Hebrews 5:4

Heb_5:4-6

No man taketh this honour unto himself.

The ministerial calling from God

A calling is most requisite in all things we take in hand, especially in the ministry. Who will meddle with the sheep of a man unless he be called to it? and shall we meddle with Christs sheep without a calling? As for our calling.

1. It is of God. We have Gods seal to our calling, because He hath furnished us in some measure with gifts for it.

2. We are called by the Church, which, by imposition of hands representing Gods hand, hath separated us to this office. Let every one be assured of his calling. A lamentable thing to consider, what a number of intruders there be that have thrust themselves into this holy calling. In Jeroboams time every one that would consecrate himself became one of the priests of the high places. Shall we have them to make cloth that have no skill in clothing? Will any make him his shepherd that knows not what belongs to sheep? And wilt thou deliver Christs sheep into the hands of a blind and ignorant shepherd? Wilt thou have him to build thy house that hath no skill in building? Wilt thou make him the schoolmaster of thy child that hath no learning? But any is good enough for the ministry. If men did look as well to the charge as to the dignity of the office; if Onus were as well considered as Bonus, men would not make such haste to it as they do. They watch over the souls of the people, as they that must give an account. The day of taking in our profits is sweet, but the counting day will be terrible, when Christ will require every lost sheep at our hands. Therefore let none take this honour to himself, but see that he be called of God, as Aaron was. (W. Jones, D. D.)

Order in ecclesiastical institution

In human doings and human productions we see everywhere manifestations of order. Well-ordered stones make architecture; well-ordered social regulations make a constitution and a police; well-ordered ideas make good logic; well-ordered words make good writing; well-ordered imaginations and emotions make good poetry; well-ordered facts make science. Disorder, on the ether hand, makes nothing at all, but un-makes everything. Stones in disorder produce ruins; an ill-ordered social condition is decline, revolution, or anarchy; ill-ordered ideas are absurdity; ill-ordered words are neither sense nor grammar; ill-ordered imaginations and emotions are madness; ill-ordered facts are chaos. (J. S. Blackie.)

The ministerial office

I. Here let us first learn THAT BOTH IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MAN WITHOUT A CALLING TO TAKE UPON HIM THE MINISTRY; NEITHER YET ANY CALLING OUGHT TO BE, WHICH IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF GOD: for, seeing the ministry is honourable, and he is justly honoured that executeth it faithfully, how can I exalt myself, but of right I ought again to be brought low, and instead of glory, have shame? For what do I in this but rob Christ of His glory, who is Head of His Church, and appointeth ministers whom He will, who ruleth in the house of Jacob, and ordaineth officers at His own pleasure? If in an earthly kingdom subjects would presume to take offices at their own choice, were it not extreme confusion, utter reproach and shame unto the prince? How much more to bring this confusion into the Church of Christ?

II. THE SECOND THING TO BE LEARNED IN THESE WORDS IS THAT WE HAVE ALL SUCH A CALLING AS WE MAY BE SURE IT IS OF GOD; FOR WE MUST BE CALLED OF GOD, AS AARON WAS. No minister ought to be called in the Church but he whose calling may be known to be of God. Hereof I may first conclude, touching the person of the minister: that because in all places, by the prophets, by the apostles, by our Saviour Christ, God always requireth that His ministers be of good report, well grounded in faith, able to teach His people; therefore if ignorant men, and not able to teach, be chosen unto this office, I dare boldly affirm it, their calling is not allowed of God. Now, touching the office whereunto God appointeth the ministers of His gospel, is it not this: to preach His Word, and minister Sacraments? Other governors of His Church, are they not for the peoples obedience unto this Word, and for provision of the poor? (E. Deering, B. D.)

Of the honour and function of the high priest

It here declareth that the high priests function was an honourable function, which is thus manifested.

1. The solemn manner of inaugurating, or setting them apart thereto Exo_29:1).

2. His glorious apparel (Exo_28:1-43.).

3. The great retinue that attended him: as all sorts of Levites, together with sundry inferior priests (Num_3:9; Num_8:19).

4. The liberal provision made for him out of the meat-offerings, sacrifices, firstfruits, tenths, and other oblations (Lev_2:3; Lev_5:13; Lev_7:6; Deu_18:3).

5. The difficult cases that were referred to him.

6. The obedience that was to be yielded to him.

7. The punishment to be inflicted on such as rebelled against him Deu_17:8-10, &c.).

8. The sacred services which they performed, as to be for men in things pertaining to God: to offer up what was brought to God (verse 1), and to do other particulars set clown (Heb_2:11). In such honourable esteem were high priests, as kings thought them fit matches for their daughters 2Ch_22:11).

9. The west principal honour intended under this word was that the high priest, by virtue of his calling, was a kind of mediator between God and man. For he declared the answer of the Lord to man, and offered up sacrifices to God for man. (W. George.)

Of the honour of the ministerial calling

1. Their Master is the great Lord of heaven and of earth. If it be an honour to be an especial minister of a mortal king, what is it to be the minister of such a Lord?

2. Their place is to be in the room of God, even in His stead--ambassadors for Him (2Co_5:20).

3. Their work is to declare Gods counsel (Act_20:17).

4. Their end is to perfect the saints (Eph_4:12).

5. Their reward is greater than of others (Dan_12:3). Thus hath the Lord honoured this function that it might be the better respected, and prove more profitable. Ministers in regard of their persons are as other men, of like passions with them, and subject to manifold infirmities, which would cause disrespect were it not for the honour of their function. (W. George.)

Divine designation

I. 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 HONOUR AND DIGNITY IN HIS HOUSE.

1. Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction.

2. Because, antecedently 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. 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 Exo_4:10-11; Jer_1:6; Amo_7:15-16). 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 such a person to such an office, work, or employment.

(2) It is a part of this call of God when He blesseth the endeavours 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

(a) An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with His designation of them unto their office.

(b) An especial blessing of their endeavours for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities, in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom.

(c) The communications 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 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, nor to he 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 (Jer_15:10; Jer_20:7-9), much less to 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.

(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

II. 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.

III. THE MORE EXCELLENT ANY WORK OF GOD IS, THE MORE EXPRESS OUGHT OUR CALL UNTO IT TO BE.

IV. IT IS A GREAT DIGNITY AND HONOUR TO BE DULY CALLED UNTO ANY WORK, SERVICE, OR OFFICE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD. (John Owes, D. D.)

Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest

Christ, as Son of Man, called and perfected to be our High Priest

Twice already the apostle has referred to Christ as our High Priest, and he now enters on the development of the central theme of his Epistle--Christ a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. But in order to explain the priesthood on which Christ entered after His death and resurrection, and of which not Aaron but Melchizedek was the type, it is necessary for him to show how the Lord Jesus fulfilled all that was typified of Him in the Levitical dispensation, and possessed in perfection all the requirements which, according to Divine appointment, were needed in the high priest, and which could not be possessed in perfection by sinful men like the Aaronic priests. In the first place, the priests were as sinful as the people whom they represented. It was on account of sin that Israel felt the need of a mediator. But Aaron and the priests were only officially holy; they were not in reality spotless and pure. Hence they had to offer sacrifices for their own sins and infirmities, as well as for those of the people. Secondly, the mediator ought not merely to be perfect and sinless man, he ought also to be Divine, in perfect and full communion with God, so that he can impart Divine forgiveness and blessing. Only in the Lord Jesus, therefore, is the true mediation. He who loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, hath made us kings and priests unto God. The two qualifications of the Aaronic high priest, that he was from among men and that he was appointed by God, were fulfilled in a perfect manner in the Lord Jesus. But in considering these two points, we are struck not merely by the resemblance between the type and the fulfilment, but also by the contrast.

1. Aaron was chosen from among men to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Jesus was true man, born of a woman and made under the law; He became in all things like unto His brethren. But whereas the Jewish high priest had to offer for himself, as he was a sinner, the Lord was harmless and undefiled, pure and spotless. His mediation was therefore perfect. The Aaronic high priest was able to have compassion on the ignorant and on them that were out of the way, knowing and feeling his own infirmities and transgressions, and knowing also the love of God, who desireth not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn and live. But this compassionate regard for the sinner can exist in perfection only in a sinless one. This appears at first sight paradoxical; for we expect the perfect man to be the severest judge. And with regard to sin, this is doubtless true. God chargeth even His angels with folly. He beholds sin where we do not discover it. He setteth our secret sins in the light of His countenance. And Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, like the Father, has eyes like a flame of fire, and discerns everything that is contrary to Gods mind and will. But with regard to the sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect holiness, is the most merciful, compassionate, and considerate Judge. Beholding the sinful heart in all, estimating sin according to the Divine standard, according to its real inward character, and not the human, conventional, and outward measure, Jesus, infinitely holy and sensitive as He was, saw often less to shock an,t pain Him in the drunkard and profligate than in the respectable, selfish, and ungodly religionists. Again, He had come to heal the sick, to restore the erring, to bring the sinner to repentance. He looked upon sin as the greatest and most fearful evil, but on the sinner as poor, suffering, lost, and helpless. He felt as the Shepherd towards the erring. Again, He fastened in a moment on any indications of the Fathers drawing the heart, of the Spirits work:

2. The high priest is appointed by God. No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. The high priesthood of Christ is identified here with His glory. Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest. Blessed truth, that ,he glory of Christ and our salvation are so intimately connected, that Christ regards it as His glory to be our Mediator and Intercessor! This is Christs glory, even as it is the reward of His suffering, that in Him we draw near to the Father, and that from Him we receive the blessings of the everlasting covenant. He rejoices to be our High Priest. God called Him to the priesthood. The calling of Jesus to the high priestly dignity is based on His Sonship. Because Jesus is Son, He is the Prophet, perfectly revealing God; because He is Son, He is the true Sacrifice and Priest; for only the blood of the Son of God can cleanse from all sin, and bring us nigh unto God; and only through Christ crucified and exalted can the Fathers love and the Spirits power descend into our hearts. Here the comparison and contrast between the Lord and Aaron ends. The apostle now enters on that which is peculiar to our Saviour Jesus. The types and figures of the old covenant could not be perfect and adequate; for that which is united in Christ had necessarily to be severed and set forth by a variety of figures. The priests offered not themselves, but animals. Now the obedience, the conflict, the faith, the offering of the will as the true, real, and effective Sacrifice could not possibly be symbolised. Nor could any single symbol represent how Jesus, by being first the Sacrifice, became thereby the perfect, compassionate, and merciful High Priest. Christ was the victim on the Cross. The Son of God, according to the eternal counsel, came into the world to be obedient even unto death. Lo, I come to do Thy will. His obedience was characterised throughout by such continuity, liberty, and inward delight, that we are apt to forget that aspect of His life on which the apostle dwells when he says, that though Christ was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. Real and great were His difficulties, temptations, and sorrows; and from the prayers and complaints ascribed to Messiah in the psalms and prophets, we can understand somewhat of the burden which weighed on His loving and sensitive heart, and the constant dependence with which He leaned on the Father, and obtained from Him light and strength. Jesus believed; He lived not merely before, but by the Father. Thus is Jesus the Author and Finisher of faith. He went before the sheep. He is the forerunner. He has experienced every difficulty, and last, d every sorrow. He knows the path in all its narrowness. (A. Saphir.)

Christ glorified not Himself

As the Pope doth, who will needs be styled Pontifex Maximum, the greatest high priest. Pope Hildebrand especially, whom, when no man would advance to Peters chair, he gad up himself. Said he, Who can better judge of me than myself? (J. Trapp)

The difference between the priesthood and the high priesthood of Christ

I. The priest and the high priest did not minister in the same PLACE. AS a priest, Christ ministered on earth; as high priest, He ministers in heaven.

II. The priest and the high priest did not perform the same WORK.

1. As priest, Christ sacrificed Himself.

2. As high priest, He

(1) entered heaven by His own blood;

(2) intercedes on our behalf with the Father.

III. The priest and the high priest did not appear in the same DRESS. Christ as a priest was made like unto His brethren: wore the simple dress of humanity. Christ as high priest of eternity is clothed with all the glories of immortal life.

IV. The priest and the high priest did not occupy the same POSITION. The one was a sub-officer, the other the supreme judge of the land and the president of the Sanhedrin. Christ as High Palest is the highest officer in the kingdom of God. (H. Marries.)

Christ not a self-elected, but a God-appointed priest

At length the priesthood of Christ, already three times alluded to, is taken up in earnest, and made the subject of an elaborate discussion, extending from this point Heb_10:18. The writer begins at the beginning, setting forth first of all that Christ is a legitimate priest, not a usurper; one solemnly called to the office by God, not self-elected. The chief thing in his mind here is the call or appointment; the sympathy is referred to, in connection with its source, personal infirmity, as explaining the need for a call, so as to suggest the question, Who, conscious of the infirmity which is the secret of sacerdotal mildness, would dream of undertaking such an office without a Divine call? Jesus assuredly undertook the office only as called of God. He was called to the priesthood before His incarnation. He came to the world under a Divine call. And during the days of His earthly life His behaviour was such as utterly to exclude the idea of His being a usurper of sacerdotal honours. All through His incarnate experiences, and especially in those of the closing scene, He was simply submitting to Gods will that He should be a priest. And when He returned to heaven He was saluted High Priest in recognition of His loyalty. Thus from first to last He was emphatically One called of God. What is said of the sympathy that becomes a high priest, though subordinate to the statement concerning his call, is important and interesting. First, a description is given of the office which in every clause suggests the reflection, How congruous sympathy to the sacerdotal character! The high priest is described as taken from among men, and the suggestion is that, being a man of like nature with those for whom he transacts, he may be expected to have fellow-feeling with them. Then he is further described as ordained for men in things pertaining to God, the implied thought being that he cannot acquit himself satisfactorily in that capacity unless he sympathise with those whom he represents before God. Lastly, it is declared to be his special duty to offer sacrifices of various sorts for sin, the latent idea being that it is impossible for any one to perform that duty with any earnestness or efficiency who has not genuine compassion for the sinful. Very remarkable is the word employed to describe priestly compassion. It does not signify to feel with another, but rather to abstain from feeling against him; to be able to restrain antipathy. It is carefully selected to represent the spirit which becomes a high priest as a mean between two extremes. On the one hand, he should be able to control the passions provoked by error and ignorance, anger, impatience, disgust, contempt. On the other hand, he must not be so amiable as not even to be tempted to give way to these passions. Ignorance and misconduct he must not regard with unruffled equanimity. It is plainly implied that it is possible to be too sympathetic, and so to become the slave or tool of mens ignorance or prejudices, and even partaker of their sins--a possibility illustrated by the histories of Aaron and of Eli, two high priests of Israel. The model high priest is not like either. He hates ignorance and sin, but he pities the ignorant and sinful. The ignorant for him are persons to be taught, the erring sheep to be brought back to the fold. He remembers that sin is not only an evil thing in Gods sight, but also a bitter thing for the offender; realises the misery of an accusing conscience, the shame and fear which are the ghostly shadows of guilt. The character thus drawn is obviously congenial to the priestly office. The priests duty is to offer gifts and sacrificies for sin. The performance of this duty habituates the priestly mind to a certain way of viewing sin: as an offence deserving punishment, yet pardonable on the presentation of the appropriate offering. The priests relation to the offender is also such as demands a sympathetic spirit. He is not a legislator, enacting laws with rigid penalties attached. Neither is he a judge, but rather an advocate pleading for his client at the bar. Neither is he a prophet, giving utterances in vehement language to the Divine displeasure against transgression, but rather an intercessor imploring mercy, appeasing anger, striving to awaken Divine pity. But the special source to which sacerdotal sympathy is traced is the consciousness of personal infirmity. For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. The explanation seems to labour under the defect of too great generality. A high priest is no more human in his nature and experience than other men--why, then, should he be exceptionally humane? Two reasons suggest themselves. The high priest was officially a very holy person, begirt on all sides with the emblems of holiness, copiously anointed with oil, whose exquisite aroma typified the odour of sanctity, arrayed in gorgeous robes, significant of the beauty of holiness, required to be so devoted to his sacred calling and so dead to the world that he might not mourn for the death of his nearest kin. How oppressive the burden of this official sanctity must have been to a thoughtful, humble man, conscious of personal infirmity, and knowing himself to be of like passions and sinful tendencies with his fellow-worshippers! Another source of priestly benignity was, I imagine, habitual converse in the discharge of duty with the erring and the ignorant. The high priest had officially much to do with men, and that not with picked samples, but with men in the mass; the greater number probably being inferior specimens of humanity, and all presenting to his view their weak side. He learned in the discharge of his functions to take a kindly interest in all sorts of people, even the most erratic, and to bear with inconsistency even in the best. The account given of priestly sympathy prepares us for appreciating the statement which follows concerning the need for a Divine call to the priestly office (Heb_10:4). No one, duly impressed with his own infirmities, would ever think of taking unto himself so sacred an office. A need for a Divine call is felt by all devout men in connection with all sacred offices involving a ministry on mens behalf in things pertaining to God. The tendency is to shrink from such offices, rather than to covet and ambitiously appropriate them. Having stated the general principle that a Divine call is necessary as an inducement to the assumption of the priestly office, the writer passes to the case of Jesus Christ, whom he emphatically declares to have been utterly free from the spirit of ambition, and to hare been made a high priest, not by self-election, but by Divine appointment. It is difficult to understand, at first, why the text from the second Psalm, My Son art Thou, is introduced here at all, the thing to be proved being, not that Messiah was made by God a Son, but that He was made a Priest. But on reflection we perceive that it is a preliminary hint as to what sort of priesthood is signified by the order of Melchizedec, a first attempt to insinuate into the minds of readers the idea of a priesthood belonging to Christ altogether distinct in character from the Levitical, yet the highest possible, that of one at once a Divine Son and a Divine King. On further consideration, it dawns on us that a still deeper truth is meant to be taught; that Christs priesthood is coeval with His sonship, and inherent in it. From the pre-incarnate state, to which the quotations from the Psalter refer, the writer proceeds to speak of Christs earthly history: Who, in the days of His flesh. He here conceives, as in a later part of the Epistle he expressly represents, the Christ as coming into the world under a Divine call to be a priest, and conscious of His vocation. He represents Christ as under training for the priesthood, but training implies previous destination; as an obedient learner, but obedience implies consciousness of His calling. In the verses which follow (7, 8) his purpose is to exhibit the behaviour of Jesus during His life on earth in such a light that the idea of usurpation shall appear an absurdity. The general import is: Jesus ever loyal, but never ambitious; so far from arrogating, rather shrinking from priestly office, at most simply submitting to Gods will, and enabled to do that by special grace in answer to prayer. Reference is made to Christs Sonship to enhance the impression of difficulty. Though He was a Son full of love and devotion to His Father, intensely, enthusiastically loyal to the Divine interest, ever accounting it His meat and drink to do His Fathers will, yet even for Him so minded it was a matter of arduous learning to comply with the Fathers will in connection with His priestly vocation. For it must be understood that the obedience here spoken of has that specific reference. The aim is not to state didactically that in His earthly life Jesus was a learner in the virtue of obedience all round, but especially to predicate of Him learning obedience in connection with His priestly calling--obedience to Gods will that He should be a priest. But why should obedience be so difficult in this connection? The full answer comes later on, but it is hinted at even here. It is because priesthood involves for the priest death (Heb_10:7), mortal suffering (Heb_10:8); because the priest is at the same time victim. And it is in the light of this fact that we clearly see how impossible it was that the spirit of ambition should come into play with reference to the priestly office in the case of Christ. Self-glorification was excluded by the nature of the service. The verses which follow (9, 10) show the other side of the picture: how He who glorified not Himself to be made a priest was glorified by God; became a priest indeed, efficient in the highest degree, acknowledged as such by His Father, whose will He had loyally obeyed. Being perfected, how? In obedience, and by obedience even unto death, perfected for the office of priest, death being the final stage in His training, through which He became a Pontifex consummatus. Being made perfect in and through death, Jesus became ipso facto author of eternal salvation, the final experience of suffering, by which His training for the priestly office was completed, being at the same time His great priestly achievement. The statement that through death Jesus became ipso facto author of salvation, is not falsified by the fact that the essential point in a sacrifice was its presentation before God in the sanctuary, which in the Levitical system took place subsequently to the slaughtering of the victim, when the priest took the blood within the tabernacle and sprinkled it on the altar of incense or on the mercy-seat. The death of our High Priest is to be conceived of as including all the steps of the sacrificial process within itself. Lapse of time or change of place is not necessary to the accomplishment of the work. The death of the victim, the presentation of the sacrificial blood--all was performed when Christ cried Τετέλεστει. Translated into abstract language, Heb_10:10 supplies the rationale of the fact stated in Heb_10:9. Its effect is to tell us that Christ became author of eternal salvation because He was a true High Priest after the order of Melchizedec: author of salvation in virtue of His being a priest, author of eternal salvation because His priesthood was of the Melchizedec type--never ending. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 5:4-6. And no man — Who has any regard to duty or safety; taketh this honour — This awful office, attended with a high degree of responsibility; unto himself, but he only that is called of God to it; as was Aaron — And his posterity, who were all of them called at one and the same time. But it is observable Aaron did not preach at all, preaching being no part of the priestly office. So also Christ glorified not himself — See Joh 8:54; to be made a High-Priest — That is, did not take this honour to himself, but received it from his Father, who said unto him, Thou art my Son — This solemn acknowledging of him for his Son, shows that he undertook nothing but what his Father authorized him to undertake; to-day have I begotten thee — As if he had said, There is an eternal relation between us, which is the foundation of thy call to this work. See note on Psa 2:7; Act 13:33. As he — God the Father; saith in another place — Because the former testimony was somewhat obscure, the apostle adds another more clear: Thou art a priest for ever, after — Or according to; the order of Melchisedec — That is, thou art a priest, not like Aaron, but Melchisedec. Inasmuch as Melchisedec had neither predecessor nor successor in his office, his priesthood could not, properly speaking, be called an order, if by that phrase be understood a succession of persons executing that priesthood. Therefore the expression, κατα ταξιν, here rendered after the order, must mean after the similitude of Melchisedec, as it is expressed Heb 7:15; and as the Syriac version renders the phrase in this verse. The words of God’s oath, recorded Psa 110:4, are very properly advanced by the apostle as a proof of the Messiah’s priesthood, because the Jews in general acknowledged that David wrote that psalm by inspiration concerning Christ.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

III

He possesses moreover this character by His being called of God to this office, and that as antitype of Melchisedec.

Heb_5:4-10.

4And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that [in that he]5 is called ofGod, as [just as, καθώσπερ]6 was [also] Aaron7. 5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day haveI begotten thee; 6as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever afterthe order of Melchisedec; 7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up [offering up] prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared [and being hearkenedto from his pious reverence]; 8though he were [was] a Son, yet learned he [om. he]obedience by [from] the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became10the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;8 Called [being saluted προσαγορευθείς] of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

[Heb_5:4.—καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ, and not for himself, ἑαυτῷ, emphatic in position.—ἀλλὰ καλούμενος (omitting ὁ), but being called=‘as being called,’ or, “on the ground that he is called.”—καθώσπερ.: ὡς, as καθώς according as; καθώσπερ, precisely, or, just according as.

Heb_5:5.—ὁ λαλήσας scil. ἐδόξασεν αὐτόν.

Heb_5:7.—δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας, both entreaties and supplications.—προσενέγκας, offering up, or, by offering up; not, “when he had offered up,” nor, “having offered up”—εἰσακουσθείς, being hearkened to.—ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, from (=on account of) his reverent fear, filial fear: Moll, Frömmigkeit, piety: others, “aus der Gottesfurcht.”—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb_5:4. And none taketh upon himself—just as also Aaron.—The particle καί carries back λαμβάνει, and connects it with καθίσταται, the principal verb of the period (Heb_5:1), and introduces the second leading qualification demanded in the high-priest, viz., the fact of his being Divinely called,—a qualification realized at the very inauguration of the high-priesthood, in the case of Aaron. Böhme, Bleek and Bisping assume without sufficient ground in λαμβάνει a paronomasia with λαμβανόμενος, Heb_5:1. The τιμή, honor, restricted by the article, refers not indefinitely to any position of honor whatever, but refers to the special honor here in question, that of the high-priesthood; and Ἀαρών again is not here a collective term for Aaron and his descendants, but Aaron, the individual person, standing as a model and example for all subsequent high-priests, by whom, in common with their head and progenitor, the office was originally held during life, the office alternating between the families of the two sons of Aaron, Eleazer and Ithamar. In a Midrash published by Schöttgen and Wetstein, Moses says to the troop of Korah: “If Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him. But God gave it to him, and he who rebels against Aaron, rebels against God. To which Korah says in reply: ‘Think ye that I claim to take the dignity for myself? I simply demand that it pass to us all in rotation.’ ” Under the Roman dominion, appointments to and removals from the priesthood were made at pleasure, without reference to the descent of the candidate from Aaron. The text, however, gives no warrant to our imagining (with Chrys., Œcum., Theoph., etc.) an allusion by the author to this state of things. Καθώσπερ, precisely according as, entirely as. Λαμβάνειν ἑαυτῷ does not of necessity involve the idea of usurpation (Luk_19:12). But if a Divine call and personal choice of the position are placed in contrast, then the latter is really usurpation—a fact which Hofm. fails to perceive.

Heb_5:5. Thus also Christ glorified not himself, etc.—Hofm. (Schriftb. II., 1, 282; 2 Ed. II., 1, 398) says: “It was no act of self-glorification by which the Royal Mediator of salvation became High-Priest; it was on the path of sorrow and suffering that He attained to that glory in which He is now a High-Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” But this contrast of δοξάζειν and παθεῖν anticipates the subsequent discussion. The same is true if we refer the passage to Christ’s royal dignity, whether we find the allusion to it in ὁ χριστός or in ἐδόξασεν. The δόξα is but an equivalent to the τιμή of Heb_5:4 (Bl., etc.), and the term ὁ χριστός is selected because Jesus Christ is regarded here not in His person, but in His character of Messiah, who, as Anointed One, is seated at the right hand of God.

But he who said to him, etc., as also in another passage.—The two citations do not express the same idea; nor is the former adduced to prove that Christ is also a High-Priest (Schlicht., Grot., Steng., Ebr., etc.), but simply to call to mind the relation previously unfolded, that, viz., which the God who has bestowed this priestly dignity on Christ, sustains as Father to this Anointed One. The second citation from Psa_110:4 proceeds to define the priestly position of Jesus, already repeatedly alluded to in a general way, by its special feature, alleging, viz., that its true type is to be found not in Aaron, but Melchisedec. The essential import of the statement is subsequently unfolded. Τάξις signifies neither order of succession (Schultz), nor rank, but position, quality, mode, or kind, for which Heb_7:15 has κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα. “Him whom God, in the words, ‘My Son art Thou,’ declares to be His world-ruling Anointed One, He also, in His words, ‘Thou art a Priest,’ declares to be an eternal Priest—two closely united and kindred utterances of God’s prophetic word in the Psalms” (Del.).

Heb_5:7. Who in the days of his flesh—suffered.—The ὅς refers back to the subject ὁ χριστός, to which the Aor. ἔμαθε belongs, and of which the contemporaneous circumstances, or the way and manner of learning, are denoted by the Aor. Part. προσενέγκας and εἰσακουσθείς. The phrase, “in the days of His flesh,” i.e, of His human life on earth, is contrasted with His perfected state, mentioned Heb_5:9, and belongs to the main verb, ἔμαθεν. To ἔμαθεν answers ἐπαθεν, with an intended assonance. From that which (not in general: “by the fact that”) He suffered (ἀπό with μανθάνω, as Mat_11:29 : παρά, or ἐκ, Mat_24:32 [Mat_24:32 has ἀπὸ τῆς συκῆς, which would be the more regular construction with things; παρά with persons, though the usage is by no means invariable—K.]) He learned His (the Art. τήν being specific) obedience. To put in parenthesis the clause, καίπερ—ὑπακοήν, and thus (with Abresch, Dind., Heinr., Steng., etc.) carry the ὄς over to ἐγένετο as its first principal verb, is totally inadmissible. For καίπερ can never be constructed with a finite verb which here would be ἔμαθε [i.e, although, as being a Son, He learned, etc., which would require εἰ καί, or some combination with εἰ]. But neither is the clause, καίπερ ὢν υἱός, to be connected, as by Chrys. and Theoph., with εἰσακουσθείς. For the particle points to some apparent inconsistency between the clause in which it stands (although being a Son) and the main declaration with which it stands connected. Yet no such inconsistency can be found between the relation of Son and the fact of His being hearkened to (rather the reverse), but it does seem inconsistent with the leading thought of the period which points to Jesus Christ’s humiliation and to His possession as Man of the first requisite of a high-priest, mentioned Heb_5:1-3 (just as Heb_5:5-6, declare His possession of that second requisite mentioned Heb_5:4). The “learning of obedience” is a mark of humanity; and even in this fact of the actual development of Jesus, would the actual state and condition of the Son of God, have disclosed itself But here the question is not of that actual condition, viz., of Christ’s essential likeness to and equality with humanity, by virtue of the incarnation. That matter has been previously disposed of. The question is now of His fitness for being a High-Priest, and this by virtue of His sympathy with the weaknesses of men. The emphasis, therefore, rests not on ἔμαθεν, learned (Del.), but on the whole closely connected phrase, ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὦν ἔπαθεν.

Heb_5:7. Offering up supplications—and being hearkened to, etc.—With ἱκετηρία (which at Job_40:20 is also connected with δέησις) ἔλαια or ῥάβδος [or κλάδος], is originally to be supplied, the word thus properly denoting by ellipsis the olive branch, which was borne in the hands of a suppliant who was imploring help or protection [Soph., Œd. Tyr., l. 3]: whence arose then the signification of earnest entreaty=ἱκεσία, ἱκετεία. It is uncertain whether (Theophil., Bl., De W., Bisp., etc.), we are to assume, in respect to the verbal coloring of these clauses, a reference to Psalms 22, 116. There certainly is none to the loud praying of the Jewish high-priest on the annual day of atonement (Braun, Böhme, etc.); most probably [I think certainly—K.] reference is here made to the prayer in Gethsemane, and reference in the plural nouns to its successive repetitions. The added clause, “with strong outcry” (μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρἄς), leads Calv., Schultz, Stein, etc., to regard the language as referring, along with these prayers, to the loud crying of Jesus on the cross; Cajetan, Este., Calov, and Strauss, refer the whole exclusively to this latter, and Klee confines it even to the loud outcry with which Jesus died. These applications of the passage are by no means (with De W.) to be regarded as unsuited to the context,9 they are rather very natural, inasmuch as the struggling of Jesus with that suffering of death which was inseparable from His Messianic office, and which had long been present to His thought, was not limited to His agonizing supplications in Gethsemane; and the two Aorist participles are not to be resolved by after that, viz., after that He had offered, etc., (De W., Hofm.), but in that (viz., in that He offered, or by offering). The words allude, however, preëminently, to the suffering in Gethsemane; and we have here, perhaps, given us, in close accordance with the account of Luk_22:39-46, a scene of evangelical history resting upon tradition, which has also found its way even into the text of some recensions of Luke himself. For according to Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), the mention of tears is found ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις ἀντιγράφοις. Moreover, Luk_19:41, and Joh_11:35, show the Lord weeping; while again, on the other hand, the ἀγωνία of Jesus in the garden (Luk_22:44), is not without example in the record of His life, Joh_12:27. We may imagine that the picture here drawn sustains a relation to the Gospel narrative like that which Hos_12:5 sustains to the wrestling of Jacob at the Jabbok, Gen_32:26 (Böhme, Del.). Since elsewhere in our Epistle (Heb_9:14; Heb_11:4), as in the classics, προσφέρω is connected with the Dative, it is most natural not to make (with Lün.) πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου dependent on the verb, but on δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας. The mere expression σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου admits indifferently of being referred to deliverance from peril of death (Theod., Calv., Bengel, etc.) and to rescuing out of death itself (Œc., Calov, Este., etc.); for which reason Michael., Bl., and others, unite the two. [But most assuredly erroneously. For what our Saviour prayed for, was not to be snatched from death after He had experienced it, but rescued from its impending approach. It was to be saved from “that hour”—to be delivered from “drinking that cup”—to evade the terrible scene whose black shadow was now thrown over His soul, that He prayed, and this was denied Him. Still, as His prayer was made in entire resignation to His Father’s will, He was “hearkened to,” approved and accepted in it, even though a literal compliance with it could not be accorded to Him. He “was hearkened to,” in that an angel was sent to strengthen Him; in that His death was accepted in all its atoning import, and in that He received the full reward of His suffering; that agonizing prayer being only an additional and fuller proof of the depth of His temptations, and the completeness of His resignation.—K.]. We cannot from this decide in regard to the sense of the words Jesus was heard ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. We are hardly to interpret this of His being freed from fear, (Ambros., Grot., and many, following the Itala exauditus a metu), which Calvin and Schlichting understand, of the object of the fear, viz., death. This interpretation would be allowed, indeed, by the ἀπό, and, moreover, εὐλαβεία has, in fact, the meaning of fear (Wis_17:8; 2Ma_8:16). It can, as appears from Sir_4:1; Sir_4:3, pass over into the signification of a fearful holding back, and of shuddering at the contact and infliction of the κρίμα θανάτου; whence Hofm. understands it of Jesus’ recoiling from death; and Tholuck, after Aretius, explains it of shrinking, shuddering, detrectatio, and reminds us of the εἰ δυνατόν, if it is possible, of the prayer in Gethsemane. But εὐλαβεία means assuredly in general, only thoughtfulness, precaution, foresight, the right taking hold and grasping of a thing. Thus the fundamental idea points not to fear of danger, but to fear of injury, which, in the sphere of religion, is conscientiousness in dealing with our relation to God, and with the duties which spring from it. Thus this word stands at Luk_2:25; Act_2:5; Act_8:2; Act_22:12 (Lachm.); and so our author uses it Heb_11:7; Heb_12:28. For this reason we should also prefer the rendering of Luther after the Vulgate, pro sua reverentia; and so with all the Greek interpreters, Bl., Lün., Del., etc. The preposition ἀπό points not to the object, but to the ground of the hearing [i.e, not being hearkened to so as to be delivered from the thing feared: but hearkened to from=in consequence of His filial reverence]; and is used as at Luk_19:3; Luk_23:41; Act_12:14; Act_20:9; Act_22:11.

[I have explained above the force of εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπό correctly interpreted by the author “being hearkened to from, i.e, in consequence of his pious reverence.” He was hearkened to none the less now than when as at John 11. He said, “I know that thou hearest me always.” His prayer was couched in such a perfect spirit of resignation, that He was heard in it none the less approvingly, notwithstanding that the specific thing prayed for was not, and could not be granted. And it was only the most dreadful suffering and temptation that could have wrung out, even from the human weakness of the Saviour (and even with this all important qualification), the prayer, the granting of which would of course have nullified the entire purpose of the Saviour’s incarnation.—K.].

Hofm. regards the offering of prayers and tears as a sacrificial act, and places it, as standing connected with human weakness, in express parallel with the προσφέρειν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, which, in the case of the high-priest, must, of necessity, precede his bringing the offerings on behalf of the congregation (of course with the distinction which exists between the weakness of the sinful high-priest, and that of the sinless Saviour). But this idea, which Del. takes unnecessary pains to refute, is expressly contradicted by the passage Heb_7:27.

Heb_5:9. And being perfected, etc.—The ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, Act_6:7 : Rom_1:5, is the condition of the attainment of salvation, of which Christ, in His ὑπακοή, is the author to them that obey Him. On both sides, alike in Saviour and saved, the moral character of the relation is strongly emphasized, and at the same time, the πᾶσιν, to all, brings out the universality of the design of this salvation, as the term eternal (αἱώνιος), designates its nature, Isa_45:17; while its realization among men demands, on the one side, the perfection of the life of Christ, and on the other, the imitation of His life. The connecting point of these ideas, lies in the fact that Christ has not otherwise been perfected, and elevated to the participation of Divine glory on the throne of the Heavenly Majesty, than by the voluntary offering of His life, morally perfected amidst temptations and sufferings. Thus He has become not merely a priestly king, but a high-priest after the order of Melchisedek, and as such He is not so much prophetically designated by God in Psa_110:4 (where we have barely ἱερεύς), but solemnly greeted on His arriving at perfection, as shown by the Aor. Part., προσαγορευθείς, which expresses an act contemporaneous with the ἐγένετο. The author thus says that the prophecy has been fulfilled, and so fulfilled that yet a new feature, that of the High-Priesthood, is to be conceived as jointly included (Hofm.).

[The reader will notice some verbal allusions and contrasts in this passage, not unworthy of attention. Christ prayed to Him who was able to save (σώζειν) Him from a momentary death,—for such a σωτηρία,—yet did not receive it, but passing through it, became the author of an eternal σωτηρία to His people. Again He submitted to this death in ὑπακοή, obedience, to His Father’s will, and thus became πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ, to all who obey Him, the author, etc. Thus the saving from physical death which He prayed for, is contrasted with the eternal saving which He bestows on His people; and the obedience which led Him to submit to that death, is paralleled with the obedience which enables them to reap its fruits in eternal salvation.—K.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. For the legitimate exercise of an office, personal fitness, is not sufficient; there is demanded for it especially a regular call, which has its origin in God, and in times of disorder and convulsion, receives and finds in God its reëstablishment. The modes of calling may therefore be very various, and it is specially necessary to distinguish the forms, which, in times of great national convulsion, God has instituted for promoting the objects of His kingdom, from those which, in definite social relations and spheres of life, are established by virtue of human laws, on behalf of right and justice, for the attainment of specific ends.

2. That, however, under all circumstances, we are to proceed in accordance with the Scripture, and that, even in unwonted cases, God, as a God of order, proceeds according to recognized laws, and in harmony with His holy revelation, is clear from the example of Jesus Christ, and the relation of His high-priesthood to that of Aaron and Melchisedek. All three are ordained of God for definite periods and circumstances; and the Holy Scripture discloses perfectly their mutual relations, so far as they are important to the history of redemption. The Aaronic priesthood, with its legal, hereditary succession and Levitical character, is expressly designated as simply an intervening and preparatory stage. The union of the priestly and kingly offices in Melchisedec, appearing as an insulated fact, and without the precincts of the covenant people, is stripped of its apparently purely accidental character, and elevated to a type of that which, within the sphere of the covenant people, was, in the person of the Messiah, to stand forth in closest connection with the history of salvation. But Jesus, although Son of God, has still, in no self-willed and arbitrary manner, taken this dignity to Himself, but in the way which had been previously announced, has been placed in it by the Father.

3. True preparation for an office which is to subserve the honor of God and the salvation of men, is acquired not by amplitude of knowledge and of skill, but by learning of obedience, by which the whole person is prepared to be a willing and capable instrument for the Divine counsels. In this way Jesus Himself has been perfected, and for this reason draws all who believe in Him into the fellowship of His conflicts and His victories, of His sufferings and His blessedness.

4. The hardest thing to conceive is that the sufferings of the pious, and among them again those of the Son of God, lie within the sphere of the Divine counsels, and possess a healing and saving power. And the hardest thing to render is obedience, which not only abides by and accomplishes the will of God amidst sufferings, but in the sufferings themselves, shall perceive and prove the Divine will as a will of love, and to evince and maintain the harmony of our personal will with the will of God, by a free reception of the destined and allotted suffering.

5. As principal auxiliaries in this conflict of faith and suffering, we have given to us the certainty of the hearing of prayer, the consoling assurance of our ultimate personal perfection, and the power of communion with Jesus Christ. For Christ is to us, not merely an example and pattern, but to them that obey Him, He is the author of eternal salvation, after having been Himself perfected. His perfection refers, on the one hand, to His office of high-priestly Mediator; for, after that He had become obedient unto the death of the cross (Php_2:8), He passed into His state of exaltation in which His merits should retain an everlasting efficacy. But this perfection of His career, dependent on the fulfilment of His calling, presupposes, on the other hand, that complete unfolding of His personal character, which was dependent upon His actual humanity. Faith in the concrete unity of the life of the God-man, requires the application of the idea of development to His entire personality, after the example of Luk_2:52. But faith in His sinlessness excludes every thought of moral deficiency, and of a gradual triumph over it by the process of development. His learning of obedience, denotes not a transition from disobedience to obedience, but the practical power and depth of His personal experience of that which is connected with human life.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Christ is High-priest by virtue of His suffering of death; He is a high-priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, by virtue of His exaltation upon the throne of God,—The priesthood of Christ is partly an office committed to Him, partly a calling obtained and won upon the path of suffering.—In accordance with a divine calling, we are to deem no service, and no sacrifice too heavy, and are in this to take Christ as our pattern and our helper.—The school of suffering, in which we learn obedience, is the longest and severest; but is productive of the richest fruits.—Our way to glory and eternal blessedness, leads through suffering which God ordains after the example, and through the help of Jesus Christ.—No period of life is secure from suffering; no rank and condition form a protection against it; no virtue and no merit are secure against it; but it serves to the children of God as a means of discipline in piety, and aids in time to the perfecting of our life for eternity.—Prayers and tears are an aid to willing obedience.—Only those sufferings which resemble Christ’s conflict of suffering, can comfort, purify and save.

Starke:—Observe how deeply Christ was humiliated, how zealously He prayed, how obedient He proved Himself. Do thou also learn from Him, this zeal in prayer, this obedience in suffering.—Our prayers and thanksgivings are also offerings, yet not propitiatory; but prayer and thank-offerings, that we may evince our faith and thankfulness of heart.—Jesus, since He was the Son of God, and still took upon Himself sufferings, to which he might undoubtedly have remained superior, proves thus that He suffered not from compulsion, but with the most perfect willingness.—Christ renders those blessed who are obedient to Him. No others become partakers of His salvation.—The offering of the Lord Jesus on the tree of the cross is the grand feature of the atonement made on our behalf, and of all the glory connected therewith.

Rieger:—If in our human hearts there can be wrought by the Spirit of God groanings which are not to be uttered, oh, then, what prayers must the Eternal Spirit, through whom our great High-priest offered Himself to His God, have called forth in Him: What sanctifying of God, of His name, counsel and will; what justifying of His judgments; what a piercing to the depths of His love; what appeal to His omnipotence; what subjection to His sovereign decree; what submission under all that was outwardly most painful and ignominious, and what a tenacious hold by hope on all that is most glorious, were united, together in this prayer!—For this reason was the suffering of Jesus so mighty to expiate the sins of the whole world, because, in His suffering He so justified, in the prayer of His willing spirit, the judgment of God upon sin, and yet was not to be drawn away from His trust in Him who had placed Him in this office.—Dread, fear, is the sharpest sting in suffering. This the Saviour was unable to escape particularly for the sake of needful sympathizing with us. There He experienced how weak one might be amidst entire willingness of spirit, so long as one is in the flesh; now He knows also what it is “to be heard.”—Jesus had already previously evinced so much willing, joyful obedience in His heroic course from the Father, through the world, to the Father; but now He learned what is the deepest element in all obedience, viz: that in suffering two separate wills come into conflict with each other, of which the one must be subjected to the other; the will of the flesh and the will of the spirit.—Christ now devotes just as much fidelity to the carrying out and perfecting of our salvation, as He did formerly to the obtaining of it.—Weakness of the flesh becomes sinful when it would subdue the willingness of the spirit; but if we cry to God in prayer, so that we are heard and delivered from it, it becomes the appropriate discipline under which we learn and practice obedience.

Hahn:—Christ knows from experience what belongs to a happy emerging from trial and suffering. Now He most sympathizingly pleads our cause with His Father.—The will and calling of the Father are clear from the fact; 1, that the Father Himself, as it were, schooled His Son thereto in the days of His flesh; 2, that the Father Himself perfected Him and made Him the pledge and surety of our salvation.

Heubner:—Tears are a sign of strong, fervent, earnest prayer, and prayer a sign of the holy nature of tears.—Christ must be to us a consolation and a source of quickening that we may not withdraw ourselves from the school of God.—Sufferings lead to perfection, and produce the most blessed fruits.—None, least of all the priest, should push himself forward into office.—He who arrogates to himself honor is not worthy of it.—The Divine call ensures an honorable office.—Because God calls, we must serve.—Christ is appointed of God; His dignity, His right, are founded upon God’s ordination.—The Divine Sonship of Christ was the first ground of His priestly dignity. To this God has borne witness in His word.

Stein:—Called long since by the Father to be High-priest, the Son proves in His human lowliness that he is able worthily to fulfil such a, calling.—He who pushes himself forward prematurely is led by empty honor; an office which is administered in a Christian manner and spirit brings with it true honor.

Hedinger:—Personally tried, ready to believe, willing to help; all these united thou hast in thy Saviour.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:4 The role of high priest is by God’s appointment rather than human enlistment (see Exod 28:1; Lev 8:1-12; Num 16:1-26).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 5:4. Καὶ, and) The apostle here commences a discussion on the actual (very) priesthood of Christ.—τὶς, any) Levitical priest.—τὴν τιμὴν, honour) The priesthood is an honour. Its synonym is δόξα, glory, Heb 5:5.—Αἀρὼν, Aaron) received it by being called.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_5:4. The second necessary qualification: to be no usurper of the office, but one called of God to the same.

καί] Progress, not from Heb_5:3, nor yet from Heb_5:1, in such wise that λαμβάνει, Heb_5:4, should form a paronomasia with λαμβανόμενος, Heb_5:1 (Böhme, Bleek, Bisping, Alford, Maier), but from Heb_5:1-3.

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

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

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

Aaron and his descendants were, according to Exo_28:1; Exo_29:4 ff., Lev_8:1 ff., Num_3:10; Num_3:16-18, called by God Himself to the high-priesthood. Comp. Bammidbar rabba, sec. 18, fol. 234. 4 (in Schöttgen and Wetstein): Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: si Aaron frater meus sibimet ipsi sacerdotium sumsit, recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis; jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit, cujus est magnitudo et potentia et regnum. Quicumque igitur contra Aaronem surgit, contra ipsum Deum surgit. Not until the time of Herod and the Roman governors were high priests arbitrarily appointed and deposed, without respect to their descent from Aaron. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10. 5; Winer, Bibl. Realwörterb. I. p. 591, 2 Aufl. That, however, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Abresch, and others conjecture, the author intended by the words of Heb_5:4 at the same time to indicate that the high priests of that period were no longer true high priests at all, since they had acquired their office at the hand of men, and in the way of venality, is not very probable, inasmuch as the author would otherwise have expressed himself more clearly with regard thereto.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The third comparison which is whole: The others are called of God, and so was Christ, but in another order than Aaron: for Christ is called the Son, begotten of God, and a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

no man--of any other family but Aaron's, according to the Mosaic law, can take to himself the office of high priest. This verse is quoted by some to prove the need of an apostolic succession of ordination in the Christian ministry; but the reference here is to the priesthood, not the Christian ministry. The analogy in our Christian dispensation would warn ministers, seeing that God has separated them from the congregation of His people to bring them near Himself, and to do the service of His house, and to minister (as He separated the Levites, Korah with his company), that content with this, they should beware of assuming the sacrificial priesthood also, which belongs to Christ alone. The sin of Korah was, not content with the ministry as a Levite, he took the sacerdotal priesthood also. No Christian minister, as such, is ever called Hiereus, that is, sacrificing priest. All Christians, without distinction, whether ministers or people, have a metaphorical, not a literal, priesthood. The sacrifices which they offer are spiritual, not literal, their bodies and the fruit of their lips, praises continually (Heb 13:15). Christ alone had a proper and true sacrifice to offer. The law sacrifices were typical, not metaphorical, as the Christian's, nor proper and true, as Christ's. In Roman times the Mosaic restriction of the priesthood to Aaron's family was violated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. This honour] τηντιμην undoubtedly signifies here the office, which is one meaning of the word in the best Greek writers. It is here an honourable office, because the man is the high priest of God, and is appointed by God himself to that office.

But he that is called of God, as was Aaron.] God himself appointed the tribe and family out of which the high priest was to be taken, and Aaron and his sons were expressly chosen by God to fill the office of the high priesthood. As God alone had the right to appoint his own priest for the Jewish nation, and man had no authority here; so God alone could provide and appoint a high priest for the whole human race. Aaron was thus appointed for the Jewish people; Christ, for all mankind.

Some make this "an argument for the uninterrupted succession of popes and their bishops in the Church, who alone have the authority to ordain for the sacerdotal office; and whosoever is not thus appointed is, with them, illegitimate." It is idle to employ time in proving that there is no such thing as an uninterrupted succession of this kind; it does not exist, it never did exist. It is a silly fable, invented by ecclesiastical tyrants, and supported by clerical coxcombs. But were it even true, it has nothing to do with the text. It speaks merely of the appointment of a high priest, the succession to be preserved in the tribe of Levi, and in the family of Aaron. But even this succession was interrupted and broken, and the office itself was to cease on the coming of Christ, after whom there could be no high priest; nor can Christ have any successor, and therefore he is said to be a priest for ever, for he ever liveth the intercessor and sacrifice for mankind. The verse, therefore, has nothing to do with the clerical office, with preaching God's holy word, or administering the sacraments; and those who quote it in this way show how little they understand the Scriptures, and how ignorant they are of the nature of their own office.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. And no man, etc. There is to be noticed in this verse partly a likeness and partly a difference. What makes an office lawful is the call of God; so that no one can rightly and orderly perform it without being made fit for it by God. Christ and Aaron had this in common, that God called them both; but they differed in this, that Christ succeeded by a new and different way and was made a perpetual priest. It is hence evident that Aaron’s priesthood was temporary, for it was to cease. We see the object of the Apostle; it was to defend the right of Christ’s priesthood; and he did this by showing that God was its author. But this would not have been sufficient, unless it was made evident that an end was to be put to the old in order that a room might be obtained for this. And this point he proves by directing our attention to the terms on which Aaron was appointed, for we are not to extend them further than God’s decree; and he will presently make it evident how long God had designed this order to continue. Christ then is a lawful priest, for he was appointed by God’s authority. What is to be said of Aaron and his successors? That they had as much right as was granted them by the Lord, but not so much as men according to their own fancy concede to them.

But though this has been said with reference to what is here handled, yet we may hence draw a general truth, — that no government is to be set up in the Church by the will of men, but that we are to wait for the command of God, and also that we ought to follow a certain rule in electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own humor. Both these things ought to be distinctly noticed for the Apostle here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; nay, he denies that the office which men appoint without God’s command is lawful and divine. For as it appertains to God only to rule his Church, so he claims this right as his own, that is, to prescribe the way and manner of administration. I hence deem it as indisputable, that the Papal priesthood is spurious; for it has been framed in the workshop of men. God nowhere commands a sacrifice to be offered now to him for the expiation of sins; nowhere does he command priests to be appointed for such a purpose. While then the Pope ordains his priests for the purpose of sacrificing, the Apostle denies that they are to be counted lawful priests; they cannot therefore be such, except by some new privilege they exalt themselves above Christ, for he dared not of himself to take upon him this honor, but waited for the command of the Father.

This also ought to be held good as to persons, that no individual is of himself to seize on this honor without public authority. I speak now of offices divinely appointed. At the same time it may sometimes be, that one, not called by God, is yet to be tolerated, however little he may be approved, provided the office itself be divine and approved by God; for many often creep in through ambition or some bad motives, whose call has no evidence; and yet they are not to be immediately rejected, especially when this cannot be done by the public decision of the Church. For during two hundred years before the coming of Christ the foulest corruptions prevailed with respect to the priesthood, yet the right of honor, proceeding from the calling of God, still continued as to the office itself; and the men themselves were tolerated, because the freedom of the Church was subverted. It hence appears that the greatest defect is the character of the office itself, that is, when men of themselves invent what God has never commanded. The less endurable then are those Romish sacrificers, who prattle of nothing but their own titles, that they may be counted sacred, while yet they have chosen themselves without any authority from God.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(4) But he that is called.—The true reading requires, when he is called. “Not unto himself doth any man take the honour, but when . . .”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. this honour] i.e. this honourable office. We have here the second Qualification for Priesthood. A man’s own caprice must not be the Bishop which ordains him. He must be conscious of a divine call.

but he that is called of God] Rather, “but on being called by God,” or “when he is called by God.” Great stress is laid on this point in Scripture (Exo_28:1). Any “stranger that cometh nigh”—i.e. that intruded unbidden into the Priesthood—was to be put to death (Num_3:10). The fate of Korah and his company (Num_16:40), and of Uzziah, king though he was (2Ch_26:18-21), served as a terrible warning, and it was recorded as a special aggravation of Jeroboam’s impiety that “he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi” (1Ki_12:31). In one of the Jewish Midra-shim, Moses says to Korah “if Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him; “but God gave it to him.” Some have supposed that the writer here reflects obliquely upon the High Priests of that day—alien Saddu-cees, not descended from Aaron (Jos. Antt. xx. 10) who had been introduced into the Priesthood from Babylonian families by Herod the Great, and who kept the highest office, with frequent changes, as a sort of apanage of their own families—the Boethusim, the Kantheras, the Kamhits, the Beni-Hanan. For the characteristics of these Priests, who completely degraded the dignity in the eyes of the people, see my Life of Christy ii. 330, 342. In the energetic maledictions pronounced upon them in more than one passage of the Talmud, they are taunted with not being true sons of Aaron. But it is unlikely that the writer should make this oblique allusion. He was an Alexandrian; he was not writing to the Hebrews of Jerusalem; and these High Priests had been in possession of the office for more than half a century.

as was Aaron] The original is more emphatic “exactly as even Aaron was” (Numbers 16-18). The true Priest must be a divinely-appointed Aaron, not a self-constituted Korah.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And no man taketh this honour to himself,.... That is, the honour of the priesthood: the office of the high priest was a very honourable one; it was a peculiar honour to Aaron, and his sons, to be separated unto it; their instalment into it was very grand and solemn; at that time they were anointed with oil, and clothed with glorious garments, and sacrifices were offered for them; they had an honourable maintenance assigned them, and a large retinue of priests and Levites to attend them; great respect and reverence were shown them: but their principal honour lay in the work they performed; in representing the whole body of the people; in offering gifts and sacrifices for them; in blessing them; and in the resolution of difficult cases brought unto them; in all which they were types of Christ, the high priest. Now no man might take this honourable office upon himself, or intrude himself into it, or obtain it by any unjust method, or in any other way than by a call from God; nor did any man dare to do it, until of late, when some got into it of themselves, and were put in by the Roman governors, and even purchased it of them (a): so Joshua ben Gamla became an high priest (b); and some have thought the apostle has some respect to these wicked practices, and tacitly reproves them, as what ought not to be: for no one ought to be in this office,

but he that is called of God, as was Aaron; whose call was immediately from the Lord, and was unquestionable: Moses was ordered to separate him, and his sons, from the children of Israel, and install them into this office; they were destroyed by fire, or swallowed up by the earth, that disputed his call; and this was confirmed by a miracle, by his dry rod budding, blooming, and bringing forth almonds: and the apostle instances in him, because his call was so remarkable and authentic; and because he was the first high priest of the Jews, and from whence the rest descended, who were lawful ones.

(a) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 2. Bartenora in Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. & Maimon. in ib. sect. 3. (b) Misn. Yebamot, c. 6. sect. 4. & Gloss. in T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 18. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Ver. 4. And no man taketh, &c.] Or if he do, he shall smoke and smart for it, as did Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah and Uzziah, &c. In physicis aer non facit seipsum ignem, sed fit a superiori, as Aquinas noteth upon ft, is text. No man might come uncalled to the king of Persia upon pain of death. What then shall become of such as come without a call to the King of heaven? Christ would not let the devil preach him, Mar 1:13, quia extra vocationem, as one well notes, because he had no calling to such an office.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

But he that is called of God as was Aaron - Aaron was designated by name. It was necessary that his successors should have as clear evidence that they were called of God to the office, as though they had been mentioned by name. The manner in which the high priest was to succeed to the office was designated in the Law of Moses, but in the time of Paul these rules were little regarded. The office had become venal, and was conferred at pleasure by the Roman rulers. Still it was true that according to the Law, to which alone Paul here refers, no one might hold this office but he who had the qualifications which Moses prescribed, and which showed that he was called of God. We may remark here:

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

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

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

See in 3 Kings xiii.; 2 Paralipomenon xxvi.; and 1 Kings xiii. the manifest punishments of the Almighty on laics that impiously and sacrilegiously attempted the ministry of priests. In the Christian dispensation, archbishop Cranmer, the very soul of the pretended reformation, dictatorially pronounces, "he that is appointed to be a bishop or priest, needeth no consecration:" words quoted by Dr. Stillingfleet from his own handwriting, in his Irenicum, p. 391, 2nd. ed. But the Catholic Church has given a very different decision, which is confirmed by the testimony of Scripture, apostolical tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. See Acts vi. 6. and xiii. 3. and xiv. 22.; 1 Timothy iv. 14. &c. See in the history of Socrates, who lived in the fifth century, how the usurpation of Ischyras, in taking upon himself the name and office of a priest without receiving holy orders, was reprobated as a crime worthy of death. (lib. 1. chap. xxvii. Ed. Val.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This connecteth the last thing describing the typical Levitical priesthood, their call to it.

And no man taketh this honour unto himself; not any person whatsoever hath or can lawfully take to himself the honourable office of a high priest, so as to be the author or end of it. Many have usurped this office, and others have distributed it contrary to God’s law, whose priesthood, offerings, and ministry are no true ones, especially where men are self-officiating, corruptly managing of it, as Eli’s sons and Jeroboam’s priests, or self-benefiting by it, 1Sa 2:13, &c.; Mic 3:11. This was so honourable an office as it was united to the princedom in Melchisedec and Jethro.

But he that is called of God, as was Aaron; he that is according to God’s law, (the Author of this priesthood, its work and success), qualified in himself, separated from others, and actually honoured by God with it, he onght to take this office and execute his work in it to God’s glory, depending on him for his blessing. Aaron is the particular instance of the Divine call to this office. God separated his tribe, family, and person for his service in the room of the first-born: God qualified him for it, entailed the high priesthood to his seed and offspring with the subordinate priesthood. He solemnly consecrated him by Moses, confirmed him in his work by fire from heaven at his first sacrifice, and vindicates his own call of him to it by the blossoming rod, and destroying the rivals with him for it, Exo 28:29,30; Num 16:35; 17:5.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Taketh… unto himself—Who-so, like the sons of Korah or like King Uzziah, assumes the office without divine warrant, is a usurper. The rabbies say that “Moses said to Korah and his associates, ‘If Aaron my brother took the priesthood to himself, you made insurrection against him rightly; but truly God gave it to him.’”

Called of God, as was Aaron— Aaron, first in the long line of high priests, was elected by the divine Voice. Exo_28:1; Exo_29:4; Lev_8:1, etc.; Num_3:10, and Num_3:16-18. Until the time of Herod the line remained almost unbroken; but by him the office was unlawfully bestowed, and finally ceased just before the destruction of Jerusalem, after continuing through nearly sixteen centuries. Its divine perpetuity was fixed by our great High Priest.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but being called of God (the 5 of Textus Receptus before kaloumenov that is called," as in A.V has very slight authority), even as was Aaron. This verse expresses the second essential of a high priest, Divine appointment, for assurance of the efficacy of his mediation. Of course Aaron"s successors derived their Divine commission from his original one. (Num_21:26 Num_26:10-14)

Vers. 4-6. These verses show us the honor of the priesthood. Aaron was divinely called, (Exo_28:1) and was endowed with gifts and qualifications for the office. It was an honor to approach unto God in the sacred uses of his ministry; "for blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee." He transacted the most important affairs for the people, and made reconciliation for them on the Day of Atonement. He revealed and interpreted the Divine will by Urim and Thummim, and his lips kept knowledge. He represented the people to Jehovah, and carried the names of the children of Israel on his breast and shoulders. He was set apart by the sacredness of his office from many of the cares and changes of human life, and was to lead life of special consecration to the service of God. Our Lord undertook the work of priest in a more glorious manner than was suggested by the most holy and distinguished minister of the ancient Law. All the aspects of honor and gracious service are exalted in him to an unimaginable degree. He is at the right hand of the Father. He officiates for all nations, people, and tongues. He treats the successive generations of believers with constant love, and imparts Divine help in worship. He is the final and most glorious revelation of God to man. He exalts and enriches the life of his followers by the tenderness and sympathy of his nature, and inspires them with resolution to come boldly to the throne of grace. B.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The apostle begins here to treat of the priesthood of Christ. The sum of what he observes concerning it is, Whatever is excellent in the Levitical priesthood is in Christ, and in a more eminent manner; and whatever is wanting in those priests is in him. And no one taketh this honour - The priesthood. To himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron - And his posterity, who were all of them called at one and the same time. But it is observable, Aaron did not preach at all; preaching being no part of the priestly office.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of the High Priest; here we have his call and commission to theis office and function: The former made him meet for it, the latter gave him right unto it. No man taketh this honour that is, the honour of priesthood to himself, but only he that is called of God, as was Aaron, and his posterity.

Note here, 1. That it is and act of sovereignty in God, to call whom he pleases to his work and service.

2. That as it is an act of sovereignty in God, so is it a special dignity and honour to us to be duly called to, as well as qualified for his work and service.

Learn, 3. That the highest excellency, and utmost necessity of any work or service to be here done for God, will, by no means, warrant our undertaking of it, and engaging in it, without a lawful call unto it.

Learn, 4. That the more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought to be our calling to it. No man taketh this honour upon him, but he that is called of God: It were well if our lay preachers considered this.

Observe next, How the apostle applies all this to Christ: So also Christ our great High Priest, glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, uncalled, but he dignified him who said unto him, Thou art my Son; and thou art a Priest forever; without succession, after the order, similitude, and manner of Melchizedek.

Learn hence, That the office of the high priesthood over the church of God, was an honour and glory to Jesus Christ; it was so to his human nature, even as it was united to his divine nature. Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, implying that it was a glory and honour, though not assumed, but conferred: and that as Aaron was called of God, so was Christ, but in a more excellent and glorious manner.

By this we understand the intolerable pride, and bold presumption for many in these times, who take upon them to officiate in matters of religion, though neither qualified for, nor called to this work: if ever any man or angel, then surely Christ might have taken this honour to himself, yet he did not uncalled. Verily, this will be the eternal condemnation of all such usurpers, who, without any commission from God or man, undertake what they do not understand.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4–6. And no man taketh this honor unto himself. He must be called to it by God. Aaron was so appointed. See Exod. 28:1; Lev. 8:2.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This quotation is from the Psalms in the Old Testament.

takes this honor

Honor is spoken of as if it were an object that a person could grasp in his hands. (See: Metaphor)

takes this honor

The "honor" or praise and respect that people gave to the high priest stand for his task. (See: Metonymy)

he is called by God, just as Aaron was

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God called him, just as he called Aaron" (See: Active or Passive)

the one speaking to him said

"God said to him"

You are my Son; today I have become your Father

These two phrases mean essentially the same thing. See how you translated this in Hebrews 1:5. (See: Parallelism)

Son ... Father

These are important titles that describe the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. (See: Translating Son and Father)

translationWords

honor

call

Aaron

Christ

high priest

God the Father

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4–10. (2) A SPECIAL CALL

4. καλούμενος. The ὁ κ. of the rec. is only in C2L, and furnishes no true antithesis to the οὐχ ἑαυτῷ.

καθώσπερ. The MSS. also have καθώς and καθάπερ. The author probably preferred the rarer and more sonorous καθώσπερ, which accounts for these variations.

4. τὴν τιμήν, i.e. this honourable office. We have here the second qualification for Priesthood. A man’s own caprice must not be the reason for his ordination. He must be conscious of a Divine call.

ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, “but on being called by God,” or “when he is called by God.” Great stress is laid on this point in Scripture (Exo 28:1). Any “stranger that cometh nigh”—i.e. that intruded unbidden into the Priesthood—was to be put to death (Num 3:10). The fate of Koran and his company (Num 16:40), and of Uzziah, king though he was (2Ch 26:18-21), served as a terrible warning, and it was recorded as a special aggravation of Jeroboam’s impiety that “he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi” (1Ki 12:31). In one of the Jewish Midrashim, Moses says to Korah “if Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him; but God gave it to him.” Some have supposed that the writer here reflects obliquely upon the High Priests of that day—alien Sadducees, not descended from Aaron (Jos. Antt. xx. 10), who had been introduced into the Priesthood from Babylonian families by Herod the Great, and who kept the highest office, with frequent changes, as a sort of appanage of their own families—the Boethusim, the Kantheras, the Kamhits, the Beni-Hanan. For the characteristics of these Priests, who completely degraded the dignity in the eyes of the people, see my Life of Christ, II. 330, 342. In the energetic maledictions pronounced upon them in more than one passage of the Talmud, they are taunted with not being true sons of Aaron. But it is unlikely that the writer should make this oblique allusion. He was an Alexandrian; he was not writing to the Hebrews of Jerusalem; and these High Priests had been in possession of the office for more than half a century.

καθώσπερ καὶ Ἀαρών, “exactly as even Aaron was” (Numbers 16-18). The true Priest must be a Divinely-appointed Aaron, not a self-constituted Korah.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4-10.] Second requisite: divine appointment.

4.] And (couples to ver. 1, of which the subsequent verses have been epexegetical) none taketh (λαμβάνει, not altogether perhaps without an allusion to λαμβανόμενος above, ver. 1. So in Xiphilinus Galb. p. 187, νομίζων οὐκ εἰληφέναι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀλλὰ δεδόσθαι αὐτῷ) the office (of the high priesthood: so τιμή, Herod. ii. 59, οὔτε τιμὰς τὰς ἐούσας συνταράξας (Πεισίστρατος), οὔτε θέσμια μεταλλάξας: see other examples in Bleek. Josephus uses it frequently of the high-priestly office: e. g Antt. iii. 8. 1, αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς Ἀαρῶνα τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης ἄξιον ἔκρινε) to himself (dat. commodi: and carrying the stress of the sentence, although the construction of λαμβάνει with both clauses must be somewhat zeugmatic: it must have rather a more active sense in the case where he takes it to himself, than in that where he only receives it, being called by God. This is denied by Delitzsch, but I see not how we can altogether escape it. The construction with ἑαυτῷ in the one case necessarily throws a different tinge over the verb than when it is understood with καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ) but (only when) called by God (with the ὁ of the rec. text, it would be, ‘but only he who is called by God’), as indeed was Aaron (see Exo 28:1; Exo 29:4: Lev 8:1: Num 3:10; but especially Num. 16-18. Schöttgen quotes from the Rabbinical Bammidbar Rabba, § 18, fol. 234, “Moses ad Corachum ejusque socios dixit: Si Aaron frater meus sibimetipsi sacerdotium sumsit (נטל לעצמו = λαμβάνειν ἑαυτῷ) recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis: jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit,” &c.

This divine ordinance of Aaron and his sons to be high priests endured long in the Jewish polity: but long before this time the rule had been disturbed: Jos. Antt. xx. 10. 5, relates, τὴν δὲ βασιλείαν Ἡρώδης παρὰ Ῥωμαίων ἐγχειρισθείς, οὐκέτι τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ Ἀσαμωναίου γένους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς, ἀλλὰ τισὶν ἀσήμοις, καὶ μόνον ἐξ ἱερέων οὖσι, πλὴν ἑνὸς Ἀριστοβούλου, τὴν τιμὴν ἀπένεμε. Some of the early Commentators, e. g. Œc., Thl., Primas., imagine that an allusion to this irregularity is here intended: αἰνίττεται δὲ ἐνταῦθα τοὺς τότε ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οἳ ἐπεπήδων τῇ τιμῇ, ὠνητὴν ταύτην κτώμενοι καὶ τὸν νόμον διαφθείροντες, Œc. But, though even Bleek imagines such an allusion may have been in the Writer’s mind, it seems I own to me very improbable).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The high priest must be divinely called. One thus compassed with infirmity would shrink from such an office unless called to it by God. He that is called [καλουμενος] . The A. V. follows T. R., oJ kaloumenov. The article should be omitted. Rend. but being called by God (he taketh it), as did Aaron.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.