be sufficient on all occasions. He is one that wants no part nor degree of a compassionate frame of heart towards them.
Both these the word signifies as diversely applied; and both of them, if I mistake not, are intended by the apostle; and for this end, that they might be both included, did he make use of this singular word. At least, I am not able to embrace either of these senses unto the exclusion of the other. A high priest, therefore, is one who can quietly bear with the weaknesses and sinful provocations of them that are ignorant and wander out of the way, as also commiserate or pity them unto such a measure and degree as never to be wanting unto their help and assistance; such a person as is lD;Ala, lyKic]mæ , Psalm 41:2, — one that is so “wise and understanding” in the state and condition of the poor as duly to relieve them. 2. The compassion described, accompanied with meek and patient bearing, is exercised towards the “ignorant and them that are out of the way.”
These words may be taken two ways; — first, as distinctive; secondly, as descriptive of the object of this compassion. In the first way the sense of them is, ‘Whereas there are amongst the people of God some, or many, that are ignorant and out of the way, the compassion of the high priest is to be extended unto them; yea, this qualification doth respect them chiefly: so that they need not be discouraged, but boldly make use of his help and assistance in every time of distress.’ “The ignorant and them that are out of the way;” that is, those among the people who are so. In the latter way, all the people of God are intended. There are, indeed, degrees in these things, some being more affected with them than others; for there are degrees in the infirmities and sins of believers. And those who are most obnoxious unto them are hereby encouraged to expect relief by the high priest. Yet in general this is the condition of all the people of God, they fall more or less under these qualifications. And because they are so, so obnoxious unto ignorance and wanderings; because actually in sundry things they are ignorant and do err from the right way; and because they know this in some measure of themselves, and are therefore apt to be cast down and discouraged, the Holy Ghost here proposeth this qualification of a high priest for their relief, as that which is required in him, and necessary unto him for that end. And as such, he had peculiarly to do with the people in his dealing with God on their behalf, both in his oblations and intercessions. So it is said of our Savior, the great high priest, that he “made reconciliation for the sins of the people,” and “intercession for the transgressors.” And this is the proper sense of the words. It is the whole people of God who are thus described, as they lie under the eye and care of their high priest. But because, also, it is their duty to make application unto him for relief, which they will not do without a sense of their want, it is required, moreover, in this description, that they be burdened with an apprehension of the guilt and danger that are in these things, — those who are sensible of their ignorance and wanderings.
Toi~v ajgnoou~si , “to them that are ignorant.” Not the mere affection of the mind or ignorance itself, but the consequences and effects of it in actual sins, are principally intended: ‘To such as are obnoxious to sinning, to such as sin, through the ignorance and darkness of their minds.’ There was under the law a sacrifice provided for them who sinned hg;g;v]bi , through “ignorance” or “error,” Leviticus 4. For whereas, in the first three chapters, Moses had declared the institution and nature of all those sacrifices in general whereby the justification and sanctification of the church was typically wrought and represented, with the obligation that thence was upon them to walk in new obedience and holiness; he supposeth yet, notwithstanding what was done, that there would be sins yet remaining among the people, which, if they had no relief for or against, would prove their ruin. As our apostle, in answer thereunto, having declared the free justification of sinners through the obedience and blood of Christ, Romans 4:5, with their sanctification flowing from the efficacy of his life and death, Romans 6, yet adds that there will be a remaining principle of sin in them, bringing forth fruits and effects answerable unto its nature, Romans 7, which he declares how we are relieved against by Jesus Christ, Romans 8; so was it in the institution of these sacrifices, whose order and nature is in this chapter [ Leviticus 4] unfolded. For, as was said, after the declaration of the sacrifices which concerned the justification and sanctification of the church in general, Moses distributes the following sins of the people into two sorts; into those which were committed hg;g;ç]bi , by “ignorance,” unadvisedly, or in error; and those which were committed hm;r; dy;B] , with a “high hand,” or “presumptuously.” For those of the first sort there were sacrifices allowed; but those who were guilty of the latter were to be cut off: Numbers 15:27,28,30, “If any soul, sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin-offering. And the priest, shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously” (with an high hand),...... “the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”
And it is so also under the gospel. For after we profess an interest in the sacrifice of Christ unto our justification and sanctification, there are sins that men may fall into “presumptuously,” and “with an high hand,” for which there is no relief: “For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” Hebrews 10:26,27.
All other sins whatever come within the rank and order of them which are committed hg;g;v]bi , by “ignorance” or error of mind. Of these there is no man that liveth and is not guilty, Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 Samuel 2:2. Yea, they are so multiplied in us or upon us as no man living can know or understand them, Psalm 19:12. By sins of ignorance, then, are not understood only those which were “ex ignorantia juris,” or when men sinned against the law because they knew, it not; doing what it forbade, as not knowing that it was forbidden; and omitting what was commanded, as not knowing that it was commanded. This kind of ignorance Abimelech pleaded in the case of his taking Sarah, the wife of Abraham, in that he knew her not to be a married woman; which plea, as to some part of his guilt, God admits of, Genesis 20:4-6. And this ignorance was that which preserved the case of our apostle, in his blasphemy and persecution, from being remediless, and his sin from being a sin of presumption, or with a high hand, 1 Timothy 1:12,13. But this sort of sins only is not intended, although we see by these instances how great and heinous provocations may be of this kind. But those are in this case, and in opposition unto presumptuous sins, reckoned unto sins of ignorance, when the mind or practical understanding, being corrupted or entangled by the power of sin and its advantageous circumstances, doth not attend unto its duty, or the rule of all its actions; whence actual sin doth ensue. And this is the principal cause and spring of all the sins of our lives, as I have elsewhere declared, treating of the power of indwelling sin. Those, therefore, who are “ignorant” in this place, are such as who, through the inadvertency of their minds, or want of a due and diligent attendance unto the rule of all their actions, do fall into sin as well as those who do so through a mere ignorance of their duty.
He adds, kai< planwme>noiv , “to them that wander out of the way.” The reader may see what we have spoken concerning this word on Hebrews 3:10. Our sinning is often thus expressed, <19B9176> Psalm 119:176, “I have gone astray like a perishing sheep.” Isaiah 53:6, “We like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” We have erred, or wandered astray from the way of God, and tnrned unto our own ways. “Ye were as sheep going astray,” 1 Peter 2:25. But we must observe, that there is a twofold erring or wandering expressed by this word in this epistle. The one is in heart: jAei< planw~ntai th~| kardi>a| , — “They always err in their heart.” The other is in our ways, going out of them; which is here intended. The former is the heart’s dislike of the ways of God, and voluntary relinquishment of them thereon. This answers to the presumptuous sinning before mentioned, and is no object of compassion either in God or our High Priest; for concerning them who did so, “God sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest.” But there may be a wandering in men’s ways, when yet their hearts are upright with God.
So it is said with Asa, that “his heart was perfect all his days,” Chronicles 15:17; yet his great wanderings from the ways of God are recorded, 1 Corinthians 16:7-10,12. There is therefore included in this word a seduction by temptation into some course of wandering for a season from the ways of God. Who then are these of oiJ planw>menoi ?
Even those who by the power of their temptations have been seduced and turned from the straight paths of holy obedience, and have wandered in some crooked paths of their own.
And in these two words doth the apostle comprise all sorts of sinners whatever, with all sorts of sins, and not merely those which are commonly esteemed of infirmity or ignorance; for he intends all those sins which the high priest was to confess, sacrifice, and intercede for, on the behalf of the people. And this was, “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21. It is true, as the law was the instrument of the Jewish polity, there was no sacrifice appointed for some sins, if precisely known and legally proved by witnesses; because the sinners were to be punished capitally, for the preservation of public order and peace. And God would not allow an instance of accepting a sacrifice where the offender was to suffer; which would have overthrown the principal notion of sacrifices, wherein the guilt of the offerer was, as to punishment, transferred unto the beast to be offered. But otherwise, without respect unto civil rule and legal proof, all sorts of sins were to be expiated by sacrifices. And they are here by our apostle reduced unto two heads, whence two sorts of sinners are denominated: — (1.) Such as men fall into by the neglect and failure of their minds in attending unto their duty; which is their sinful ignorance. (2.) Such as men are seduced unto some continuance in through the power of their temptation, and that against their light and knowledge. Such are ignorant or wanderers out of the way. All sorts, therefore, of sins and sinners are comprised in these expressions. And with respect unto them it is required of a high priest, — (1.) That he should not take the provocation of them so high or immoderately as to neglect them or cast them off on their account. (2.) That he should have such pity and compassion towards them as is needful to move him to act for their relief and deliverance. And this the high priest of old was prompted unto, — 3. jEpei< kai< aujto Such are the weaknesses of its condition, with all the dolorous and afflictive affections in doing or suffering that attend it. And this our Lord Jesus Christ himself was compassed withal; whence he was “a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief,” as hath been declared. Had it been otherwise he could not have been such a merciful high priest as we stood in need of; nor, indeed, any priest at all, for he would not have had any thing of his own to offer, if he had not had that nature from which in this life that sort of infirmity is inseparable, Matthew 26:41. (2.) There is a moral infirmity, consisting in an inclination unto sin and weakness as to obedience. ]Ontwn hJmw~n ajsqenw~n , Romans 5:6, “When we were yet infirm (without strength),” is the same with ]Ontwn hJmw~n aJmartwlw~n , verse 8, “while we were yet sinners;” for our weakness was such as was the cause of our sin. See 1 Corinthians 8:7.
And the words, both substantive, adjective, and verb, are frequently used in the New Testament to express bodily weakness by sickness and infirmities of every kind. Nothing hinders but that we may take it here in its most comprehensive signification, for infirmities of all sorts, natural, moral, and occasional. For the first sort do necessarily attend the condition of our human nature, and are requisite unto him that would discharge aright the whole office of a priest. And the following verse, affirming that “for this cause” it was necessary for him “to offer sacrifice for himself,” declares directly that his moral or sinful infirmities are also included. He himself was subject to sin, as the rest of the people. Whence there were peculiar sacrifices appointed for the anointed priest to offer for himself and his own sin. And for the last, or infirmities in bodily distempers unto sickness and death, it is a necessary consequent of the former. Wherefore, as these words have respect unto them that go before, or yield a reason why the high priest is such a one as “can have compassion on the ignorant,” they express the infirmity of nature which inclined him thereunto from a sense of his own weakness and suffering. As they respect what ensues, verse 3, they intend his moral infirmities, or sinful infirmities, with their consequences; from whence it was necessary that he should offer sacrifice for himself. And in the latter sense the things intended belong peculiarly to the high priest according to the law, and not to Christ.
And this obviateth an objection that may be raised from the words For it may be said, ‘If this be so, why is it mentioned in this place as an advantage for the inducing of the high priest unto a due measure of compassion, or to equanimity and forbearance? For if this were not in Christ, he may be thought to come short in his compassion of the legal high priest, as not having this motive unto it and incentive of it.’ Ans. (1.) That natural infirmity whereof our Lord Christ had full experience, is every way sufficient unto this purpose; and this alone was that which qualified the legal high priest with due compassion. His moral infirmity was not any advantage unto him, so as to help his compassion towards the people; which was, as all other graces, weakened thereby. It is therefore mentioned by the apostle only as the reason why he was appointed to offer sacrifice for himself, which Christ was not to do. And what advantage soever may be made of a sense of moral weakness and proneness unto sin, yet is it in itself an evil, which weakens the duty that it leads unto; nor where this is can we expect any other discharge of duty but what proceeds from him who is liable to sin and miscarriage therein.
Now, the Lord Christ being absolutely free from this kind of infirmity, yet made sensible of the one by the other, doth in a most perfect manner perform all that is needful to be done on our behalf. (2.) The apostle treats not of the nature of the priesthood of Christ absolutely, but with respect unto the legal high priests, whom he exalts him above. It was necessary, therefore, that their state should be represented, that it might appear as well wherein he excelled them as wherein there was an agreement between them. And this he did, among other things, in that he was not obnoxious unto any moral infirmity, as they were. From the whole we may observe, — Obs. 1. Compassion and forbearance, with meekness, in those from whom we expect help and relief, are the great motive and encouragement unto faith, affiance, and expectation of them.
It is unto this end that the apostle makes mention of this qualification or endowment of a high priest, with respect unto its application to Jesus Christ. He would thereby encourage us to come unto him, and to expect all that assistance which is necessary to relieve us in all our spiritual distresses, and to give us acceptance with God. No man will expect any good or kindness from one whom he looks upon as severe, incompassionate, and ready to lay hold on occasions of anger or wrath.
When God himself saw it necessary to exercise severity, and give frequent instances of his displeasure, for the preservation of his worship in holiness and order among that stubborn generation in the wilderness, they spake unto Moses, saying, “Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the LORD shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?” Numbers 17:12,13. “Behold, the sword hath killed some of us; and behold, the earth hath swallowed some of us; and behold, some of us are dead with the pestilence,” as the Chaldee Targum expresseth it. Most apprehend this to be a sinful repining against the righteous judgments of God, wherewith they were consumed for their sins. I rather judge it an expression of that bondage, legal apprehension of the terror of the Lord and his holiness, which they were then kept under, finding “the commandment which was ordained to life” to become unto them, by reason of sin, “unto death,” Romans 7:9,10. And therefore that last expostulation, “Shall we be consumed with dying?” is a deprecation of wrath: as Psalm 85:5, “Wilt thou be angry with us for ever?” and Lamentations 5:22, “Wilt thou utterly reject us?”
But evident it is, that want of a clear insight into God’s compassion and forbearance is full of terror and discouragement. And he who framed unto himself a false notion of Christ was thereby utterly discouraged from diligence in his service: “I knew thee, that thou art an hard man,” or an austere, severe man; “and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth,” Matthew 25:24,25; Luke 19:22.
His undue apprehensions of Christ (the proper effect of unbelief) ruined him forever. Wherefore God himself doth not, in his dealings with us, more properly or more fully set out any pro-petty of his nature than he doth his compassion, long-suffering, and forbearance. And as he proposeth them unto us for our encouragement, so he declares his approbation of our faith in them. He delighteth in them that “hope in his mercy,” Psalm 33:18.
Hence, when he solemnly declared his nature by his name to the full, that we might know and fear him, he doth it by an enumeration of those properties which may convince us of his compassionateness and forbearance, and not till the close of all makes any mention of his severity, as that which he will not exercise towards any but such as by whom his compassion is despised, Exodus 34:6,7. So he affirms that “fury is not in him,” Isaiah 27:4. Although we may apprehend that he is angry and furious, ready to lay hold of all occasions to punish and destroy, yet is it not so towards them who desire sincerely to “lay hold of him strongly,” and to “make peace with him” by Jesus Christ, verse 5. Elihu supposed that Job had such apprehensions of God: “Thou hast said, Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy. He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths,” Job 33:10,11. And, indeed, in his agony he had said little less, Job 14:16,17. But it is not so; for if God should so mark iniquities, who could stand? <19D003> Psalm 130:3.
Wherefore the great recompense that God gives to sinners from first to last is from his compassion and forbearance. And as for our Lord Jesus Christ, as mediator, we have evinced that all things were so ordered about him as that he might be filled with tenderness, compassion, and forbearance towards sinners. And as this we stand in need of, so it is the greatest encouragement that we can be made partakers of. Consider us either as to our sins or sufferings, and it will appear that we cannot maintain a life of faith without a due apprehension of it. Obs. 2. Wherefore, secondly, we live, the life of our souls is principally maintained, upon this compassionateness of our high priest; namely, that he is able to bear with us in our provocations, and to pity us in our weaknesses and distresses. To this purpose is the promise concerning him, Isaiah 40:11. There are three things that are apt to give great provocations unto them that are concerned in us: — 1. Frequency in offending; 2. Greatness of offenses; 3. Instability in promises and engagements. These are things apt to give provocations beyond what ordinary moderation and meekness can bear withal, especially where they are accompanied with a disregard of the greatest love and kindness. And all these are found in believers, — some in one, and some in another, and in some all. For, 1. There is in us all a frequency of provocation, as Psalm 19:12.
They are beyond our numbering or understanding. What believer is there that doth not constantly admire how the Lord Christ hath patiently borne with him in the frequency of his daily failings? that he hath carried it towards him without such provocations unto anger as to lay him out of his care? 2. Some of them are overtaken with great offenses, as was the case of Peter; and there is not one of them but, on one account or other, hath reason to make use of the prayer of the psalmist, “Be merciful unto my sin, for it is great.” And great sins are attended with great provocations. That our souls have not died under them, that we have not been rejected of God utterly for them, it is from this holy qualification of our high priest, that he is able sufficiently to bear with all things that are required in the discharge of his office. Were it not so, he would, on one occasion or another wherein now we admire his lenity and forbearance, have “sworn in his wrath that we should not enter into his rest.” 3. Instability in promises and engagements, especially as breaking forth into frequent instances, is a matter of great provocation. This is that which God complains of in Israel, as wherewith he was almost wearied, Hosea 6:4. And herein also do we try, and exercise the forbearance of our high priest. There is not a day wherein we answer and make good the engagements of our own hearts, either in matter or manner, as to our walking before him in the constant exercise of faith and love. And that we are yet accepted with him, it is that du>natai metriopaqei~n , he can bear with us in all patience and moderation.
Again; our ignorances and wanderings are our sufferings, as well as our sins. Sin is the principal affliction, the principal suffering of believers; yea, all other things are light unto them in comparison hereof. This is that which they continually groan under, and cry out to be delivered from.
Herein our high priest is able so to pity us as undoubtedly to relieve us; but this hath been already insisted on. Obs. 3. Though every sin hath in it the whole nature of sin, rendering the sinner obnoxious unto the curse of the law, yet as there are several kinds of sins, so there are several degrees of sin, some being accompanied with a greater guilt than others.
The Papists have a distinction of sins into mortal and venial, which is the foundation of one moiety of their superstition. Some sins, they say, are such as in their own nature deserve death eternal; so that there is no deliverance from the guilt of them without actual contrition and repentance. But some are so slight and small as that they are easily expiated by an observance of some outward rites of the church; however, they endanger no man’s eternal salvation, whether they repent of them or no. The worst is but a turn in purgatory, or the charge of a pardon.
Because this distinction is rejected by Protestants, they accuse them of teaching that all sins are equal. But this they do untruly. That distinction, I confess, might be allowed with respect unto offenses against the law of old, as it was the rule of the Jewish polity. For some of them, as murder and adultery, were to be punished capitally without mercy; which therefore were mortal unto the offenders. Others were civilly as well as typically expiated by sacrifice, and so were venial in the constitution of the law; that is, such as were pardoned of course, by attending to some instituted observances. But with respect unto God, every sin is a transgression of the law; and the “wages” or reward “of it is death,” Romans 6:23. And the curse of the whole law was directed against every one who did not every thing required in it, or failed in any one point of obedience, Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10. And “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10.
But there are degrees of sin, and degrees of guilt in sinning; as, — 1. There is a distinction of sins with respect unto the persons that commit them. But this distinction ariseth from the event, and not from the nature of the sin itself intended. As suppose the same sin committed by an unregenerate person, and by one that is regenerate: unto the latter it shall be pardoned; unto the former, continuing so, it shall never be pardoned.
But whence is this difference? Is it that the sin is less in the one than in the other? Nay, being supposed of the same kind, commonly it hath more aggravating circumstances in the regenerate than in the unregenerate. Is it because God is less displeased with sin in some than in others? Nay, God is equally displeased with equal sins, in whomsoever they are found; if there be any difference, he is more displeased with them in believers than in others. But the difference ariseth merely from the event. Regenerate persons will, through the grace of God, certainly use the means of faith and repentance for the obtaining of pardon, which the other will not; and if they are assisted also so to do, even they in like manner shall obtain forgiveness. No man, therefore, can take a relief against the guilt of sin from his state and condition, which may be an aggravation, but can be no alleviation of it. 2. There are degrees of sin amongst men unregenerate, who live in a course of sin all their days. We see it is so, and it ever was so in the world. And sometimes here, but certainly hereafter, God deals with them, not only according to their state of sin, and their course of sin, but according to the degrees and aggravations of sin in great variety. All do not sin equally; nor shall all be equally punished. 3. In the sins of believers there are different degrees, both in divers and in the same persons. And although they shall be all pardoned, yet have they different effects; with respect, (1.) Unto peace of conscience; (2.) Sense of the love of God; (3.) Growth in grace and holiness; (4.) Usefulness or scandal in the church or the world; (5.) Temporal afflictions; and, (6.) A quiet or troublesome departure out of this world; — but in all a reserve is still to be made for the sovereignty of God and his grace. Obs. 4. Our ignorance is both our calamity, our sin, and an occasion of many sins unto us.
Having declared that the high priest was first to offer sacrifices for the sins of men, and then that he was to be compassionate towards them, both in their sins and sorrows, the first instance which the apostle gives of those who are concerned herein is of “them that are ignorant.” They stand in need both of sacrifice and compassion. And ignorance in spiritual things is twofold: — 1. Original, subjective, and universal. This is that whereby men have “their understandings darkened,” and are “alienated from the life of God,” Ephesians 4:18; the ignorance that is in men unregenerate, not sav-ingly enlightened, consisting in the want or defect of a principle of heavenly or spiritual light in their minds; which I have elsewhere at large described. But it is not this sort of persons nor this sort of ignorance which is here intended. 2. There is an ignorance which is objective and partial, when the light and knowledge that is in us is but weak and infirm, extending itself unto some objects, and affecting the mind with darkness and disorder in the apprehension of them also. And this also may be considered two ways: (1.) Absolutely; and so the best, and the most wise, and the most knowing are ignorant, and to be esteemed among them that are so; for the best “know but in part, and prophesy but in part,” and “see darkly, as in a glass,” 1 Corinthians 13:9,12. Yea, “how little a portion is it that we know of God!” We “cannot by searching find out the Almighty to perfection;” “such knowledge is too wonderful for us.” Yea, we “know nothing perfectly,” neither concerning God nor ourselves. If we know him so as to believe him, fear him, and obey him, it is all that is promised us in this life, all that we can attain unto. Wherefore let the best of us, — [1.] Take care that we be not puffed up, or fall into any vain elation of mind upon the conceit of our knowledge. Alas! how many things are there to be seen, to be known in God, that we know nothing of; and nothing do we know as we ought or as it shall be known. [2.] Endeavor, in the constant use of all means, to grow in the knowledge of God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The more we learn here, the more we shall see there is to be learned. [3.] Long for the time, or rather that eternity, wherein all these shades shall flee away, all darkness be removed from our minds, all veils and clouds taken away from about the divine being and glory; when “we shall see him as he is,” with “open face,” and “know even as we are known:” which is the eternal life and blessedness of our souls. [4.] Know that on the account of the ignorance that is yet in the best, yea, that was in the most holy saint that ever was on the earth, they all stand in need of the compassion of our high priest, to bear with them, pity and relieve them. (2.) This second sort of ignorance may be considered comparatively. So among believers some are more chargeable with this evil than others, and are more obnoxious unto trouble from it. And these we may distinguish into four sorts: — [1.] Such as are young and tender, either in years or in the work of grace upon their souls. These the apostle calls “babes,” and “children,” that have need to be nourished with milk, and not to have their minds overcharged with things too high and hard for them. And concerning this sort many things are spoken graciously and tenderly in the Scripture. [2.] Such as, through the weakness of their natural capacities, are slow in learning, and are never able to attain unto any great measure of sound knowledge and judgment; although we often see many notable natural defects in the minds of them that are sincere to be abundantly compensated by the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” shining plentifully upon them and in them. [3.] Such as are so disposed of by the providence of God, in their outward concerns in this world, as that they enjoy not the means of knowledge and growth therein, at least in so full and effectual a manner as others do.
Hereby are they kept low in their light and spiritual apprehensions of things, and are thereby obnoxious to manifold errors and mistakes. And of these, partly through the blindness of them who in many places take upon themselves to be the only teachers and guides of the disciples of Christ, partly through some sloth of their own in not providing as they ought for their own edification, there is a great number in the world. [4.] Such as by reason of some corrupt affections, spiritual sloth, and worldly occasions, perpetually diverting their minds, are dull and slow in learning the mysteries of the gospel, and thrive but little in light or knowledge under an enjoyment of the most effectual means of them. These our apostle complains of, and reproves in particular, verses 11-13. And this sort of comparative ignorance is attended with the greatest guilt of any; the reasons whereof are obvious. But yet unto all these sorts doth our high priest extend his compassion, and they are all of them here intended.
And he is compassionate to,yard us under our ignorance, — 1. As it is our calamity or trouble; for so it is, and as such he pities us in it and under it. Who is not sensible of the inconveniencies and perplexities that he is continually cast into by the remainders of darkness and ignorance in him? who is not sensible how much his love and his obedience are weakened by them? who doth not pant after fuller discoveries and more clear and stable conceptions of the glorious mystery of God in Christ?
Yea, there is nothing on the account whereof believers do more groan for deliverance from their present state, than that they may be freed from all remainders of darkness and ignorance, and so be brought into a clear and intimate acquaintance with the in-created glories of God, and all the holy emanations of light and truth from them. Herein, then, our merciful high priest exerciseth compassion towards us, and leads us on, if we are not slothfully wanting unto ourselves, with fresh discoveries of divine light and truth; which, although they are not absolutely satisfactory to the soul, nor do utterly take away its thirst after the all-fullness of the eternal Fountain of them, yet do they hold our souls in life, and give a constant increase unto our light towards the perfect day. 2. That this ignorance also is our sin, as being our gradual falling short of the knowledge of the glory of God required in us, and the occasion of manifold failings and sins in our course, — most of our wanderings being from some kind of defect in the conducting light of our minds, — are things known and confessed. And with respect hereunto, namely, that efficacious influence which our ignorance hath into our frequent surprisals into sin, it is principally that we have relief from the compassion of our high priest. Obs. 5. Sin is a wandering from the way. See on Hebrews 3:10. Obs. 6. No sort of sinners is excluded from an interest in the care and love of our compassionate high priest, but only those who exclude themselves by their unbelief. Our apostle useth these two expressions to comprise all sorts of sinners, as they did under the law, unless they were such presumptuous sinners as had no relief provided for them in the institutions thereof. Of this nature is final unbelief alone under the gospel; therefore on all others our high priest is able to have compassion, and will especially exercise it towards poor, dark, ignorant wanderers. And I would not forbear to manage from hence some encouragements unto believing, as also to declare the aggravations of unbelief, but that these discourses must not be drawn out unto a greater length. Wherefore I shall only add on this verse, — Obs. 7. It is well for us, and enough for us, that the Lord Christ was encompassed with the sinless infirmities of our nature. Obs. 8. God can teach a sanctified use of sinful infirmities, as he did in and unto the priests under the law.
VERSE 3.
In the third verse the apostle illustrates what he had asserted concerning the high priest, as to his being “compassed with infirmity,’’ from a necessary consequent thereof: he was to offer sacrifices for his own sins.
Before, he had declared in general that the end of his office was to “offer gifts and sacrifices to God,” — that is, for the sins of the people; but proceeding in his description of him, he mentions his own frailty, infirmity, and obnoxiousness unto sin. And this he did,.that he might give an account of those known institutions of the law wherein he was appointed to offer sacrifices for his own sins also.
Ver. 3. — Kai< dia< tau>thn ojfei>lei , kaqw Ver. 3. — And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins.
Kai< dia< tau>thn : that is, say some, for dia< tou~to , the feminine put for the neuter, by a Hebraism. Hence it is rendered by some “propterea.” But tau>tnh plainly and immediately refers unto ajsqe>neian , “propter hanc,” or “istam infimitatem.” Had the high priest under the law been ajnama>rthtov , without any sin, or sinful infirmity, as the Lord Christ was, he should have had nothing to do but to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people. But it was otherwise with him, seeing he himself also, as well they, was encompassed with sinful infirmities. jOfei>lei , “he ought.” He ought to offer for his own sins, and that on a double account, whereinto this duty or necessity is resolved: — 1. The nature of the things themselves, or the condition wherein he was.
For seeing he was infirm and obnoxious unto sin, and seeing he did, as other men, sin actually in many things, he must have been ruined by his office if he might not have offered sacrifice for himself. It was indispensably necessary that sacrifices should be offered for him and his sin, and yet this no other could do for him; he ought therefore to do it himself. 2. The command of God. He ought so to do, because God had so appointed and ordained that he should. To this purpose there are sundry express legal institutions, as we shall see immediately.
Kaqw Ou[tw kai< peri< eJautou~ , “so for himself;” in like manner, on the same grounds and for the same reasons that he offered for the people. He had a common interest with them in the daily sacrifice, which was the public worship of the whole church; and therein he offered sacrifice for himself also, together and with the people. But besides this there were three sorts of offerings that were peculiar unto him, wherein he offered for himself distinctly or separately: — 1. The solemn offering that ensued immediately on his inauguration: Leviticus 9:2, “And he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish, and offer them before the Lord.” This was for himself, as it is expressed, verse 8, “Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf, which was the sinoffering for himself.” After this he offered distinctly for the people “a kid of the goats for a sin-offering,’’ verses 3,15. And this was for an expiation of former sins, expressing the sanctification and holiness that ought to be in them that draw nigh unto God. 2. There was an occasional offering or sacrifice which he was to offer distinctly for himself, upon the breach of any of God’s commandments by ignorance, or any actual sin: Leviticus 4:3, “If the priest theft is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people” (that is, in like manner as any of the people do sin), “then let him bring, for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin-offering.” After which there is a sacrifice appointed of the like nature, and in like manner to be observed, — (1.) For the sin of the whole people, verse 13; and then (2.) For the sin of any individual person, verse 27. And hereby the constant application that we are, on all actual sins, to make unto the blood of Christ for pardon and purification was prefigured. 3. There was enjoined him another solemn offering, on the annual feast, or day of expiation, which he was to begin the solemn service of that great day withal: Leviticus 16:3, “Aaron shall thus come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.”
Verse 11, “And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for. himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself.” After this, he offers also on the same day, for the sins of the people, verse 15; — a bullock for himself, and a goat for the people. And this solemn sacrifice respecting all sins and sorts of them, known and unknown, great and small, in general and particular, represents our solemn application unto Christ for pardon and sanctification; which as to the sense of them may be frequently renewed. The Jews affirm that the high priest used at his offering this sacrifice the ensuing prayer: — ytyw[ µçh hna twnw[l an rpk µçh ana °çwdq µ[ ˆrha ynbz ytybw yna °ynpl ytafj yt[çp °çwdq µ[ ˆrha ynbw ytybw yna °ynpl ytafjãçw yt[çpçw ytyw[ç yafjlw y[çplw µkytafj lkm µkta rhfl µkyl[ rpky hzh µwyb yk °db[ hçm trwtb btkk hynpl ; — that is, “I beseech thee, O Lord, I have done perversely, have transgressed, I have sinned before thee; I and my house, and the children of Aaron, and thy holy people. I beseech thee, O Lord, be propitious unto, or pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquities,.transgressions, and sins, wherein I have done amiss, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, and thy holy people; according as it is written in the law of Moses thy servant., that in this day thou wouldst pardon and purify us from all our sins.” — Mishnaioth, Tract. Jom. Perek. 4. And all these several sorts of sacrifices for himself were, all of them, as our apostle here speaks, uJpe Expositors generally agree that this is peculiar unto the high priest according to the law, the Lord Christ being neither intended nor included in this expression; for we have showed that, in this comparison, the things compared being on some accounts infinitely distant, there may be that in the one which nothing in the other answers unto. And that the Lord Christ is not intended in this expression appears, — 1. The necessity of this offering for himself by the high priest arose from two causes, as was declared: — (1.) From his moral infirmity and weakness; that is, unto obedience, and obnoxiousness to sin. (2.) From God’s command and appointment; he had commanded and appointed that he should offer sacrifice for himself. But in neither of these had our Lord Christ any concern; for neither had he any such infirmities, nor did God ordain or require that he should offer sacrifice for himself. 2. Actually Christ had no sin of his own to offer for, nor was it possible that he should; for he was made like unto us, “yet without sin.” And the offering of the priest here intended was of the same kind with that which was for the people. Both were for actual sins of the same kind; one for his own, the other for the people’s. 3. It is expressly said, that the Lord Christ “needed not, as they to offer first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; ” and that because he was in himself “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26,27. This, therefore, belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of the legal high priest.
Two expositors of late have been otherwise minded. The first is Crellius or Schlichtingius, who says that the infirmities and evils that Christ was obnoxious unto, are here, by a catachresis, called “sins;” and for them he offered for himself. The other is Grotius, who speaks to the same purpose: “Cum hoc generaliter de omni sacerdote dicitur, sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse pro se uJpe There remaineth one difficulty only to be removed, which may arise from the consideration of this discourse. For it the high priest of old, notwithstanding his own sins, could first offer for himself and then for the people, and so make expiation for all sin, what necessity was there that our high priest should be absolutely free from all sin, as our apostle declares that he was, and that it was necessary he should be, Hebrews 7:26,27; for it seems he might first have offered for his own sin, and then for ours?
Ans. 1. It is one thing to expiate sin typically, another to do it really; one thing to do it in representation, by virtue of somewhat else, another to do it effectually by itself. The first might be done by them that were sinners, the latter could not. 2. On that supposal it would have been iudispensably necessary that our high priest must have offered many sacrifices. Once he must have offered for himself, wherein we should have had no concern; and then he must again have offered himself for us. Hence, whereas he had nothing to offer but himself, he must have died and been offered more than once; which lay under all manner of impossibilities. 3. That a real atonement might be made for sin, it was required that our nature, which was to suffer and to be offered, should be united unto the divine nature in the person of the Son of God; but this it could not be had it not been absolutely sinless and holy. Some observations ensue.
The order of God’s institution, with respect unto the sacrificing of the high priest for himself and the people, is observable; and this was, that he should first offer for himself, and then for them. This order was constant, and is especially observable in the great anniversary sacrifice for atonement on the day of expiation, Leviticus 16. Now the reason of this was, — 1. Typical, that having first received pardon and purification for himself, he might the better prefigure and represent the spotless holiness of our high priest in his offering of himself for us. 2. Moral, to declare how careful they ought to be of their own sins who deal about the sins of others. And we may observe that, — Obs. 1. The absolute holiness and spotless innocency of the Lord Christ in his offering of himself had a signal influence into the efficacy of his sacrifice, and is a great encouragement unto our faith and consolation.
This our apostle informs us to have been necessary, Hebrews 7:26, toiou~tov ga He was “made sin for us” when he was made a “sacrifice for sin,” when “his soul was made an offering for sin.” Hereon depends our being “made the righteousness of God in him,” or righteous before God through him; but not on this as absolutely considered, but as “he was made sin who knew no sin,” who was absolutely innocent and holy. So the apostle.
Peter, mentioning the redemption which we have by his blood, which was in the sacrifice of himself, says it was “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19. And treating again of the same matter, he adds, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” Hebrews 2:22. So Romans 8:3. And we may see herein, — 1. Pure, unmixed love and grace. He had not the least concern in what he did or suffered herein for himself. This was “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that being “rich, for our sakes he became poor.” All that he did was from sovereign love and grace. And will he not pursue the same love unto the end? 2. The efficacy and merit of his oblation, that was animated by the life and quintessence of obedience. There were in it the highest sufferings and the most absolute innocency, knit together by an act of most inexpressible obedience. 3. The perfection of the example that is set before us, 1 Peter 2:21,22.
And from hence we may also observe, that, — Obs. 2. Whosoever dealeth with God or man about the sins of others, should look well, in the first place, unto his own. The high priest was to take care about, and “first to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.” And they who follow not this method will miscarry in their work. It is the greatest evidence of hypocrisy, for men to be severe toward the sins of others and careless about their own. There are four ways whereby some may act with respect unto the sins of others, and not one of them wherein they can discharge their duty aright, if in the same kind they take not care of themselves in the first place. 1. It is the duty of some to endeavor the conversion of others from a state of sin. As this belongs to parents and governors in their place, so is it the chief work of ministers, and principal end of the ministry. So the Lord Christ determines it in his mission of Paul: “I send thee to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me,” Acts 26:17,18. shall he apply himself hereunto, how shall he be useful herein, who was never made partaker of this mercy himself? How can they press that on others which they neither know what it is, nor whether it be or no, any otherwise than as blind men know there are colors? By such persons are the souls of men ruined, who undertake the dispensation of the gospel unto them for their conversion unto God, knowing nothing of it themselves. 2. It is our duty to keep those in whom we are concerned as much as in us lieth from sinning, or from actual sin. “These things I write unto you,” saith the apostle, “that ye sin not.” 1 John 2:1. With what. confidence, with what conscience, can we endeavor this toward others, if we do not first take the highest care herein of ourselves? Some that should watch over others are open and profligate sinners themselves. The preaching, exhortations, and reproofs of such persons do but render them the more contemptible; and on many accounts tend to the hardening of those whom they pretend to instruct. And where men “regard iniquity in their hearts,” although there be no notoriety in their transgressions, yet they will grow languid and careless in their watch over others; and if they keep up the outward form of it, it will be a great means of hardening themselves in their own sin. 3. To direct and assist others in the obtaining pardon for sin is also the duty of some. And this they may do two ways: — (1.) By directing them in their application unto God by Jesus Christ for grace and mercy; (2.) By earnest supplications with them and for them. And what will they do, what can they do in these things sincerely for others, who make not use of them for themselves? look on this as one of the greatest blessings of the ministry, that we have that enjoined us to do with respect unto others which may sanctify and save their souls; and God hath so ordered things that we neither can nor will diligently attend unto any thing of that kind towards others concerning which we do not first endeavor to have its effect upon ourselves. 4. To administer consolation under sinning, or surprisals with sin, unto such as God would have to be comforted, is another duty of the like kind.
And how shall this be done by such as were never cast down for sin themselves, nor ever spiritually comforted of God?
It behoves us, therefore, in all things wherein we may deal with others about sin, to take care of ourselves in the first place, that “our consciences be purged from dead works,” that in all we do we may “serve the living God.” Obs. 3. No dignity of person or place, no duty, no merit, can deliver sinners from standing in need of a sacrifice for sin. The high priest, being a sinner, was to “offer for himself.” Obs. 4. It was a part of the darkness and bondage of the church under the old testament, that their high priests had need to offer sacrifices for themselves and their own sins. This they did in the view of the people; who might fear lest he could not fully expiate their sins who had many of his own, and was therefore necessitated in the first place to take care of himself. It is a relief to sinners, that the word of reconciliation is administered unto them, and the sacrifice of Christ proposed, by men subject unto the like infirmities with themselves; for there is a testimony therein, how that they also may find acceptance with God, seeing he deals with them by those who are sinners also. But these are not the persons who procure the remission, or have made the atonement which they declare. Were it so, who could with any confidence acquiesce therein? But this is the holy way of God: Those who are sinners declare the atonement which was made by him who had no sin.
VERSE 4.
The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of a high priest.
But these alone are not sufficient actually to invest any one with that office; it is required, moreover, that he be lawfully called thereunto. The former make him meet for it, and this gives him his right unto it. And in the application of the whole unto Jesus Christ, this is first insisted on, verse 5.
Ver. 4. — Kai< oujc eJautw~| tiv lamba>nei th There is no difficulty in the rendering of these words, and consequently very little difference among translators. The Syr. and Vulg. Lat. read “honor” absolutely, without taking notice of the article th>n , which is here emphatical, “this honor;” the honor of the priesthood. And for “himself,” the Syriac reads, “to his own soul;” by an idiom of speech peculiar to the eastern languages.
The words may be taken as a negative universal proposition, with a particular exception subjoined. “No man taketh this honor to himself but” only “he who is called.” He that is called taketh this honor to himself, or he that hath right so to do, — namely, to possess and exercise the office of a high priest. Or they may be resolved into two disjunctive propositions: the one universally negative, without exception or limitation, “No man taketh this honor unto himself;” the other particularly affirmative, “He that is called of God,” he doth so, or he receiveth this honor. Thus there is an opposition expressed between a man’s taking this honor unto himself and his receiving of it on the call of God. Or we may yet more plainly express the meaning of the apostle. Having laid down the qualifications necessary unto him who was to be a high priest, he declares what is required for his actual investiture with this office. And this he expresseth, — 1. Negatively he is not to assume this honor to himself: 2. Positively, he is to be called of God; which he exemplifies in the instance of Aaron, “as was Aaron.”
Oujc eJautw~| lamba>nei , “any one doth not take;” that is, no man doth.
And lamba>nw is not here simply “sumo,” “to take;” but “assumo,” “to take upon,” to take to him: or as it sometimes signifies, “prehendo, corripio,” “unduly to take,” by laying hold of any thing. “No man taketh,” that is, according to the law, according to divine institution. It was not the law that men should so do. Men might do otherwise, and did do otherwise, both as to the office and exercise of the priesthood. So did king Uzziah as to the exercise of it, 2 Chronicles 26:16. And at the time of the writing of this epistle, as also for many years before, there had been no lawful order or call observed in those who possessed the office of the high priesthood among the Jews. Some invaded it themselves, and some were intruded into it by foreign power. And both Chrysostom and OEcumenius suppose that our apostle in this place doth reflect on that disorder. His principal intention is plainly to declare how things ought to be, by the law and constitution of God. “No man doth;” that is, no man, ought so to do, for it is contrary to the law and the order appointed of God in his church.
See Numbers 18. God’s institution in the Scripture is so far the sacred rule of all things to be done in his worship, that whatever is not done by virtue thereof, and in conformity thereunto, is esteemed as not done, or not at all done to him. But, — Th For what greater honor can a mortal creature be made partaker of, than to be peculiarly nigh unto God? 2. Because God required that honor should be given both unto the office and person vested with it. For this end partly was he to be adorned with garments made “for beauty and for glory,” and had power given him to rule in the house of God, 1 Samuel 2:30. But even in general, it is a great honor, on any account, to be made nigh unto God. jAlla< oJ kalou~menov , “but he that is called of God.” The called one of God, he hath, he receiveth, he is made partaker of the honor of this office.
He is the high priest whom God calls. And this call of God is the designation of a man unto an office or employment. He doth, as it were, look on a person among others, and calls him out to himself, as Exodus 28:1. It compriseth also the end of the call, in the collation of right, power, and trust, whatever is necessary unto the due exercise of that whereunto any one is called; for God’s will and pleasure is the supreme rule of all order and duty. And this call is here exemplified in the instance of Aaron: “even as was Aaron.”
Kaqa>per kai< oJ jAarw>n , “even as Aaron,” “in like manner as Aaron.”
And the note of similitude is regulated either by the word “called,” or by the subject of the instance, “Aaron.” If by the former, no more is intended but that he must have a call of God, as Aaron had. The comparison proceeds no farther but unto the general nature of a call. A call he must have, but the especial nature of that call is not declared. But if the note of comparison be regulated by the instance of Aaron, then the especial manner and nature of the call intended is limited and determined: ‘ He must be called of God as was Aaron;’ that is, immediately and in an extraordinary way. And this is the sense of the words and place.
It may be objected, ‘If this be so, then all the high priests who succeeded Aaron in the Judaical church are here excluded from a right entrance into their office; for they were not immediately called of God unto their office, as Aaron was, but succeeded one another by virtue of the law or constitution, which was only an ordinary call.’ Ans. It doth not exclude them from a right entrance into their office, but it doth from being considered in this place. They had that call to their office which God had appointed, and which was a sufficient warranty unto them in the discharge of it. But our apostle disputes here about the erection of a new priesthood, such as was that of Christ. Herein no ordinary call, no law-constitution, no succession, could take place, or contribute any thing thereunto. The nature of such a work excludes all these considerations. And he who first enters on such a priesthood, not before erected nor constituted, he must have such a call of God thereunto. So had Aaron at the first erection of a typical priesthood in the church of Israel. He had his call by an immediate word of command from God, singling him out from among his brethren to be set apart unto that office, Exodus 28:1. And although in other things which belonged unto the administration of their office, the Lord Christ is compared to the high priests in general, executing their office according to the law, wherein they were types of him, yet as unto his entrance into his office upon the call of God, he is compared with Aaron only.
This being the proper design of the words, the things disputed by expositors and others from this place, about the necessity of an ordinary outward call to the office of the priesthood, and, by analogy, unto the ministry of the gospel, though true in themselves, are foreign unto the intention of this place; for the apostle treats only of the first erection of a priesthood in the persons of Aaron and Christ, whereunto an extraordinary call was necessary. And if none might take on him the office of the ministry but he that is called of God as was Aaron, no man alive could do so at this day.
Again, the note of similitude expresseth an agreement in an extraordinary call, but not in the manner of it and its special kind. This is asserted, that the one and the other had an immediate call from God, but no more. But as unto the especial kind and nature of this immediate call, that of Christ was incomparably more excellent and glorious than that of Aaron. This will be manifest in the next verses, where it is expressed and declared. In the meantime we shall consider the call of Aaron, as our apostle doth the ministry of Moses, Hebrews 3, declaring wherein indeed it was excellent, that so the real honor of the call of Christ above it may appear: — 1. He was “called of God,” by a word of command for his separation unto the office of the priesthood: Exodus 28:1, “Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.”
His sons were also mentioned, because provision was herein made for succession. This made his call extraordinary, — he was “called of God.”
But, (1.) This command was not given by a word from God immediately unto himself. God doth not say unto him, ‘Thou art my priest; this day have I called thee.’ But it is Moses to whom the command is given, and with whom the execution of it is intrusted. So that, (2.) He is in his call put as it were in the power of another; that is, of Moses. To him God says, “Take unto thee Aaron thy brother;” — ‘Be thou unto him in the room of God, and act towards him in my name.’ 2. This command or call of God was expressed in his actual separation unto his office, which consisted in two things: — (1.) His being arrayed by God’s appointment with glorious garments, Exodus 28:2. And they are affirmed to be contrived on purpose “for beauty and for glory.” But herein also a double weakness is included or supposed: — [1.] That he stood in need of an outward robe to adorn him, because of his own weakness and infirmities, which God would as it were hide and cover, in his worship, under those garments. [2.] That indeed they were all of them but typical of things far more glorious in our high priest, namely, that abundant fullness of the graces of the Spirit, which being poured on him rendered him “fairer than the children of men.” It was therefore a part of the glory of Christ, that in the discharge of his office he stood in no need of outward ornaments, all things being supplied by the absolute perfection of his own personal dignity and holiness. (2.) His actual consecration ensued hereon; which consisted in two things: — [1.] His unction with the holy consecrated oil. [2.] In the solemn sacrifice which was offered in his name and for him, Exodus 29. And there was much order and glory in the solemnity of his consecration.
But yet still these things had their weakness and imperfection. For, (1.) He had nothing of his own to offer at his consecration, but he was consecrated with the blood of a bullock and a ram. (2.) Another offered for him, and that for his sins. And this was the call of Aaron, his call of God; and that which God vindicated, setting a notable mark upon it, when it was seditiously questioned by Korah, Numbers 16:3, 17:10. And all these things were necessary unto Aaron, because God in his person erected a new order of priesthood, wherein he was to be confirmed by an extraordinary call thereunto. And this is that, and not an ordinary call, which the call of Christ is compared unto and preferred above. After this all the successors of Aaron had a sufficient call to their office, but not of the same kind with that of Aaron himself. For the office itself was established to continue by virtue of God’s institution. And there was a law of succession established, by which they were admitted into it, whereof I have treated elsewhere. But it is the personal call of Aaron which is here intended. Obs. 1. It is an act of sovereignty in God to call whom he pleaseth unto his work and especial service, and eminently so when it is unto any place of honor and dignity in his house.
The once of the priesthood among the Jews was the highest and most honorable that was among them, at the first plantation of the church. And an eminent privilege it was, not only unto the person of him who was first called, but with respect also unto his whole posterity; for they, and they only, were to be priests unto God. Who would not think, now, but that God would call Moses to this dignity, and so secure also the honor of his posterity after him? But he takes another course, and calls Aaron and his family, leaving Moses and his children after him in the ordinary rank and employment of Levites. And the sovereignty of God is evident herein, —.
Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction. Some one is called out from among others. So was it in the call of Aaron, Exodus 28:1, “Take unto thee Aaron, from among the children of Israel.” By a mere act of sovereign pleasure God chose him out from among the many thousands of his brethren. And this sovereign choice God insisteth on to express the favor and kindness that is in any call of his, 1 Samuel 2:27,28. And herewith he reproacheth the sins and ingratitude of men, upbraiding them with his sovereign kindness, Numbers 16:9,10. 2.
Because antecedent unto their call there is nothing of merit in any to be so called, nor of ability in the most for the work whereunto they are called.
Under the new testament none was ever called to greater dignity, higher honor, or more eminent employment, than the apostle Paul. And what antecedaneous merit was there in him unto his vocation? Christ takes him in the midst of his madness, rage, persecution, and blasphemy, turns his heart unto himself, and calls him to be his apostle, witness, and great instrument for the conversion of the souls of men, bearing forth his name to the ends of the earth. And this we know that himself mentions on all occasions as an effect of sovereign grace, wisdom, and mercy. What merit was there, what previous disposition unto their work, in a few fishermen about the lake of Tiberias or sea of Galilee, that our Lord Jesus Christ should call them to be his apostles, disposing them into that state and condition wherein they “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel?” So was it ever with all that God called in an extraordinary manner.
See Exodus 4:10,11; Jeremiah 1:6; Amos 7:14,15. In his ordinary calls there is the same sovereignty, though somewhat otherwise exercised.
For in such a call there are three things: — 1. A providential designation of a person to such an office, work, or employment. When any office in the house of God, suppose that of the ministry, is fixed and established, the first thing that God doth in the call of any one thereunto, is the providential disposition of the circumstances of his life, directing his thoughts and designs toward such an end. And were not the office of the ministry in some places accompanied with many secular advantages, yea, provisions for the lusts and luxuries of men that are foreign unto it, this entrance into a call from God thereunto, by a mere disposal of men’s concerns and circumstances, so as to design the ministry in the course of their lives, would be eminent and perspicuous. But whilst multitudes of persons, out of various corrupt ends, crowd themselves into the entrances of this office, the secret workings of the providence of God towards the disposal of them whom he really designs unto his work herein are greatly clouded and obscured. 2. It is part of this call of God, when he blesseth, succeedeth, and prospereth the endeavors of men to prepare themselves with those previous dispositions and qualifications which are necessary unto the actual call and susception of this office. And hereof also there are three parts: — (1.) An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with his designation of them unto their office. Where this is not effected, but men proceed according as they are stimulated by outward impressions or considerations, God is not as yet at all in this work. (2.) An especial blessing of their endeavors for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom. (3.) The communication of peculiar gifts unto them, rendering them meet and able unto the discharge of the duty of their office; which, in an ordinary call, is indispensably required as previous to an actual separation unto the office itself. 3. He ordereth things so, as that a person whom he will employ in the service of his house shall have an outward call, according unto rule, for his admission thereinto.
And in all these things God acts according to his own sovereign will and pleasure. And many things might hence be educed and insisted on. As, — 1. That we should have an awful reverence of, and a holy readiness to comply with the call of God; not to run away from it, or the work called unto, as did Jonah 1; nor to be weary of it, because of difficulty and opposition which we meet withal in the discharge of our duty, as it sundry times was ready to befall Jeremiah 15:10, 20:7-9; much less desert or give it over on any earthly account whatever, seeing that he who sets his hand to this plough, and takes it back again, is unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, — and it is certain that he who deserts his calling on worldly accounts, first took it up on no other. 2. That we should not envy nor repine at one another, whatever God is pleased to call any unto. 3. That we engage into no work wherein the name of God is concerned without his call; which gives a second observation, namely, that, — Obs. 2. The highest excellency and utmost necessity of any work to be done for God in this world, will not warrant our undertaking of it or engaging in it, unless we are called thereunto. Yea, — Obs. 3. The more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought our call unto it to be.
Both these observations will be so fixed and confirmed in the consideration of the instance given us in the next verse, as that there is no occasion here to insist upon them. Obs. 4. It is a great dignity and honor, to be duly called unto any work, service, or office, in the house of God.
VERSE 5.
The description of a high priest according to the law, with respect, — 1. Unto his nature; 2. His employment, verse 1; 3. His qualification, verse 2; 4. His especial duty, with regard (1.) to himself (2.) to others, verse 3; 5. His call, in the instance of him who was the first of the order, verse 4, — being completed, an application of the whole is in this verse entered upon unto our Lord Jesus Christ.
And this is done in all the particulars wherein there was or could be an agreement or correspondency between them and him with respect unto this office. And it was necessary to be thus declared by the apostle, unto the end designed by him, for two reasons: — 1. Because the original institution of those priests and their office was to teach and represent the Lord Christ and his; which was his main intention to manifest and prove. Now this they could not do unless there were some analogy and likeness between them; neither could it be apprehended or understood for what end and purpose they were designed, and did so long continue in the church. 2. That the Hebrews might be satisfied that their ministry and service in the house of God was now come to an end, and the whole use whereunto they were designed accomplished. For by this respect and relation that was between them, it was evident that he was now actually exhibited, and had done the whole work which they were appointed to prefigure and represent. It was therefore impossible that there should be any further use of them in the service of God; yea, their continuance therein would contradict and utterly overthrow the end of their institution. For it would declare that they had a use and efficacy unto spiritual ends of their own, without respect unto him and his work whom they did represent; which is to overthrow the faith of both churches, that under the old testament and that under the new. Wherefore a full discovery of the proportion between them, and relation of the one unto the other, was necessary, to evince that their continuance was useless, yea, pernicious. But on the other side, it could not be but that those high priests had many imperfections and weaknesses inseparable from their persons in the administration of their office, which could represent nothing nor receive any accomplishment in our Lord Jesus Christ. For if any thing in him had answered thereunto, he could not have been such a high priest as did become us, or as we stood in need of. Such was it that they were subject to death, and therefore were necessarily many, succeeding one another in a long series, according to a certain genealogy: “They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood,” or a priesthood that passeth not from one to another, Hebrews 7:23,24. Herein, therefore, there was a dissimilitude between them, because of their being obnoxious unto death; whence it was inevitable that they must be many, one succeeding to another. But Jesus Christ was to be one high priest only, and that always the same.
Again, they were all of them personally sinners, and that both as men and as high priests; whence they might and did miscarry and sin, even in the administration of their office. Wherefore it was needful that they should offer sacrifice for their own sins also, as hath been declared. Now, as nothing could be represented hereby in Jesus Christ, “who knew no sin,” “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” nor could he therefore offer sacrifice for himself; so these things do cast some darkness and obscurity on those instances wherein they did represent him. Wherefore our apostle steers a straight course between all these difficulties: for, First, He manifests and proves that the legal high priests were indeed types of Jesus Christ in his office, and did bear forth a resemblance of him therein; as also, that they were appointed of God for that very end and purpose.
Secondly, He shows what were their qualifications and properties; which he distinguisheth into two sorts: — 1. Such as belonged essentially, or were required necessarily, unto the office itself, and its regular discharge. 2. Such as were unavoidable consequents or concomitants of their personal weakness or infirmity. This latter sort, in this application of their description unto Christ and his office, as prefigured thereby, he discards and lays aside, as things which, though necessary unto them from their frail and sinful condition, yet had no respect unto Christ, nor accomplishment in him. And as for the former, he declares in the discourse immediately ensuing how they were found in Christ, as exercising this office, in a far more eminent manner than in them. This is the design of the discourse in the second part of the chapter, which we are now entering on.
Only, whereas in the description of a high priest in general, he begins with his nature, qualifications, work, and duty, closing and issuing it in his call; in his application of the whole unto the Lord Christ, he taketh up that first which he had lastly mentioned, namely, the call of a high priest, and proceedeth unto the others in an order absolutely retrograde.
Ver. 5. — Ou[tw kai< oJ Cristo Ver. 5. — So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.
Ou[tw kai> , “so also, “and so, or “in like manner;” a note th~v ajpodo>sewv , of the application of things before spoken unto the subject principally intended. A respect may be herein unto all the instances in the preceding discourse: ‘As it was with the legal high priest in all the things necessary unto that office, so in like manner was it with Christ;’ which he now designeth to manifest. Or the intention of this expression may be restrained to the last expressed instance, of a call to office: ‘As they were called of God, so, or in like manner, was Christ also;’ which he immediately declares. And this is first regarded, though respect may be had unto it in all the particular instances of analogy and similitude which ensue.
On this note of inference there ensueth a double proposition on the same supposition. The supposition that they both are resolved into is, that “Christ is an high priest.” Hereon the first proposition, with respect unto his call and entrance on that office, is negative, “He glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” The other is positive or affirmative, “But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son;” that is, he glorified him so to be, or he made him so. JO Cristo>v , “Christ,” the subject spoken of; that is, the promised Messiah, the anointed one. The apostle in this epistle calls him occasionally by all signal names, as “the Son,” Hebrews 1:2,8; the “Son of God,” Hebrews 4:14; the “Word of God,” Hebrews 4:12; “Jesus,” Hebrews 2:9; “Christ,” Hebrews 3:6; “Christ Jesus,” Hebrews 3:1.
Here he useth the name of Christ as peculiarly suited unto his present occasion; for he had designed to prove that the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers,, was to be the high priest for ever over the house of God. Therefore he calls him by that name whereby he was known from the beginning, and which signified his unction unto his office, — the anointed one. He was to be jæyvim;hæ ˆheKo , the “anointed priest;” that is, “Christ.”
The subject spoken of being stated or described by his name, the supposition of his being a high priest takes place. This the apostle had before taught and proved, Hebrews 2:17, 3:1, 4:14. But you, considering the constitution of the law, and the way of any one’s entering on that office, a difficult inquiry yet remained, namely, how he came so to be. Had he been of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron, he might have been a priest., he would have been so, and have been so acknowledged by all.
But how he should become so, who was a stranger to that family, who “sprang of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood,” might be highly questioned. Fully and satisfactorily to resolve this doubt, and therein to take in the whole difficulty whence it arose, the apostle in the preceding verse lays down a concession in a universal maxim, that none who had not a right thereunto, by virtue of an antecedent law or constitution, — which Christ had not, as not being of the tribe of Levi, — could be a priest, without an immediate call from God, such as Aaron had. By and on this rule he offers the right of the Lord Christ unto this office to trial; and therein acknowledgeth that if he were not extraordinarily called of God thereunto he could be no high priest. To this purpose he declares, — First, Negatively, that “he glorified not himself to be made an high priest.”
Outward call by men, or a constitution by virtue of any ordinance of the law he had none. Seeing therefore he is a priest, or if so he be, he must be made so by God, or by himself. But as for himself, neither did he take this honor to himself, nor was it possible that so he should do; for the whole office, and the benefit of his discharge of it, depended on a covenant or compact between him and his Father. Upon the undertaking of it, also, he was to receive many promises from the Father, and was to do his will and work; as we have elsewhere declared and fully proved. It was therefore impossible that he should make himself a high priest.
The Socinians do but vainly raise a cavil against the deity of Christ from this place. They say, ‘If he were God, why did another glorify him in any kind, why did he not glorify himself?’ And the Jews on all occasions make the same exception. There were, indeed, some force in the objection against us, if we believed or professed that the Lord Christ were God only; but our doctrine concerning his person is that which is declared by our apostle, Philippians 2:6,7, “Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”
Wherefore there is no more weight in this cavil than there would be in another, namely, if one, unto those testimonies, that” all things were made by him,” and that he “in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,” should ask, ‘How could this be, seeing he was a man, born in the fullness of time?’ But this objection, for the substance of it, was raised by the Jews of old, and fully answered by himself. For whereas they objected unto him that he, being not fifty years old, could not have seen Abraham, as he pretended, who was dead near two thousand years before, he replied, “Before Abraham was, I am,” John 8:58. If he had no other nature than that wherein they thought he was not fifty years old (being indeed little more than thirty), he could not have known Abraham, nor Abraham him.
As, therefore, if he had been man only, he could not have been before Abraham, so had he been God only, another could not have glorified him to be a priest. But he was man also; and these words are spoken not with respect unto his divine nature, but his human.
Again; as it was impossible he should, so it is plain that he did not glorify himself to be a high priest, or take this dignity and honor to himself by his own will and authority. And this may be evidenced by a brief rehearsal of the divine acts necessary to the making of him a high priest; all which I have handled at large in the previous Exercitations. And they were of two sorts: — 1. Authoritative, and wholly without him; 2. Perfective, whereunto his own concurrence was required. Of the first sort were, — (1.) His eternal designation unto this office. (2.) His mission unto the discharge of it. (3.) His unction with the Spirit for its due discharge. (4.) The constitution of the law of his priesthood, which consisted of two parts; the first prescribing what he should do, what he should undergo, what he should offer, or what should be the duties of his office; the other declaring, appointing, promising what should be attained, effected, and accomplished thereby. (5.) The committing and giving a people unto him, for whose sake and on whose account he was to bear, execute, and discharge this holy office. And all these, whereby he was authoritatively vested with his office, were sovereign acts of the will and wisdom of the Father, as I have elsewhere proved. By these was he called and glorified to be a high priest. Again, there were some acts perfective of his call, or such as gave it its complement; and these were wrought in him and by him, neither could they be otherwise: but yet by them did he not make himself a high priest, but only complied with the will and authority of the Father. Thus, when Aaron was called of God to his office, the law for its constitution being made and given, the person designed and called out by name, his pontifical garments put on, and the anointing holy oil poured on him, a sacrifice was to be offered, to complete and perfect his consecration. But because of his imperfection, whence it was necessary that he should come to his office by degrees and the actings of others about him, he could not himself offer the sacrifice for himself. He only laid his hand on the head of it, to manifest his concernment therein, but it was Moses that offered it unto God, Exodus 29:10-12. Thus it could not be with respect unto Jesus Christ, nor did he need any other sacrifice than his own for his consecration, seeing it was necessary unto the legal high priests on the account of their personal sins and infirmities. But although he was perfectly and completely constituted a high priest, by those acts of God the Father before mentioned, yet his solemn consecration and dedication, not to his office, but to’ the actual discharge of it, were effected by acts of his own, in his preparation for and actual offering up of himself a sacrifice, once for all. And so he was perfected and consecrated in and by his own blood. Wherefore he did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that was an act and effect of the will and authority of God.
It remains only, as unto this first clause, that we inquire how it is said that “Christ glorified not himself,” as unto the end mentioned. Was there an addition of glory or honor made unto him thereby? Especially may this be reasonably inquired, if we consider what befell him, what he did, and what he suffered, in the discharge of this office; nay, doth not the Scripture everywhere declare this as an act of the highest condescension in him, as Philippians 2:6-9, Hebrews 2:91 How, therefore, can he be said not to glorify himself herein? Let those answer this inquiry who deny his divine nature and being. They will find themselves in the same condition as the Pharisees were when our Savior posed them with a question to the same purpose; namely, how David came to call Christ his Lord, who was to be his son so long after. Unto us these things are clear and evident. For although, if we consider the divine nature and person of Christ, it was an infinite condescension in him to take our nature, and therein to execute the office of a priest for us; yet with respect unto the nature assumed, the office itself was an honor and dignity unto him, on the accounts to be afterwards insisted on.
Secondly, In the affirmative proposition the way whereby Christ came unto his office is declared, or by what authority he was appointed a high priest: j jAll j oJ lalh>sav pro There is an ellipsis in the words, which must be supplied to complete the anti-thesis: “But he glorified him,” or “he made him to be an high priest, who said unto him, UiJo>v mou ei+ su< , ejgw< sh>meron gege>nnhka> se .” It is not easily apprehended how the apostle confirmeth the priesthood of Christ, or his call to office, by these words (they are twice used elsewhere by himself to other ends, Hebrews 1:5, Acts 13:33); for these words do originally signify the eternal relation that is between the Father and the Son, with their mutual love therein. To this purpose are they applied, Hebrews 1:5. And because this was manifested in and by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when and wherein he was “declared to be the Son of God with power,” Romans 1:4, this testimony is applied thereunto, Acts 13:33. For the direct intention and the full meaning of the words, the reader may consult our exposition on Hebrews 1:5, where they are handled at large. But how they are produced by our apostle here, as a confirmation of the priesthood of Christ, is an inquiry that is not without its difficulties; and seeing expositors are variously divided about it, their apprehensions must necessarily be inquired into and examined.
First, Those of the Socinian way, as Crellius and Schlichtingius, affirm that these words are constitutive of the priesthood of Christ; and that they were spoken to him after his resurrection. Hence they suppose two things will ensue: — 1. That the Lord Christ was not a priest, at least no complete priest, until after his resurrection; for not until then was it said unto him, “Thou art my Son.” 2. That his priestly and kingly offices are the same; for his exaltation in his kingly power is principally intended in these words. But these things are fond and impious. For if the Lord Christ were not a priest until after his resurrection, then he was not so in the offering of himself to God, in his death and blood-shedding; which to say is to offer violence to the common sense of all Christians, the whole institution of the types of old, the analogy of faith, and express testimonies of Scripture in particular, as hath been evinced in our Exercitations. It expressly contradicts the apostle in this very place, or would make him contradict himself; for after this he affirms that as a priest he offered unto God “in the days of his flesh,” verse 7. They say, therefore, that he had some kind of initiation into his office by death, but he was not completely a priest until after his resurrection. The meaning whereof is, that he was not a complete priest until he had completely finished and discharged the principal work which belonged unto that office! I say, therefore, — 1. That this distinction, of the Lord Christ being first an incomplete priest, and then afterwards made so completely, is foreign to the Scripture, a vain imagination of bold men, and inconsistent with his holy perfection, who was at once made so by the oath of God. 2. It is destructive of all the instructive parts of the type; for Aaron neither did nor could offer any sacrifice to God until he was completely consecrated unto his office. Nor is any thing in the law more severely prohibited, than that anyone should draw nigh to God in offering sacrificc that was not completely a priest. 3. Thus to interpret the testimony urged by the apostle,’ is completely to disappoint his purpose and intention in it. For he designs by it to prove that Christ, in the offering which he made in the days of his flesh, did not glorify himself to be made a priest, but was made so by him who said unto him, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” And if this was not said unto him until after his resurrection, then in his offering of himself before, he glorified himself to be a priest, for he was not yet made so of God the Father. 4. The vanity of confounding the kingly and priestly offices of Christ hath been sufficiently detected in our Exercitations.
Secondly, Others say that the confirmation of the priesthood of Christ in these words, is taken from the ancient usage before the law, whereby the priesthood was annexed unto the primogeniture. Wherefore God declaring the Lord Christ to be his only-begotten Son, the first-born, lord and heir of the whole creation, did thereby also declare him to be the high priest. And this exposition is embraced by sundry learned men, whose conjecture herein I cannot comply withal. For, — 1 . The foundation of it is very questionable, if not unquestionably false; namely, concerning the priesthood of the firstborn before the law. This, indeed, is the opinion of the Jews, and is so reported by Jerome, Epist. ad Evagr.; but the matter is not clear in the Scripture. Abel was not the firstborn, nor Abraham either; yet they both offered sacrifice to God. 2. This would include an express contradiction unto the scope of the apostle. For his design is to prove that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, called of God, and raised up extraordinarily, in a way peculiar and not common to any other. But on this supposition, he should be a priest after the order of the first-born. For what belonged unto Christ as the first-born, see our exposition on Hebrews 1:3.
Thirdly, Some judge that although the apostle recites expressly only these words, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” yet he directs us thereby to the whole passage in the psalm whereof these words are a part, verses 7,8, “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Here seems to be an express constitution, such as the apostle refers unto. For if we would know when or how God the Father glorified Christ to be a high priest, it was in that decree of his which is declared, Psalm 2:7. It was before established in heaven, and then declared in prophecy. And moreover, there is added an especial mention of the discharge of one part of his office as a priest, in these words, “Ask of me;” wherein authority is given him to make intercession with God. And this exposition, whereof, as far as I can find, Junius was the author, I shall not oppose; only for two reasons I cannot readily assent unto it. For, — 1. It seems not probable that the apostle, in the quotation of a testimony, should omit that which was directly to his purpose, and produce those words only which alone were not so. 2. The asking here enjoined, is not his sacerdotal intercession, but only an expression denoting the dependence of Christ, as king, on God the Father for the subduing of his enemies.
Fourthly, Some conceive that the apostle intends not a testimony of the constitution of Christ in his office of priesthood, but only to give an account of the person by whom he was called thereunto: ‘He made not himself a high priest; but was made so by him from whom he had all his honor and glory as mediator, and that because be was his Son, and in his word declared so to be.’ But the testimony given unto his priesthood is brought in in the next verse. Nor do I see any more than one exception which this exposition is liable unto, but which those that follow it have taken no notice of. And this is, that the manner of the introduction of the next testimony, “As he also saith in another place,” doth evidence that they are both produced and urged to the same purpose, for the confirmation of the same assertion. But withal I answer thereunto by concession, that indeed they are both here of the same importance, and used to the same purpose. For these words in this place, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” are considered as spoken to him by God the Father, even as the former were. This, therefore, is the design of the apostle in the introduction of this testimony; for the clearing whereof we may observe: — 1. That it is not the priesthood of Christ, but his call thereunto, which in this place the apostle asserts, as was before declared. 2. As to this, he intends to show only that it was God the Father from whom he had all his mediatory power, as king, priest, and prophet to his church. 3. This is evidently proved by this testimony, in that therein God declares him to be his Son, and his acceptance thereby of him in the discharge of the work committed unto him. For this solemn declaration of his relation unto God the Father in his eternal sonship, and his approbation of him, doth prove that he undertook nothing, performed nothing, but what he had appointed, designed, and authorized him unto. And that he had so designed him unto this office is more particularly declared in the ensuing testimony. Obs. 1. The office of the high priesthood over the church of God was an honor and glory to Jesus Christ.
It was so unto his human nature, even as it was united unto the divine; for it was capable of glory, of degrees of glory, and an augmentation in glory, John 17:1, 1 Peter 1:21. And the Lord Christ had a twofold glory upon him in the bearing and discharging of this office: — 1 . The glory that was upon him, or of the work itself; 2. The glory that was proposed unto him, in the effects of it. 1. There was a glory upon him in his work, from the nature of the work itself. So it was prophesied of him, Zechariah 6:13, “He shall build the temple of theLORD, and he shall bear the glory.” All the glory of the house of God shall be on him, Isaiah 22:24. And it was a glory unto him, because the work itself was great and glorious It was no less than the healing of the breach made between God and the whole creation by the first apostasy. Sin had put variance between God and all his creatures, Genesis in, Romans 8:20. No way was left, but that God must be perpetually dishonored, or all creatures everlastingly cursed. And hereby there seemed to be a kind of defeatment of God’s first design, to glorify himself in the making of all things; for to this purpose he made them all “exceeding good,” Genesis 1:31. And his glory depended not so much upon their being, as their being good; that is, their beauty, and order, and subjection to himself. But this was now lost as to all the creation, but only a part and portion of the angels, who sinned not. But yet the apostasy of those who were partakers of the same nature, privileges, and advantages with them, made it manifest what they also in their natural state and condition were obnoxious unto. How great, how glorious a work must it needs be, to put a stop unto this entrance of confusion; to lay hold on the perishing creation, running headlong into eternal ruin, and to preserve it, or some portion of it, some first-fruits of it, unto God from destruction!
Must not this be a work equal unto, if not exceeding, the first forming of all things? Certainly it is a glorious and honorable thing unto him that shall undertake and accomplish this great and glorious work. What is said with respect unto one particular in it, may be applied unto the whole. When the sealed book containing the state of the church and the world was represented unto John, it is said that there was “no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, that was able to open the book, neither to look thereon,” Revelation 5:3. Whereon the apostle wept that none was found worthy to engage in that work. But when the Lord Christ, “the lion of the tribe of Judah,” appeared to do it, and prevailed therein, verse 5, all the host of heaven, all the saints of God, joined together in ascribing glory and honor unto him, verses 6-14. The work was great and honorable, and therefore on the account of it doth that harmonious ascription of gloW and honor unto him ensue. How much more must the whole work be.esteemed such, whereof that book contained only a small portion! Herein, then, was the Lord Jesus Christ exceedingly glorious in his priestly office, because in the discharge of it he was the only means and way of the recovery and advancement of the glory of God; the greatness of which work no heart can conceive nor tongue express. 2 . It appears from the effects and consequents of the discharge of his office, or the glory proposed unto him. And that, — (1.) On the part of them for whom he did discharge it. And thes, were all the elect of God. He himself looked on this as a part of the glory set before him, that he should be a captain of salvation unto them, and bring them unto the eternal enjoyment of God in immortal glory. And a double honor ariseth hence unto Jesus Christ: — [1.] Initial, the love, thankfulness, and worship of the church in all ages, in this world. See Revelation 1:5,6. This is a glory wherein he is delighted, that all his saints, in all parts of the world, do severally, and in their assemblies, with all humility, love, and thankfulness, worship, adore, bless, praise, and glorify him, as the author and finisher of their recovery unto God, and eternal salvation. Every day do they come about his throne, cleave unto him, and live in the admiration of his love and power. [2.] This glory will be full at the latter day, and so hold unto all eternity, when all his saints, from the beginning of the world unto the end thereof, shall be gathered unto him, and abide with him, adoring him as their head, and shouting for joy when they behold his glory. (2.) On his own part. There is a peculiar honor and glory given him of God, as a consequent of his discharge of this office, and on the account thereof, 1 Peter 1:21; Philippians 2:9,10; Ephesians 1:20-23: whereof see our exposition on Hebrews 1:2. (3.) That glory wherein God will be exalted unto all eternity in the praise of his grace, — the end of all his holy purposes towards his church, Ephesians 1:6, — doth ensue and depend hereon. For these and the like reasons it was that our blessed Savior, knowing how unable we are in this world to comprehend his glory, as also how great a part of our blessedness doth consist in the knowledge of it, makes that great request for us, that, after we are preserved in, delivered from, and carried through our course in this world, as a principal part of our rest and reward, we may be with him where he is, to behold his glory which is given him of his Father, John 17:24. And our present delight in this glory and honor of Christ, is a great evidence of our love of him and faith in him. Obs. 2. Relation and love are the fountain and cause of God’s committing all authority in and over the church to Jesus Christ.
By this expression of relation and love, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” doth the apostle prove that God called him to be the high priest of the church. To the same purpose himself speaketh, John 3:35, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.”
In his constitution and declaration to be the great and only prophet of the church, God did it by an expression of his relation and love to him: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” Matthew 17:5.
And this also was the foundation of his kingly office. Hebrews 1:2, “He hath spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things;” — he who was his Son, and because he was his Son. God would give this glory and honor unto none but unto his only Son; which to prove is the design of our apostle in the first chapter of this epistle. And this his relation unto God manifested itself in that he did in the discharge of his office; for saith the evangelist, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14.
Now, first, the relation intended is that one single eternal relation of his being the “Son of God,” the “only-begotten of the Father,” through the divine ineffable communication of his nature with him, or unto him. And hence the faith hereof is the foundation of the church; for when Peter made that confession of it, in opposition unto all false conceptions of others concerning his person, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he answers, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” Matthew 16:16,18.
And why doth the Lord Christ build his church on the profession of this article of our faith concerning his person? It is because we declare our faith therein that God would not commit all power in and over the church, and the work of mediation in its behalf, unto any but him who stood in that relation to him, of his only-begotten Son. And hereby, as God declares the greatness of this work, which none could effect but his Son, he who is God with himself, and that none other should partake with him in this glory; so he directs us to the worship and honor of him as his Son: for it is the will of God that “all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. And those who put in themselves, their wills and authorities, as the pope; or bring in others into the honor of this work, as saints and angels; do rise up in direct opposition to the design of the will and wisdom of God. They must first give some one the relation of an only Son to God, before they ought to ascribe any thing of this great work or the honor of it unto him. Secondly, The love intended is twofold: — 1. The natural and eternal love of the Father unto the Son, and his delight in him, as participant of the same nature with himself. This is expressed, Proverbs 8:30,31; which place hath been explained and vindicated before. 2. His actual love towards him on the account of his infinite condescension and grace in undertaking this work, wherein his glory was so deeply concerned. See Philippians 2:6-11. And this love hath a peculiar influence into the collation of that glory and honor on Christ which God bestowed on him. And in these things, which must not be here enlarged on, doth lie the blessed, sure, stable foundation of the church, and of our salvation, by the mediation of Christ.
VERSE 6.
The next verse gives us a further confirmation of the call of Christ unto his office, by another testimony, taken from <19B004> Psalm 110:4. And much time, with diligence, would be needful to the explanation hereof, but that this is not its proper place. For that the whole psalm was prophetical of Jesus Christ I have proved before, and vindicated it from the exceptions of the Jews, both in our Exercitations and expositions on the first chapter. The subject-matter also spoken of, or the priesthood of Melchisedec, with the order thereof, the apostle expressly resumes and handles at large, Hebrews 7, where it must be considered. There is, therefore, only one concernment of these words here to be inquired into; and this is, how far or wherein they do give testimony unto the assertion of the apostle, that Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that he was designed thereunto of God, even the Father.
Ver. 6. — Kaqw Ver. 6. — As he saith in another [psalm ], Thou [art ] priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
There are two things in these words: — First, The manner of the introduction of a new testimony; Secondly, The testimony itself.
The first, “As he saith in another.” And therein we may consider, — 1. The connection unto and compliance with that foregoing: ‘In the same manner as he had said in Psalm 2, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” so he speaks “in another place” to the same purpose.’ So great and important a truth had need of solid confirmation. 2. The author of the testimony, or he that spake the words of it: Le>gei , “He saith.” And this may be taken two ways; — (1.) With respect unto the delivery of the words; (2.) With respect unto the subject-matter of them, or the thing signified in them. (1.) In the first way, he that speaks may be [1.] David. He who was the penman of the second psalm was so also of this hundred and tenth. As, therefore, the words foregoing, as to the declaration of them, were his, so were these also. As he said in that place, so he saith in this. Or, [2.] The Holy Spirit himself, who in both places spake in and by David: “Saying in David,” Hebrews 4:7. (2.) But the thing spoken and signified is principally here intended. And le>gei , “he saith,” referreth immediately to God the Father himself. That which the apostle designed to prove, is that Christ was called and constituted a high priest by the authority of God the Father. And this was done by his immediate speaking unto him. The Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, speaks these things to us. But he doth only therein declare what the Father said unto the Son; and that was it whereby the apostle’s intention was proved and confirmed. “He saith.” This was that which God said unto him. And this is recorded ejn eJte>rw| , “in another;” that is, to>pw| , “place,” or rather yalmw~| , “in another psalm,” that is, <19B004> Psalm 110:4.
Secondly, The testimony itself is expressed, or the words of the Father unto the Son, whereby the apostle’s assertion is confirmed: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Malchisedec.” It was sufficient for the apostle at present to produce these words only; but he will elsewhere make use of the manner how they were uttered, namely, by and with the oath of God, as it is declared in the psalm, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest,” etc. And these words of verse 4 do indissolubly depend on the first verse: “The LORD said unto my Lord;” that is, God the Father said unto the Son, with respect unto his incarnation and mediation, as I have proved elsewhere. And this word, “Thou art,” is “verbum constitutivum,” a “constituting word,” wherein the priesthood of Christ was founded. And it may be considered, — 1. As declarative of God’s eternal decree, with the covenant between the Father and Son, whereby he was designed unto this office; whereof we have treated expressly and at large in the previous Exercitations. 2. As demonstrative of his mission, or his actual sending to the discharge of his office. These words are the symbol and solemn sign of God’s conferring that honor upon him, which gave him his instalment. There is included in them a supposition that God would prepare body for him, wherein he might exercise his priesthood, and which he might offer up unto him. On the whole, it is undeniable from this testimony, that God called and appointed him to be a priest; which was to be proved.
Thus Christ was “called of God, as was Aaron;” — that is, immediately, and in an extraordinary manner; which was necessary in the first erection of that office in his person. But yet, as to the especial manner of his call, it was every way more excellent and glorious than that of Aaron. What his call was, and what were the weaknesses and imperfections of it, were before declared. But the call of Christ, — 1. Had no need of any outward ceremony to express it, yea, it had a glory in it which no ceremony could express. 2. It consisted in the words of God spoken immediately to himself, and not to any others concerning him; only they are reported unto the church in the two psalms mentioned. 3. The words spoken are present, effective , constituting, authoritative words, and not merely declarative of what God would have done. By these words was he called and made a priest. 4 . They are expressive of infinite love to and acquiescency in the person of Christ as a high priest. “Thou art my Son; THOU art a priest for ever.” 5. They were spoken and pronounced with the solemnity of an oath, — “The LORD hath sworn;” whereof elsewhere. He was not, therefore, only called of God, as was Aaron, but also in a peculiar way, far more eminently and gloriously. We may hence observe, — Obs. That in all things wherein God hath to do with mankind Jesus Christ should have an absolute pre-eminence.
It was necessary that of old some things should be made use of to represent and prefigure him. And it is necessary now that some things should be made use of to reveal and exhibit him unto us. And these things must, as they are appointments of God, effects of his wisdom, and out of their respect unto him, be precious and excellent. But yet in and through them all it is his own person, and what he doth therein, that hath the preeminence.
And this is so on a twofold account: — 1. Because in the representation which they made of him there was an imperfection, by reason of their own nature, so that they could not perfectly represent him. So Aaron was called in an extraordinary manner, to prefigure his call ‘unto his priesthood; but that call of his was accompanied with much weakness and perfection, as hath been declared. It belonged unto the pre-eminence of Christ, that there should be something, yea, very much, in his call absolutely peculiar. 2. The principal dignity of all these things depended on their respect and relation unto him; which exalts him infinitely above them. And so also is it with all the means of grace, whereby at present he is exhibited, and the benefits of his mediation communicated unto us.
VERSE 7.
In this verse two instances of the qualifications of a high priest are accommodated unto our Lord Jesus Christ, and that in the retrograde order before proposed. For the last thing expressed concerning a high priest according to the law was, that he was “compassed with infirmity,” verse 3.
And this, in the first place, is applied unto Christ; for it was so with him when he entered upon the discharge of his office. And therein the apostle gives a double demonstration: — 1 . From the time and season wherein he did execute his office; it was “in the days of his flesh.” So openly do they contradict the Scripture who contend that he entered not directly on his priestly office until these days of his flesh were finished and ended. Now, in the days of his flesh he was compassed with infirmities, and that because he was in the flesh. 2. From the manner of his deportrnent in this discharge of his office, he did it with “cries and tears.” And these also are from the infirmity of our nature.
Secondly, The acting of the high priest, as so qualified, in the discharge of his office, is accommodated unto him. For a high priest was appointed ipna prosfe>rh| dw~ra> te kai< zusi>av uJpe Ver. 7. — \Ov ejn tai~v hJme>raiv th~v sarko>v aujtou~ deh>seiv te kai< iJkethri>av pro The person here spoken of is expressed by the relative o[v , “who;” that is, oJ cristo>v , mentioned verse 5, to whose priesthood thenceforward testimony is given. “Who,” that is Christ, not absolutely, but as a high priest.
The first thing mentioned of him is an intimation of the infirmity wherewith he was attended in the discharge of his office, by a description of the time and season wherein he was exercised in it; it was ejn tai~v hJme>raiv th~v sarko Hereby doth the apostle express what he had before laid down in the person of the high priest according to the law, — he was “compassed with infirmity.” 2. What were “the days of his flesh” intended? It is evident that in general his whole course and walk in this world may be comprised herein. From his cradle to the grave he bare all the infirmities of our nature, with all the dolorous and grievous effects of them. Hence all his days he was ylijo [æWdywi twObaOk]mæ vyai , Isaiah 53:3; — “a man of sorrows,” filled with them, never free from them; and familiarly “acquainted wi th grief, as a companion that never departed from him. But yet respect is not had here unto this whole space of time, only the subject-matter treated of is limited unto that season; it fell out neither before nor after, but in and during the days of his flesh. But the season peculiarly intended is the close of those days, in his last suffering, when all his sorrows, trials, and temptations came unto a head. The sole design of the expression is to show that when he offered up his sacrifice he was encompassed with infirmities; which hath an especial influence into our faith and consolation.
Secondly, An account is given of what he did in those days of his flesh, as a high priest, being called of God unto that office. And this in general was his acting as a priest, wherein many things are to be considered: — 1. The act of his oblation, in that word prosene>gkav . Prosfe>rw is “accedo,” “appropinquo,” or “accedere facio,” when applied unto things in common use, or unto persons in the common occasions of life. So doth bræq; signify in the Hebrew. But when it doth so, the LXX. constantly render it by ejggi>zw and proseggi>zw ; that is, “to draw near.” But when it is applied to things sacred, they render it by prosfe>rw ; that is, “offero,” or “to offer.” And although this word is sometimes used in the New Testament in the common sense before mentioned, yet it alone, and no other, is made use of to express an access with gifts and sacrifices, or offerings, to the altar. See Matthew 2:11,5:23,24, 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14. ˆB;r]q; byriq]yæAyK] , Leviticus 1:2; — that is, prosfe>rh| dw~ron , “offer a gift ;’ that is, at the altar. And in this epistle it constantly expresseth a sacerdotal act, Hebrews 5:1,3, 8:3,4, 9:7,9,14,25,28, 10:1,2,8,11,12, 11:4,17. And prosfora> is a “sacred oblation,” or a “sacrifice,” Hebrews 10:5,8,10, 14, 18. Nor is the word otherwise used in this epistle. And the end why we observe it, is to manifest that it is a priestly, sacerdotal offering that is here intended. He offered as a priest. 2. The matter of his offering is expressed by deh>seiv kai< iJkethri>av “prayers and supplications.” Both these words have the same general signification. And they also agree in this, that they respect an especial kind of prayer, which is for the averting or turning away of impendent evils, or such as are deserved and justly feared. For whereas all sorts of prayers may be referred unto two heads, — (1.) Such as are petitory, for the impetration of that which is good; (2.) Such as are deprecatory, for the keeping off or turning away that which is evil; the latter sort only are here intended. Deh>seiv are everywhere “preces deprecatoriae;” and we render it “supplications,” <540201> Timothy 2:1. And “supplicationes” are the same with “supplicia,” which signifies both “punishments,” and “prayers” for the averting of them; as in the Hebrew, taF;jæ is both “sin” and a “sacrifice” for the expiation of it.
JIcethri>a is nowhere used in the Scripture but in this place only. In other authors it originally signifies “a bough, or olive-branch, wrapped about with wool or bays,” or something of the like nature; which they carried in their hands, and lifted up, who were supplicants unto others for the obtaining of peace from them, or to avert their displeasure. Hence is the phrase of “velamenta pretendere,” to hold forth such covered branches. So Liv. de Bell. Punic. lib. 24. cap. 30.: “Ramos oleae ac velamenta alia supplicum porrigentes, orare, ut reciperent sese;” — “Holding forth olive branches, and other covered tokens used by supplicants, they prayed that they might be received into grace and favor.” And Virgil, of his AEneas, to Evander, AEn. lib. 8:127: — “Optime Grajugenûm, cui me fortuna precari, Et vittâ comptos voluit pretendere ramos.” And Herodian calls them iJkethri>av , — “branches of supplication.”
Hence the word came to denote a supplicatory prayer; the same with iJke>teuma . And it is in this sense usually joined with deh>seiv , as here by our apostle. So Isoc. de Pace, cap. xlvi.: Polla So constantly the heathen called those prayers which they made solemnly to their gods, for the averting of impendent evils, “supplicia,” and “supplicationes.” Liv. lib. 10. cap. 23: “Eo anno prodigia multa fuerunt: quorum averruncandorum causâ supplicationes in biduum senatus decrevit;” that is, “Irae deûm averruncandae,” as he speaks lib. 8. cap. 6:— to turn away the wrath of their gods. And such a kind of prayer is that whose form is given in Cato de re Rustic. cap. 14: “Mars pater, te precor, quaesoque, ut calamitates intemperiasque prohibessis, defendas, averrunces.” Hesychius explains iJkethri>a by para>klhsiv , a word of a much larger signification; but iJkethri>a , a word of the same original and force, by kaqarth>ria , luth>ria , — “expiations and purgations,” from guilt deserving punishment. JIkethri>a , Gloss. Vet., “Oratio, precatio supplicum;” — “the prayer of suppliants.” The word being used only in this place in the Scripture, it was not unnecessary to inquire after the signification of it in other authors. It is a humble supplication for peace, or deprecation of evil, with the turning away of anger. And this sense singularly suits the scope of the place; for respect is had in it to the sufferings of Christ, and the fear which befell him in the apprehension of them as they were penal, as we shall see afterwards.
But it must also be here further observed, that however this word might be used to express the naked supplication of some men in distress unto others, yet whenever it is used in heathen authors, with respect unto their gods, it is always accompanied with expiatory sacrifices, or was the peculiar name of those prayers and supplications which they made with those sacrifices. And I have showed before that the solemn expiatory sacrifice of the high priest among the Jews was accompanied with deprecatory supplications; a form whereof, according to the apprehensions of their masters, I gave out of the Mishna. And so he was appointed, in the great sacrifice of expiation, to confess over the head of the scape-goat “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21; which he did not without prayers for the expiation of them, and deliverance from the curse of the law due to them. And they are not the mere supplications of our blessed Savior that are here intended, but as they accompanied and were a necessary adjunct of the offering up of himself, his soul and body, a real propitiatory sacrifice to God. And therefore, wherever our apostle elsewhere speaks of the “offering” of Christ, he calls it the “offering of himself,” or of his “body,” Ephesians 5:2, Hebrews 9:14,25,28, 10:10. Here, therefore, he expresseth the whole sacrifice of Christ by the “prayers and supplications” wherewith it was accompanied; and therefore makes use of that word which peculiarly denotes such supplications. And he describes the sacrifice or offering of Christ by this adjunct for the reasons ensuing: — 1. To evince what he before declared, that in the days of his flesh, when he offered up himself unto God, he was encompassed with the weakness of our nature, which made prayers and supplications needful for him, as at all seasons, so especially in straits and distresses, when he cried from “the lion’s mouth,” and “the horns of the unicorns,” Psalm 22:21. He was in earnest, and pressed to the utmost in the work that was before him. And this expression is used, — 2. That we might seriously consider how great a work it was to expiate sin. As it was not to be done without suffering, so a mere and bare suffering would not effect it. Not only death, and that a bloody death, was required thereunto, but such as was to be accompanied with “prayers and supplications,” that it might be effectual unto the end designed, and that he who suffered it might not be overborne in his undertaking. The “redemption of souls was precious,’’ and must have ceased for ever, had not every thing been set on work which is acceptable and prevalent with God. And, — 3. To show that the Lord Christ had now made this business his own. He had taken the whole work and the whole debt of sin upon himself. He was now, therefore, to manage it, as if be alone were the person concerned. And this rendered his prayers and supplications necessary in and unto his sacrifice. And, — 4. That we might be instructed how to make use of and plead his sacrifice in our stead. If it was not, if it could not be, offered by him but with prayers and supplications, and those for the averting of divine wrath, and making peace with God, we may not think to be interested therein whilst under the power of lazy and slothful unbelief. Let him that would go to Christ, consider well how Christ went to God for him; which is yet further declared, — Thirdly, In the manner of his offering these prayers and supplications unto God, whereby he offered up himself also unto him. He did it meta< kraugh~v ijscura~v kai< dakru>wn , “with strong crying” (or “a strong cry”) “and tears.” Chrysostom on the place observes, that the story makes no mention of these thugs. And, indeed, of his tears in particular it doth not; which from this place alone we know to have accompanied his sacerdotal prayers. But his “strong crying” is expressly related. To acquaint ourselves fully with what is intended herein, we may consider, — 1. How it was expressed in prophecy; 2. How it is related in the story; 3.
How reposed here by our apostle: — 1. In prophecy the supplications here intended are called his “roaring:” Psalm 22:1-3, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from ytia\væ yreb]Di ,” “the words of my roaring?” “Rugitus,” the proper cry of a lion, is kraugh< ijscura> , “clamor validus,” “a strong and vehement outcry.” And it is used to express such a vehemency in supplications as cannot be compressed or confined, but will ordinarily break out into a loud expression of itself; at least such an intension of mind and affection as cannot be outwardly expressed without fervent outcries. Psalm 32:3, “When I kept silence,” — that is, whilst he was under his perplexities from the guilt of sin, before he came off to a full and clear acknowledgment of it as verse 5, — “my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.” The vehemency of his com-plainings consumed his natural strength. So Job 3:24, “My sighing cometh before I eat, yt;gOa\væ µyiMæbæ WkT]Ywæ ,” — “and my roarings are poured out like waters,” namely, that break out of any place with great noise and abundance. So is a sense of extreme pressures and distresses signified: “I have roared by rein of the disquietness of my heart,” Psalm 28:8. This is kraugh< ijscura> , “a strong cry.” And if we well consider his prayer, as recorded Psalm 22, especially from verse 9 to verse 21, we shall find that every word almost, and sentence, hath in it the spirit of roaring and a strong cry, however it were uttered. For it is not merely the outward noise, but the inward earnest intension and engagement of heart and soul, with the greatness and depth of the occasion of them, that is principally intended. 2. We may consider the same matter as related in story by the evangelists.
The prayers intended are those which he offered to God during his passion, both in the garden and on the cross. The first are declared Luke 22:44, “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as drops of blood falling on the earth.” The inward frame is here declared, which our apostle shadows out by the external expressions and signs of it, in “strong cries and tears.” jEn ajgwni>a| geno>menov , — “constitutus in agonia.” He was in, under the power of, wholly pressed by “an agony;” that is, a strong and vehement conflict of mind, in and about things dreadful and terrible. jAgwni>a is fo>zov diaptw>sewv , saith Nemes. de Natur. Hom.; — “a dread of utter ruin.” “Timor extrinsecus advenientis mall,” Aquin.; — “a dread of evil to come upon us from without.” It signifies, “ita vehementi discriminis objecti metu angi ut quodam-modo exanimis et attonitus sis,” saith Maldonat on Matthew 26:37. He prayed ejktene>steron , “with more vehement intension of mind, spirit, and body.” For the word denotes not a degree of the acting of grace in Christ, as some have imagined, but the highest degree of earnestness in the actings of his mind, soul, and body; — another token of that wonderful conflict wherein he was engaged, which no heart can conceive nor tongue express. This produced that preternatural sweat wherein qro>mboi ai[matov , “thick drops of blood” ran from him to the ground. Concerning this he says, yTik]pæv]ni µyiMæKæ , Psalm 22:15, — “ I am poured out like water;” that is, ‘my blood is so, by an emanation from all parts of my body, descending to the ground.’ And they consult not the honor of Jesus Christ, but the maintenance of their own false suppositions, who assign any ordinary cause of this agony, with these consequents of it, or such as other men may have experience of. And this way go many of the expositors of the Roman church. So à Lapid. in loc.: “Nota secundo hunc Christi angorem lacrymas et sudorem sanguineum, testem infirmitatis a Christo assumptae, provenisse ex vivaci imaginatione, fiagellationis, coronationis, mortis dolorumque omnium quos mox subiturus erat; inde enim naturaliter manabat eorundem horror et angor. He would place the whole cause of this agony in those previous fancies, imaginations, or apprehensions, which he had of those corporeal sufferings which were to come upon him. Where, then, is the glory of his spiritual strength and fortitude? where the beauty of the example which herein he set before us?
His outward sufferings were indeed grievous; but yet, considered merely as such, they were, as to mere sense of pain, beneath what sundry of his martyrs have been called to undergo for his name’s sake. And yet we know that many, yea, through the power of his grace in them, the most of them who have so suffered for him in all ages, have cheerfully, joyfully, and without the least consternation of spirit, undergone the exquisite tortures whereby they have given up themselves unto death for him. And shall we imagine that the Son of God, who had advantages for his supportment and consolation infinitely above what they had any interest in, should be given up to this dreadful, trembling conflict, wherein his whole nature was almost dissolved, out of a mere apprehension of those corporeal sufferings which were coming on him? Was it the forethought of them only, and that as such, which dispelled the present sense of divine love and satisfaction from the indissoluble union of his person, that they should not influence his mind with refreshments and consolation? God forbid we should have such mean thoughts of what he was, of what he did, of what he suffered.
There were other causes of these things, as we shall see immediately.
Again; on the cross itself it is said, jjAnebo>hse fwnh~| mega>lh| , Matthew 27:46; that is plainly, “He prayed meta< kraugh~v iJscura~v, ” — He cried with a great outcry,” or “loud voice,” with a “strong cry.” This was the manner of the sacerdotal prayers of Christ which concerned his oblation, or the offering himself as a sacrifice, as is reported in the evangelist. The other part of his sacerdotal prayer, which expressed his intercession on a supposition of his oblation, he performed and offered with all calmness, quietness, and sedateness of mind, with all assurance and joyful glory, as if he were actually already in heaven; as we may see, John 17. But it was otherwise with him when he was to offer himself a sin-offering in our stead. If, therefore, we do compare the 22d psalm, as applied and explained by the evangelists and our apostle, with the 17th of John, we shall find a double mediatory or sacerdotal prayer of our Savior in behalf of the whole church. The first was that which accompanied his oblation, or the offering of himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin. And this having respect unto the justice of God, the curse of the law, and the punishment due to sin, was made in an agony, distress, and conflict, with wrestlings, expressed by cries, tears, and most vehement intensions of soul. The other, — which though in order of time antecedent, yet in order of nature was built on the former, and a supposition of the work perfected therein, as is evident, John 17:11, — represents his intercession in heaven. The first was meta< kraugh~v ijscura~v kai< dakru>wn , the other meta< pepoiqh>sewv kai< plhrofori>av . 3. These are the things which are thus expressed by our apostle, “He offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears.” Such was the frame of his soul, such was his prayer and deportment in his sacrifice of himself. His tears, indeed, are not expressly mentioned in the story, but weeping was one of those infirmities of our nature which he was subject unto: John 11:85, “Jesus wept.” He expressed his sorrow thereby. And being now in the greatest distress, conflict, and sorrow, which reached unto the soul, until that was “sorrowful unto death,” as we may well judge that in his dealing with God he poured out tears with his prayers, so it is here directly mentioned. So did he here “offer up himself through the eternal Spirit.”
Fourthly, The object of this offering of Christ, he to whom he offered up prayers and supplications, is expressed and described. And this was oj duna>menov sw>zein aujto So in the garden he calls him Father: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” Matthew 26:39. And on the cross he called him God: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” Matthew 27:46; and “Father” again, in the resignation of his life and soul into his hands, Luke 23:46. But in the reporting of these things our apostle waiveth these expressions, and only describeth God as “Him who was able to save him from death.” Now this he doth to manifest the consideration that the Lord Christ at that time had of God, of death, and of the causes, consequents, and effects of it. For his design is, to declare what was the reason of the frame of the soul of Christ in his suffering and offering before described, and what were the causes thereof.
In general, God is proposed as the object of the actings of Christ’s soul in this offering of himself, as he who had all power in his hand to order all his present concernments: “To him who was able.” Ability or power is either natural or moral. Natural power is strength and active efficiency; in God omnipotency. Moral power is right and authority; in God absolute sovereignty. And the Lord Christ had respect unto the ability or power of God in both these senses: in the first, as that which he relied upon for deliverance; in the latter, as that which he submitted himself unto. The former was the object of his faith, namely, that God, by the greatness of his power, could support and deliver him in and under his trial. The latter was the object of his fear, as to the dreadful work which he had undertaken Now, because our apostle is upon the description of that frame of heart, and those actings of soul, wherewith our high priest offered himself for us unto God, which was with “prayers and supplications,” accompanied with “strong cries and tears,” I shall consider from these words three things, considering the power or ability of God principally in the latter way: — 1. What were the general causes of the state and condition wherein the Lord Christ is here described by our apostle, and of the actings ascribed unto him therein. 2. What were the immediate effects of the sufferings of the Lord Christ in and upon his own soul. 3. What limitations are to be assigned unto them. From all which it will appear why and wherefore he offered up his prayers and supplications unto him who was able to save him from death; wherein a fear of it is included, on the account of the righteous authority of God, as well as a faith of deliverance from it, on the account of his omnipotent power. 1. The general causes of his state and condition, with his actings therein, were included in that consideration and prospect which he then had of God, death, and himself, or the effects of death upon him. (1.) He considered God at that instant as the supreme rector and judge of all, the author of the law and the avenger of it, who had power of life and death, as the one was to be destroyed and the other inflicted, according to the curse and sentence of the law. Under this notion he now considered God, and that as actually putting the law in execution, having power and authority to give up unto the sting of it, or to save from it. God represented himself unto him first as armed and attended with infinite holiness, righteousness, and severity, — as one that would not pass by sin nor acquit the guilty; and then as accompanied with supreme or sovereign authority over him, the law, life, and death. And it is of great importance under what notion we consider God when we make our approaches unto him. The whole frame of our souls, as to fear or confidence, will be regulated thereby. (2.) He considered death not naturally, as a separation of soul and body; nor yet merely as a painful separation of them, such as was that death which in particular he was to undergo; but he looked on it as the curse of the law due to sin, inflicted by God as a just and righteous judge. Hence, in and under it, he himself is said to be “made a curse,” Galatians 3:13.
This curse was now coming on him, as the sponsor or surety of the new covenant. For although he considered himself, and the effects of things upon himself, yet he offered up these prayers as our sponsor, that the work of mediation which he had undertaken might have a good and blessed issue.
From hence may we take a view of that frame of soul which cur Lord Jesus Christ was in when he offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, considering God as him who had authority over the law, and the sentence of it that was to be inflicted on him. Some have thought, that upon the confidence of the indissolubleness of his person, and the actual assurance which they suppose he had always of the love of God, his sufferings could have no effect of fear, sorrow, trouble, or perplexity on his soul, but only what respected the natural enduring of pain and shame, which he was exposed unto. But the Scripture gives us another account of these things. It informs us, that “he began to be afraid, and sore amazed;” that “his soul was heavy, and sorrowful unto death;” that he was “in an agony,” and afterwards cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” under a sense of divine dereliction.
There was, indeed, a mighty acting of love in God toward us, in the giving of his Son to death for us, as to his gracious ends and purposes thereby to be accomplished; and his so doing is constantly in the Scripture reckoned on the score of love. And there was always in him a great love to the person of his Son, and an ineffable complacency in the obedience of Christ, especially that which he exercised in his suffering; but yet the curse and punishment which he underwent was an effect of vindictive justice, and as such did he look upon it and conflict with it. I shall not enter into the debates of those expressions which have been controverted about the sufferings of Christ, as whether he underwent the death of the soul, the second death, the pains of hell. For it would cause a prolix digression to show distinctly what is essential unto these things, or purely penal in them, which alone he was subject unto; and what necessarily follows a state and condition of personal sin and guilt in them who undergo them, which he was absolutely free from. But this alone I shall say, which I have proved elsewhere, whatever was due to us from the justice of God and sentence of the law, that he underwent and suffered. This, then, was the cause in general of the state and condition of Christ here described, and of his actings therein, here expressed. 2. In the second place, the effects of his sufferings in himself, or his sufferings themselves, on this account, may be reduced in general unto these two heads: — (1.) His dereliction. He was under a suspension of the comforting influences of his relation unto God. His relation unto God, as his God and [Father, was the fountain of all his comforts and joys, The sense hereof was now suspended. Hence was that part of his cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The supporting influences of this relation were continued, but the comforting influences of it were suspended. See Psalm 22:1-3, etc. And from hence he was filled with heaviness and sorrow. This the evangelists fully express. He says of himself, that “his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,” Matthew 26:38; which expressions are emphatical, and declare a sorrow that is absolutely inexpressible. And this sorrow was the effect of his penal desertion; for sorrow is that which was the life of the curse of the law. So when God declared the nature of that curse unto Adam and Eve, he tells them that he will give them “sorrow,” and “multiply their sorrow,” Genesis 3:16,17.
With this sorrow was Christ now filled, which put him on those strong cries and tears for relief. And this dereliction was possible, and proceeded from hence, in that all communications from the divine nature unto the human, beyond subsistence, were voluntary. (2.) He had an intimate sense of the wrath and displeasure of God against the sin that was then imputed unto him. All our sins were then caused, by an act of divine and supreme authority, “to meet on him,” or “the LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah 53:6. Even all our guilt was imputed unto him, or none of the punishment due unto our sins could have been justly inflicted on him. In this state of things, in that great hour, and wonderful transaction of divine wisdom, grace, and righteousness, whereon the glory of God, the recovery of fallen man, with the utter condemnation of Satan, depended, God was pleased for a while, as it were, to hold the scales of justice in aequilibrio, that the turning of them might be more conspicuous, eminent, and glorious. In the one scale, as it were, there was the weight of the first sin and apostasy from God, with all the consequents of it, covered with the sentence and curse of the law, with the exigence of vindictive justice, — a weight that all the angels of heaven could not stand under one moment. In the other were the obedience, holiness, righteousness, and penal sufferings, of the Son of God, — all having weight and worth given unto them by the dignity and worth of his divine person.
Infinite justice kept these things for a season, as it were, at a poise, until the Son of God, by his prayers, tears, and supplications, prevailed unto a glorious success, in the delivery of himself and us. 3. Wherefore, as to the limitation of the effects of Christ’s sufferings in and upon himself, we may conclude, in general, — (1.) That they were such only as are consistent with absolute purity, holiness, and freedom from the least appearance of sin; (2.) Not such as did in the least impeach the glorious union of his natures in the same person; (3.) Nor such as took off from the dignity of his obedience and merit of his suffering, but were all necessary thereunto: but then, (4.) As he underwent whatever is or can be grievous, dolorous, afflictive, and penal, in the wrath of God, and sentence of the law executed; so these things really wrought in him sorrow, amazement, anguish, fear, dread, with the like penal effects of the pains of hell; from whence it was that he “offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death,” — the event whereof is described in the last clause of the verse.
Kai< eijsakousqei This acting of the inclination of nature, both in his mind, will, and affections, which in him were purely holy, our Savior expresseth in that conditional prayer. And in this prayer he was thus answered, — his mind was fortified against the dread and terror of nature, so as to come unto a perfect composure in the will of God: “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done.” tie was heard herein so far as he desired to be heard; for although he could not but desire deliverance from the whole, as he was a man, yet he desired it not absolutely, as he was wholly subjected to the will of God. 2. Absolute. The chief and principal supplications which he offered up to him who was able to save him from death were absolute; and’ in them he was absolutely heard and delivered. For upon the presentation of death unto him, as attended with the wrath and curse of God, he had deep and dreadful apprehensions of it; and how unable the human nature was to undergo it, and prevail against it, if not mightily supported and carried through by the power of God. In this condition it was parr of his obedience, it was his duty, to pray that he might be delivered from the absolute prevalency of it, that he might not be cast in his trial, that he might not be confounded nor condemned. This he hoped, trusted, and believed; and therefore prayed absolutely for it, Isaiah 1:7,8. And herein he was heard absolutely; for so it is said, “He was heard ajpo< th~v eulabei>av .”
The word here used is in a singular construction of speech, and is itself of various significations. Sometimes it is used for a religious reverence, but such as hath fear joined with it; that is, the fear of evil. Frequently it signifies fear itself, but such a fear as is accompanied with a reverential care and holy circumspection. The word itself is but once more used in the New Testament, and that by our apostle, Hebrews 12:28, where we well render it, “godly fear.” Eujlabh>v , the adjective, is used three times, Luke 2:25, Acts 2:5, 8:2; everywhere denoting a religious fear. Hebrews 11:7, we render the verb, eujlabhqei>v , by “moved with fear;” that is, a reverence of God mixed with a dreadful apprehension of an approaching judgment. And the use of the preposition ajpo< added to eijsakousqei>v is also singular, — “auditus ex metu,” “heard from his fear.” Therefore is this passage variously interpreted by all sorts of expositors. Some read it, “He was heard because of his reverence.” And in the exposition hereof they are again divided. Some take “reverence” actively, for the reverence he had of God; that is, his reverential obedience: “He was heard because of his reverence,’’ or reverential obedience unto God. Some would have the reverence intended to relate to God, the reverential respect that God had unto him; God heard him, from that holy respect and regard which he had of him. But these things are fond, and suit not the design of the place; neither the coherence of the words, nor their construction, nor their signification, nor the scope of the apostle, will bear this sense. Others render it, “pro metu;” “from fear,” or “out of fear.” And this also is two ways interpreted: — 1. Because “heard from fear” is somewhat a harsh expression, they explain “auditus” by “liberatus,” — “delivered from fear ;” and this is not improper. So Grotius: “Cure mortem vehementer perhorresceret,...... in hoc exauditus fuit utab isto metu liberaretur.” In this sense fear internal and subjective is intended. God relieved him against his fear, removing it and taking it away, by strengthening and comforting of him. Others by “fear” intend the thing feared; which sense our translators follow, and are therefore plentifully reviled and railed at by the Rhemists: “He was heard;” that is, delivered from the things which he feared as coming upon him. And for the vindication of this sense and exposition, there is so much already offered by many learned expositors as that I see not what can be added thereunto, and I shall not unnecessarily enlarge myself. And the opposition that is made hereunto is managed rather with clamours and outcries, than Scripture reasons or testimonies. Suppose the object of the fear of Christ here to have been what he was delivered from, and then it must be his fainting, sinking, and perishing under the wrath of God, in the work he had undertaken; yet, — 1. The same thing is expressed elsewhere unto a higher degree and more emphatically; as where in this state he is said lupei~sqai kai< ajdhmonei~n , and ejkqambei~sqai , Matthew 26:37, Mark 14:33, — to be “sorrowful,” “perplexed,” and “amazed.” 2. All this argues no more but that the Lord Christ underwent an exercise in the opposition that was made unto his faith, and the mighty conflict he had with that opposition. That his faith and trust in God were either overthrown or weakened by them, they prove not, nor do any plead them unto that purpose. And to deny that the soul of Christ was engaged in an ineffable conflict with the wrath of God in the curse of the law, — that his faith and trust in God were pressed and tried to the utmost by the opposition made unto them, by fear, dread, and a terrible apprehension of divine displeasure due to our sins, — is to renounce the benefit of his passion and turn the whole of it into a show, fit to be represented by pictures and images, or acted over in ludicrous scenes, as it is by the Papists.
It remains that we consider the observations which these words afford us for our instruction, wherein also their sense and importance will be further explained. And the first thing that offers itself unto us is, that, — Obs. 1. The Lord Jesus Christ himself had a time of infirmity in this world.
A season he had wherein he was beset and “compassed with infirmities.’’ So it was with him “in the days of his flesh.” It is true, his infirmities were all sinless, but all troublesome and grievous. By them was he exposed unto all sorts of temptations and sufferings; which are the two springs of all that is evil and dolorous unto our nature. And thus it was with him, not for a few days, or a short season only, but during his whole course in this world. This the story of the gospel gives us an account of, and the instance of his “offering up prayers with strong cries and tears,” puts out of all question. These things were real, and not acted to make an appearance or representation of them. And hereof himself expresseth his sense: Psalm 22:6,7, “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All that see me, laugh me to scorn.” So verses 14, 15. How can the infirmities of our nature, and a sense of them, be more emphatically expressed? So Psalm 69:20, “Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.”
And Psalm 40:12, “Innumerable evils have compassed me about.” He had not only our infirmities, but he felt them, and was deeply sensible both of them and of the evils and troubles which through them he was exposed unto. Hence is that description of him, Isaiah 53:3.
Two things are herein by us duly to be considered: — First, That it was out of infinite condescension and love unto our souls that the Lord Christ took on himself this condition, Philippians 2:6-8. This state was neither natural nor necessary unto him upon his own account. In himself he was “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” but this mind was in him, that for our sakes he would take on himself all these infirmities of our nature, and through them expose himself unto evils innumerable. It was voluntary love, and not defect or necessity of nature, which brought him into this condition. Secondly, As he had other ends herein, — for these things were indispensably required unto the discharge of his sacerdotal office, — so he designed to set us an example, that we should not faint under our infirmities and sufferings on their account, Hebrews 12:2,3, 1 Peter 4:1. And God knows such an example we stood in need of, both as a pattern to conform ourselves unto under our infirmities, and to encourage us in the expectation of a good issue unto our present deplorable condition.
Let us not, then, think strange, if we have our season of weakness and infirmity in this world, whereby we are exposed unto temptation and suffering. Apt we are, indeed, to complain hereof; the whole nation of professors is full of complaints; one is in want, straits, and poverty; another in pain, under sickness, and variety of troubles; some are in distress for their relations, some from and by them; some are persecuted, some are tempted, some pressed with private, some with public concerns; some are sick, and some are weak, and some are “fallen asleep.” And these things are apt to make us faint, to despond, and be weary. I know not how others bear up their hearts and spirits. For my part, I have much ado to keep from continual longing after the embraces of the dust and shades of the grave, as a curtain drawn over the rest in another world. In the meantime, every momentary gourd that interposeth between the vehemency of wind and sun, or our frail, fainting natures and spirits, is too much valued by us.
But what would we have? Do we consider who, and what, and where we are, when we think strange of these things? These are the days of our flesh, wherein these things are due to us, and unavoidable. “Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward,” Job 5:7, — necessarily and abundantly. All complaints, and all contrivances whereby we endeavor to extricate ourselves from those innumerable evils which attend our weak, frail, infirm condition, will be altogether vain. And if any, through the flatteries of youth, and health, and strength, and wealth, with other satisfactions of their affections, are not sensible of these things, they are but in a pleasant dream, which will quickly pass away.
Our only relief in this condition is a due regard unto our great example, and what he did, how he behaved himself in the days of his flesh, when he had more difficulties and miseries to conflict with than we all. And in him we may do well to consider three things: — 1. His patience, unconquerable and unmovable in all things that befell him in the days of his flesh. “He did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street,” Isaiah 42:2.
Whatever befell him, he bore it quietly and patiently. Being buffeted, he threatened not; being reviled, he reviled not again. “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” 2. His trust in God. By this testimony, that it is said of him, “I will put nay trust in God,” doth our apostle prove that he had the same nature with us, subject to the same weakness and infirmities, Hebrews 2:13. And this we are taught thereby, that there is no management of our human nature, as now beset with infirmities, but by a constant trust in God. The whole life of Christ therein was a life of submission, trust, and dependence on God; so that when he came to his last suffering, his enemies fixed on that to reproach him withal, as knowing how constant he was in the profession thereof, Psalm 22:8, Matthew 27:43. 3. His earnest, fervent prayers and supplications, which are here expressed by our apostle, and accommodated unto the days of his flesh. Other instances of his holy, gracious deportment of himself, in that condition wherein he set us an example, might be insisted on, but these may give us an entrance into the whole of our duty. Patience, faith, and prayer, will carry us comfortably and safely through the whole course of our frail and infirm lives in this world. Obs. 2. A life of glory may ensue after a life of infirmity. “If,” saith our apostle, “in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable.” For besides that we are obnoxious to the same common infirmities within and calamities without with all other men, there is, and ever will be, a peculiar sort of distress that they are exposed unto who “will live godly in Christ Jesus.” But there is nothing can befall us but what may issue in eternal glory. We see that it hath done so with Jesus Christ. His season of infirmity is issued in eternal glory; and nothing but unbelief and sin can hinder ours from doing so also. Obs. 3. The Lord Christ is no more now in a state of weakness and temptation; the days of his flesh are past and gone.
As such the apostle here makes mention of them, and the Scripture signally in sundry places takes notice of it. This account he gives of himself, Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” The state of infirmity and weakness, wherein he was obnoxious unto death, is now past; he now lives for evermore. “Henceforth he dieth no more, death hath no more power over him;” nor anything else that can reach the least trouble unto him. With his death ended the days of his flesh. His revival, or return unto life, was into absolute, eternal, unchangeable glory. And this advancement is expressed by his “sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high;” which we have before declared. He is therefore now no more, on any account, obnoxious, — 1. Unto the law, the sentence, or curse of it. As he was “made of a woman, he was “made under the law; and so he continued all the days of his flesh.
Therein did he fulfill all the righteousness it required, and answered the whole penalty for sin that it exacted. But with the days of his flesh ended the right of the law towards him, either as to require obedience of him or exact surf?ring from him: hence, a little before his expiration on the cross, he said concerning it, “It is finished.” And hereon doth our freedom from the curse of the law depend. The law can claim no more dominion over a believer than it can over Christ himself. He lives now out of the reach of all the power of the law, to plead his own obedience unto it, satisfaction of it, and triumph over it, in the behalf of them that believe on him. Nor, 2. Unto temptations. These were his constant attendants and companions during the days of his flesh. What they were, and of what sorts, we have in part before discoursed. He is now freed from them and above them; yet not so but that they have left a compassionate sense upon his holy soul of the straits and distresses which his disciples and servants are daily brought into by them, — which is the spring and foundation of the relief he communicates unto them. Nor, 3. Unto troubles, persecutions, or sufferings of any kind. He is not so in his own person. He is far above, out of the reach of all his enemies; — above them in power, in glory, in authority and rule. There is none of them but he can crush at his pleasure, and “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” He is, indeed, still hated as much as ever, maligned as much as in the days of his flesh, and exposed unto the utmost power of hell and the world in all his concerns on the earth. But he laughs all his enemies to scorn, he hath them in derision; and, in the midst of their wise counsels and mighty designs, disposes of them and all their undertakings unto his ends and purposes, not their own. He is pleased, indeed, as yet, to suffer and to be persecuted in his saints and servants; but that is from a gracious condescension, by virtue of a spiritual union, not from any necessity of state or condition. And some may hence learn how to fear him, as others may and do to put their trust in him. Obs. 4. The Lord Christ filled up every season with duty, with the proper duty of it.
The days of his flesh were the only season wherein he could “offer” to God; and he missed it not, he did so accordingly. Some would not have Christ offer himself until he came to heaven. But then the season of offering was past. Christ was to use no strong cries and tears in heaven, which yet were necessary concomitants of his oblation. It is true, in his glorified state, he continually represents in heaven the offering that he made of himself on the earth, in an effectual application of it unto the advantage of the elect; but the offering itself was in the days of his flesh.
This was the only season for that duty; for therein only was he meet unto this work, and had provision for it. Then was his body capable of pain, his soul of sorrow, his nature of dissolution; all which were necessary unto this duty. Then was he in a condition wherein faith, and trust, and prayers, and tears, were as necessary unto himself as unto his offering. This was his season, and he missed it not. Neither did he so on any other occasion during the days of his flesh, especially those of his public ministry; wherein we ought to make him our example. Obs. 5. The Lord Christ, in his offering up himself for us, labored and travailed in soul to bring the work unto a good and holy issue.
A hard labor it was, and as such it is here expressed. He went through it with fears, sorrows, tears, outcries, prayers, and humble supplications.
This is called wOvp]næ lmæ[\ , — the pressing, wearying, laborious “travail of his soul,” Isaiah 53:11. He labored, was straitened and pained, to bring forth this glorious birth. And we may take a little prospect of this travail of the soul of Christ as it is represented unto us. 1. All the holy, natural affections of his soul were filled, taken up, and extended to the utmost capacity, in acting and suffering. The travail of our souls lies much in the engagement and actings of our affections. Who is there who hath been acquainted with great fears, great sorrows, great desires, great and ardent love, who knows it not? All and every one of these had now their sails filled in Christ, and that about the highest, noblest, and most glorious objects that they are capable of. The sorrows of his holy mother, Luke 2:35; the danger of his disciples, Zechariah 13:7; the scandal of the cross, the shame of his suffering, Hebrews 12:2; the ruin of his people according to the flesh for their sin, Luke 23:28-30; with sundry other the like objects and considerations, filled and exercised all his natural affections. This put his soul into travail, and had an influence into the conflict wherein he was engaged. 2. All his graces, the gracious qualifications of his mind and affections, were in a like manner in the height of their exercise. Both those whose immediate object was God himself, and those which respected the church, were all of them excited, drawn forth, and engaged: as, — (1.) Faith and trust in God. These himself expresseth in his greatest trial, as those which he betook himself unto, Isaiah 1:7,8; Psalm 22:9,10; Hebrews 2:13. These graces in him were now tried to the utmost. All their strength, all their efficacy, was exercised and proved; for he was to give in them an instance of an excellency in faith, rising up above the instance of the provocation that was in the unbelief of our first parents, whereby they fell off from God. There is no object about which faith can be exercised, no duty which it worketh in and by, but what it was now applied unto, and in, by Jesus Christ. (2.) Love to mankind. As this in his divine nature was the peculiar spring of that infinite condescension whereby he took our nature on him, for the work of mediation, Philippians 2:6-8; so it wrought mightily and effectually in his human nature, in the whole course of his obedience, but especially in the offering of himself unto God for us. Hence where there is mention made of his “giving himself for us,” which was in the sacrifice of himself, commonly the cause of it is expressed to have been his love: ‘ The Son of God “loved me, and gave himself for me,”’ Galatians 2:20; “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it,” Ephesians 5:25,26; “He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” Revelation 1:5. With this love his soul now travailed, and labored to bring forth the blessed fruits of it. The workings of this love in the heart of Christ, during the trial insisted on, whereby he balanced the sorrow and distress of his sufferings, no heart can conceive nor tongue express. (3.) Zeal for the glory of God. Zeal is the height of careful, solicitous love.
The love of Christ was great to the souls of men; but the life of it lay in his love to God, and zeal for his glory. This he now labored in, namely, that God might be glorified in the salvation of the elect. This was committed unto him, and concerning this he took care that it might not miscarry. (4.) He was now in the highest exercise of obedience unto God, and that in such a peculiar manner as before he had no occasion for. It is observed as the height of his condescension, that he was “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” Philippians 2:8. This was the highest instance of obedience that God ever had from a creature, because performed by him who was God also. And if the obedience of Abraham was so acceptable to God, and was so celebrated, when he was ready to offer up his son, how glorious was that of the Son of God, who actually offered up himself, and that in such a way and manner as Isaac was not capable of being offered!
And there was an eminent specialty in this part of his obedience; hence, Hebrews 5:8, it is said that “he learned obedience by the things which he suffered ;” which we shall speak to afterwards. And in the exercise of this obedience, that it might be full, acceptable, meritorious, every way answering the terms of the covenant between God and him about the redemption of mankind, he labored and travailed in soul. And by this his obedience was a compensation made for the disobedience of Adam, Romans 5:19. So did he travail in the exercise of grace. 3. He did so also with respect unto that confluence of calamities, distresses, pains, and miseries, which was upon his whole nature. And that in these consisted no small part of his trials, wherein he underwent and suffered the utmost which human nature is capable to undergo, is evident from the description given of his dolorous sufferings both in prophecy, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and in the story of what befell him in the evangelists. In that death of the body which he underwent, in the means and manner of it, much of the curse of the law was executed. Hence our apostle proves that he was “made a curse for us,” from that of Moses, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22,23. For that ignominy of being hanged on a tree was peculiarly appointed to represent the execution of the curse of the law on Jesus Christ, “who his own self bare our sins on the tree,” 1 Peter 2:24.
And herein lies no small mystery of the wisdom of God. He would have a resemblance, among them who suffered under the sentence of the law, of the suffering of Christ; but in the whole law there was no appointment that any one should be put to death by being hanged; but whereas God foreknew that at the time of the suffering of Christ the nation would be under the power of the Romans, and that the sentence of death would be inflicted after their manner, — which was by being nailed unto and hanged on a cross, — he ordered, for a prefiguration thereof, that some great transgressors, as blasphemers and open idolaters, after they were stoned, should be hanged upon a tree, to make a declaration of the curse of the law inflicted on them. Hence it is peculiarly said of such a one, “He that is hanged on the tree is the curse of God;” because God did therein represent the suffering of Him who underwent the whole curse of the law for us.
And in this manner of his death there were sundry things concurring: — (1.) A natural sign of his readiness to embrace all sinners that should come unto him, his arms being, as it were, stretched out to receive them, Isaiah 45:22, 65:1. (2.) A moral token of his condition, being left as one rejected of all between heaven and earth for a season; but in himself interposing between heaven and earth, the justice of God and sins of men, to make reconciliation and peace, Ephesians 2:16,17. (3.) The accomplishment of sundry types; as, — [1.] Of that of him who was hanged on a tree, as cursed of the Lord, Deuteronomy 21:22. [2.] Of the brazen serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness, John 3:14; with respect whereunto he says, that when he is “lifted up” he would “draw all men unto him,” John 12:82. [3.] Of the wave-offering, which was moved, shaken, and turned several ways; to declare that the Lord Christ, in his offering of himself, should havo respect unto all parts of the world, and all sorts of men, Exodus 29:26. And in all the concerns of this death, all the means of it, especially as it was an effect of the curse of the law, or penal, immediately from God himself, (for “he that is hanged” on a tree “is accursed of God,”) did he labor and travail in the work that lay before him. 4. The conflict he had with Satan and all the powers of darkness was another part of his travail. This was the hour of men, and power of darkness, Luke 22:53, — the time when the prince of this world came, John 14, to try the utmost of his skill, interest, horror, rage, and power, for his destruction. Then were all infernal principalities and powers engaged in a conflict with him, Colossians 2:14,15. Whatever malice, poison, darkness, dread, may be infused into diabolical suggestions, or be mixed with external representations of things to the sight, or imagination, he was now contending with. And herein he labored for that victory and success which, in the issue, he did obtain, Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8. 5. His inward conflict, in the “making his soul an offering for sin,” in his apprehensions, and undergoing of the wrath of God due unto sin, hath been already spoken unto, so far as is necessary unto our present purpose. 6. In and during all these things there was in his eye continually that unspeakable glory that was set before him, of being the repairer of the breaches of the creation, the recoverer of mankind, the captain of salvation unto all that obey him, the destruction of Satan, with his kingdom of sin and darkness; and in all, the great restorer of divine glow, to the eternal praise of God. Whilst all these things were in the height of their transaction, is it any wonder if the Lord Christ labored and travailed in soul, according to the description here given of him? Obs. 6. The Lord Christ, in the time of his offering and suffering, considering God, with whom he had to do, as the sovereign Lord of life and death, as the supreme Rector and Judge of all, casts himself before him, with most fervent prayers for deliverance from the sentence of death and the curse of the law.
This gives the true account of the deportment of our Savior in his trial, here described. There are two great mistakes about the sufferings of Christ and the condition of his soul therein. Some place him in that security, in that sense and enjoyment of divine love, that they leave neither room nor reason for the fears, cries, and wrestlings here mentioned; indeed, so as that there should be nothing real in all this transaction, but rather that all things were done for ostentation and show. For if the Lord Christ was always in a full comprehension of divine love, and that in the light of the beatific vision, what can these conflicts and complaints signify? Others grant that he was in real distress and anguish; but they say it was merely on the account of those outward sufferings which were coming on him; which, as we observed before, is an intolerable impeachment of his holy fortitude and constancy of mind. For the like outward things have been undergone by others without any tokens of such consternation of spirit. Wherefore, to discern aright the true frame of the spirit of Christ, with the intension of his cries and supplications (the things before insisted on), are duly to be considered, — 1. How great a matter it was to make peace with God for sinners, to make atonement and reconciliation for sin. This is the life and spirit of our religion, the center wherein all the lines of it do meet, Philippians 3:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14. And those by whom a due and constant consideration of it is neglected, are strangers unto the animating spirit of that religion which they outwardly profess; and therefore Satan doth employ all his artifices to divert the minds of men from a due meditation hereon, and the exercise of faith about it. Much of the devotion of the Romanists is taken up in dumb shows and painted representations of the sufferings of Christ. But as many of their scenical fancies are childishly ridiculous, and unworthy of men who have the least apprehension of the greatness and holiness of God, or that he is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and in truth; so they are none of them of any other use but to draw off the mind, not only from a spiritual contemplation of the excellency of the offering of Christ, and the glorious effects thereof, but also from the rational comprehension of the truth of the doctrine concerning what he did and suffered. For he that is instructed in and by the taking, shutting up, and setting forth of a crucifix, with painted thorns, and nails, and blood, with Jews, and thieves, and I know not what other company, about it, is obliged to believe that he hath, if not all, yet the principal part at least, of the obedience of Christ in his suffering represented unto him. And by this means is his mind taken off from inquiring into the great transactions between God and the soul of Christ, about the finishing of sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; without which those other things, which by carnal means they represent unto the carnal minds and imaginations of men, are of no value or use. On the other hand, the Socinians please themselves, and deceive others, with a vain imagination that there was no such work to be done now with God as we have declared. If we may believe them, there was no atonement to be made for sin, no expiatory sacrifice to be offered, no peace thereby to be made with God, no compensation to his justice, by answering the sentence and curse of the law due to sin. But certainly if this sort of men had not an unparalleled mixture of confidence and dexterity, they could not find out evasions unto so many express divine testimonies as lie directly opposite to their fond imagination, unto any tolerable satisfaction in their own minds; or suppose that any men can with patience bear the account they must give of the agony, prayers, cries, tears, fears, wrestlings, and travail, of the soul of Christ, on this supposition. But we may pass them over at present, as express “enemies of the cross of Christ;” that is, of that cross whereby he made peace with God for sinners, as Ephesians 2:14-16. Others there are who by no means approve of any diligent inquiry into these mysteries. The whole business and duty of ministers and others is, in their mind, to be conversant in and about morality. As for this fountain and spring of grace, this basis of eternal glory; this evidence and demonstration of divine wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and love; this great discovery of the purity of the law and vileness of sin; this first, great, principal subject of the gospel, and motive of faith and obedience; this root and cause of all peace with God, all sincere and incorrupted love towards him, of all joy and consolation from him, they think it scarcely deserves a place in the objects of their contemplation, and are ready to guess that what men write and talk about it is but phrases, canting, and fanatical. But such as are admitted into the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ will not so easily part with their immortal interest and concern herein. Yea, I fear not to say, that he is likely to be the best, the most humble, the most holy and fruitful Christian, who is most sedulous and diligent in spiritual inquiries into this great mystery of the reconciliation of God unto sinners by the blood of the cross, and in the exercise of faith about it. Nor is there any such powerful means of preserving the soul in a constant abhorrency of sin, and watchfulness against it, as a due apprehension of what it cost to make atonement for it. And we may also learn hence, — 2. That a sight and sense of the wrath of God due unto sin will be full of dread and terror for the souls of men, and will put them to a great conflict, with wrestling, for deliverance.
We find how it was with the Lord Christ in that condition; and such a view of the wrath of God all men will be brought unto sooner or later. There is a view to be had of it in the curse of the law for the present; there will be a more terrible expression of it in the execution of that curse at the last day; and no way is there to obtain a deliverance from the distress and misery wherewith this prospect of wrath due to sin is attended, but by obtaining a spiritual view of it in the cross of Christ, and acquiescing by faith in that atonement. Obs. 7. In all the pressures that were on the Lord Jesus Christ, in all the distresses he had to conflict withal in his suffering, his faith for deliverance and success was firm and unconquerable. This was the ground he stood upon in all his prayers and supplications. Obs. 8. The success of our Lord Jesus Christ, in his trials, as our head and surety, is a pledge and assurance of success unto us in all our spiritual conflicts.
VERSE 8.
The things discoursed in the foregoing verse seem to have an inconsistency with the account given us concerning the person of Jesus Christ at the entrance of this epistle. For he is therein declared to be the Son of God, and that in such a glorious manner as to be deservedly exalted above all the angels in heaven. He is so said to be the Son of God, as to be “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person,” even partaker of the same nature with him; God, by whom the heavens were made, and the foundations of the earth were laid, Hebrews 1:8-10. Here he is represented in a low, distressed condition, humbly, as it were, begging for his life, and pleading with “strong cries and tears” before him who was able to deliver him. These things might seem unto the Hebrews to have some kind of repugnancy unto one another. And, indeed, they are a, “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,” unto many at this day; they are not able to reconcile them in their carnal minds and reasonings. Wherefore, since it is by all acknowledged that he was truly and really in the low, distressed condition here described, they will not allow that he was the Son of God in the way declared by the apostle, but invent other reasons of their own for which he should be so termed. Their pleas and pretences we have discussed elsewhere. The aim of the apostle in this place is, not to repel the objections of unbelievers, but to instruct the faith of them who do believe in the truth and reason of these things. For he doth not only manifest that they were all possible, upon the account of his participation of flesh and blood, who was in himself the eternal Son of God; but also that the whole of the humiliation and distress thereon ascribed unto him was necessary, with respect unto the office which he had undertaken to discharge, and the work which was committed unto him. And this he doth in the next ensuing and following verses.
Ver. 8. — Kai>per w[n UiJo I observed before that the Syriac translation hath transpond some words in these two verses, and thus reads this latter of them, And although he were a Son, from the fear and sufferings which he underwent he learned obedience.” That concerning “fear” is traduced out of the foregoing verse, where it is omitted. Some copies of the Vulgar read, “ et quidem cum esset Filius Dei,” as do our old English translations, restoring it before its connection, as also in other places. The Rhemists only, “and truly, whereas he was the Son;” no other translation ac-knowledgeth the addition of” God.” Arias, “existens Filius:” which some other translations add some epithet unto, to express the emphasis; “a faithful Son,” Ethiop.; a Son always,” Arab. f25 Ver. 8. — Although he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by [or from ] the things which he suffered.
Kai>per, “quamvis,” “tametsi,” “although ;” an adversative, with a concession. An exception may be supposed unto what was before delivered, namely, ‘If he were “a Son,” how came he so to pray and cry, so to stand in need of help and relief? This is here tacitly inserted. Saith the apostle, ‘Although he were so, yet these other things were necessary.’
And this gives us a connection of the words unto those foregoing. But according to the apostle’s usual way of reasoning in this epistle, there is also a prospect in this word towards the necessity and advantage of his being brought into the condition described; which in our translation is supplied by the addition of “yet.”
UiJo Besides, whereas the apostle is comparing the Lord Christ, as a high priest, with Aaron and those of his order, he intimates a double advantage which he had above them: — 1. That he was a Son , whereas they were servants only; as he had before expressed the same difference in comparing him with Moses, Hebrews 3:4-6. 2. That he learned obedience by what he suffered; which few of them did, none of them in the same way and manner with him. ]Emaqen ajf j w=n e]paqe , th Hence, to “hearken” or “hear,” is frequently in the Scripture used for to obey; and to “refuse to hear,” is to be stubborn and disobedient: because obedience respects the commands of another, which we receive and become acquainted withal by hearing; and a readiness with diligence therein, is the great means to bring us unto obedience. JUpakoh> , therefore, is” an obediential compliance with the commands of another,” when we hear, and thereby know them.
This obedience in Christ was twofold: — (1.) General , in the whole course of his holy life in this world; every thing he did was not only materially holy, but formally obediential. He did all things because it was the will and law of God that so he should do. And this obedience to God was the life and beauty of the holiness of Christ himself; yea, obedience unto God in any creature is the formal reason constituting any act or duty to be good or holy. Where that consideration is excluded, whatever the matter of any work or duty may be, it is neither holy nor accepted with God. Wherefore the whole course of the life of Christ was a course of obedience unto God; whereon he so often professed that he kept the commands and did the will of him that sent him, thereby “fulfilling all righteousness.” But yet this is not the obedience here peculiarly intended, although no part of it can be absolutely excluded from the present consideration; for whereas this obedience hath respect unto suffering, he “learned it from the things which he suffered,” his whole life was a life of suffering. One way or other he suffered in all that he did, at least when and whilst he did it. His state in this world was a state of humiliation and exinanition; which things have suffering in their nature. His outward condition in the world was mean, low, and contemptible; from which sufferings are inseparable. And he was in all things continually exposed unto temptations, and all sorts of oppositions, from Satan and the world; this also added to his sufferings. (2.) But yet, moreover, there was a peculiar obedience of Christ, which is intended here in an especial manner. This was his obedience in dying, and in all things that tended immediately thereunto. “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;” for this commandment had he of his Father, that he should lay down his life, and therefore he did it in a way of obedience. And this especial obedience to the command of God for suffering and dying the apostle here respects. With regard hereunto he said of old, “Lo, I come: in the volume of thy book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God,” Psalm 40:7,8; which was in the offering up of himself a sacrifice for us, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 10:9,10. And concerning the things which befell him herein, he says, “he was not rebellious,” but “gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them.that plucked off the hair,” Isaiah 50:5,6. 2. Concerning this obedience, it is said that e]maqe , he “learned” it.
Manqa>nw is to learn as a disciple, with a humble, willing subjection unto, and a ready reception of the instructions given. But of the Lord Christ it is said here, “he learned obedience,” not that he learned to obey; which will give us light into the meaning of the whole. For, to learn obedience may have a threefold sense: — (1.) To learn it materially , by coming to know that to be our duty, to be required of us, which before we knew not, or at least did not consider as we ought So speaks the psalmist, “Before I was afflicted I went astray; but now have I learned thy commandments.” God by his chastisements, and under them, taught him the duties he required of him, and what diligent attendance unto them was necessary for him. But thus our Lord Jesus learned not obedience, nor could so do; for he knew beforehand all that he was to do, or undergo, — what was proposed unto him, what was to come upon him, in the discharge of his office and performance of the work he had undertaken. And the law of the whole of it was in his heart; no command of God was new to him, nor ever forgotten by him. (2.) To learn it formally ; that is, to be guided, instructed, directed, helped, in the acts and acting of the obedience required of him. This is properly to learn to obey; so is it with us, who are rude and unskilful in holy obedience, and are by supplies of light and grace gradually instructed in the knowledge and practice of it. This wisdom do we learn, partly by the word, partly by afflictions, as God is pleased to make them effectual. But thus the Lord Christ neither did nor could learn obedience. He had a fullness of grace always in him and with him, inclining, directing, guiding, and enabling him unto all acts of obedience that were required of him.
Being full of grace, truth, and wisdom, he was never at a loss for what he had to do, nor wanted any thing of a perfect readiness of will or mind for its performance. Wherefore, (3.) He can be said to learn obedience only on the account of having an experience of it in its exercise. So a man knoweth the taste and savor of meat by eating it; as our Savior is said to “taste of death,” or to experience what was in it, by undergoing of it. And it was one especial kind of obedience that is here intended, as was declared before, namely, a submission to undergo great, hard, and terrible things, accompanied with patience and quiet endurance under them, and faith for deliverance from them. This he could have no experience of, but by suffering the things he was to undergo, and the exercise of the graces mentioned therein. Thus learned he obedience, or experienced in himself what difficulty it is attended withal, especially in cases like his own. And this way of his learning obedience it is that is so useful unto us, and so full of consolation.
For if he had only known obedience, though never so perfectly, in the notion of it, what relief could have accrued unto us thereby? how could it have been a spring of pity or compassion towards us? But now, whereas he himself took in his own person a full experience of the nature of that especial obedience which is yielded to God in a suffering condition, what difficulty it is attended withal, what opposition is made unto it, how great an exercise of grace is required in it, he is constantly ready to give us relief, as the matter doth require. 3. The way or means of his learning obedience is lastly expressed: jAf j w=n e]]paqe , — “From the things which he suffered.” It is a usual saying, Paqh>mata , maqh>mata , — “ Sufferings” (or “corrections “) are instructions.” And we cannot exclude from hence any thing that Christ suffered, from first to last, in the days of his flesh. He suffered in his whole course, and that in great variety, as hath been showed elsewhere.
And he had experience of obedience from them all, in the sense declared.
But seeing the apostle treats concerning him as a high priest, and with especial respect to the offering himself unto God, the suffering of death, and those things which immediately led thereunto, are principally intended: “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” Philippians 2:8.
Now we may be said to learn from sufferings objectively and occasionally.
In their own nature and formally they are not instructive. All things that outwardly come upon us are ejk tw~n me>swn , and may be abused, or improved unto a good end. But in them that believe, they give a necessity and especial occasion unto the exercise of those graces wherein our obedience in that season doth consist. So from them, or by them, did the Lord Christ himself learn obedience; for by reason of them he had occasion to exercise those graces of humility, self-denial, meekness, patience, faith, which were habitually resident in his holy nature, but were not capable of the peculiar exercise intended but by reason of his sufferings. But, moreover, there was still somewhat peculiar in that obedience which the Son of God is said to learn from his own sufferings, namely, what it is for a sinless person to suffer for sinners, “the just for the unjust.” The obedience herein was peculiar unto him, nor do we know, nor can we have an experience of the ways and paths of it.
The Lord Christ, undertaking the work of our redemption, was not on the account of the dignity of his person to be spared in any thing that was necessary thereunto. He was enabled by it to undertake and perform his work; but he was not for it spared any part of it. It is all one for that; “although he were a Son,” he must now “learn obedience.” And this we have sufficiently cleared on the former verse. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. 1. Infinite love prevailed with the Son of God to lay aside the privilege of his infinite dignity, that he might suffer for us and our redemption. “Although he were a Son, yet he learned,” etc. 1. The name of “Son” carrieth with it infinite dignity, as our apostle proves at large, Hebrews 1:3,4, etc. The Son; — that is, “the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16; “the only-begotten of the Father,” John 1:14; he who “in the beginning was with God, and was God,” John 1:1,2. Foras he was “God’s own Son,” Romans 8:3; he was”in the form of God, equal with him,” Philippians 2:5,6; one with him, John 10:30.
So that infinite glory and dignity were inseparable from him. And so long as he would make use of this privilege, it was impossible he should be exposed to the least suffering, nor could the whole creation divest him of the least appurtenance of it. But, 2. He voluntarily laid aside the consideration, advantage, and exercise of it, that he might suffer for us. This our apostle fully expresseth, Philippians 2:5-8, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the ‘form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
Concerning which we must observe, — That the Son of God could not absolutely and really part with his eternal glory. Whatever he did, he was the Son of God, and God still. Neither by any thing he did, nor any thing he suffered, nor any condition he underwent, did he really forego, nor was it possible he should so do, any thing of his divine glory. He was no less God when he died than when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.” But he is said to “empty himself” of his divine glory, — 1. With respect unto the infinite condescension of his person; 2. With respect unto the manifestations of it in this world: — 1. Of his condescension, when he forewent the privilege of his eternal glory, the apostle observes sundry degrees. (1.) In his taking of our nature on him. He “took on him the form of a servant;” and therein “made himself of no reputation,” — that is, comparatively unto the glory which he had “in the form of God,” wherein he was “equal with God,” that is, the Father. Hence “the Word was made flesh,” John 1:14; or, “God was manifest in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16. This was an infinite, unspeakable, unconceiv-able condescension of the Son of God, namely, to take our nature into union with himself; whereby he who was God, like unto the Father in all things, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” became a man like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. (2.) In his so becoming a man as to take on him “the form of a servant. ” He did not immediately take the nature he had assumed into glory; but he first became a “servant” in it, — a servant to God, to do his will, and that in the most difficult service that ever God had to do in this world. (3.) In that in this service he “made himself of no reputation. ” The work, indeed, he undertook, was great and honorable, as we have before declared; but the way and manner whereby he did accomplish it was such as exposed him unto scorn, reproach, and contempt in the world, Isaiah 53:1,2; Psalm 22:6,7. (4.) In that in this work he “became obedient unto death.” Had he staid at the former degrees, his condescension had been for ever to be admired and adored; this only remains to be added, that he should die, and that penally and painfully. And this also he submitted unto. The Prince, the Author, the God of life, became obedient unto death! which also, (5.) Hath an aggravation added to it, — it was “the death of the cross, ” a shameful, ignominious, cursed death. In all these things did he lay aside the privilege of his infinite dignity; all this he did “although he were a Son.” 2. As to manifestation . He did, as it were, hide and eclipse unto the world all the glory of his divine person, under the veil of flesh which he had taken on him. Hence at the close of this dispensation, when he was finishing the work committed to him, he prays, John 17:5, “O Father, glorify thou me with that glory which I had with thee before the world was;” — ‘Let that glory which was necessarily hid and eclipsed in my debasement, wherein I have been made low for the suffering of death, now shine forth again conspicuously.’ Now the reason why the Son of God did thus forego the privilege and dignity of his glory, was his infinite love. “Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same,” Hebrews 2:14.
The reason why he condescended unto this condition, was, that he might redeem and save the children which God gave unto him; and this out of his own unspeakable love towards them, Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5; Philippians 2:5. This was that which engaged him into, and carried him through his great undertakings.
And here we may, as it were, 1. Lose ourselves in a holy admiration of this infinite love of Christ. Our apostle prays for the Ephesians, that they “might be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,” Ephesians 3:18,19.
This, it seems, is the work, the design, the endeavor of “all saints,” — namely, to come to an acquaintance with, or to live in the contemplation of the love of Christ. The dimensions here assigned unto it are only to let us know, that, which way soever we exercise our thoughts about it, there is still a suitable object for them. It wants nothing that may be a proper object for that prospect which a soul may take of it in the way of believing; and he so prays for the knowledge of it, as that he lets us know that absolutely it is incomprehensible, it “passeth knowledge.” Then do we in our measure know the love of Christ, when we know that it passeth knowledge, — when we comprehend so much of it, as to find we cannot comprehend it; and thereby we have the benefit and consolation of what we do not conceive, as well as of what we do. For as contemplation is an act of faith with respect unto our measure of comprehension, so is admiration with respect unto what exceeds it. And what way soever faith acts itself on Christ, it will bring in advantage and refreshment to the soul.
And we are never nearer Christ than when we find ourselves lost in a holy amazement at his unspeakable love. And, indeed, his love herein, that “although he were a Son,” the eternal Son of God, yet he would condescend unto the condition before described for our deliverance and salvation, is that which fills the souls of believers with admiration, not only in this world, but unto eternity. And, 2. Here we may, as it were, find ourselves. The due consideration of this love of Christ is that alone which will satisfy our souls and consciences with the grounds of the acceptance of such |
