Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 7:26 - 7:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
As the sinless Son of God, Jesus Christ has once for all offered Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world
Heb_7:26-28
Heb_7:26.— Ôïéïῦôïò ãÜñ . The clause is constructed with exquisite rhetorical beauty. In place of ôïéïῦôïò ãὰñ ἱåñåýò which would have sprung naturally from the preceding, the author, with reference to the following discussion, changes the noun to ἀñ÷éåñåýò , and then skilfully throws this over to the end of the clause, where it takes the reader by surprise.— ἄêáêïò hardly harmless by which word our Eng. ver., also renders ἄêåñáéïò . The latter is properly guileless, the former, perhaps,=void of malice. ‘Harmless’ is certainly too negative a term.— êå÷áñéóìÝíïò , having been separated, locally withdrawn, from sinners.— ãåíüìåíïò , not made, but becoming, viz: in His exaltation at God’s right hand.
Heb_7:27.— êáè ’ ἡìÝñáí , day by day, daily.— ἀíåíÝãêáò , by offering up.
Heb_7:28.— ἀíèñþðïõò emphatic, those who are mere men.— õἱüí him who is Son—the art. omitted as Heb_1:1, ôåôåëåéùìÝíïí , having been perfected.—K.].
Heb_7:27.—Who hath no daily need, etc.— Êáè ἡìÝñáí , daily, day by day, cannot mean “on a definite day in the course of the year,” (Schlicht., Michael.), nor can it with äéáðáíôüò be taken as indicating annual repetition=still ever and ever recurring, (Grot., Böhm., De W., Ebr.). It is supposed, therefore, with Calov, and the best older interpreters, by Bl., Thol., Lün., that the author, with his mind specially on the singleness and finality of the sacrifice of Christ, has in loose and inexact expression, blended the priestly sacrifices in general with the grand high-priestly sacrifice on the annually recurring day of atonement. They point, in support of the assumption, to the fact that the high-priest was not merely empowered to take part in the daily burnt offering as often as he chose (Mishn. Tract. Thamid VII. 3) but that he made frequent use of this privilege, particularly on Sabbaths, new moons, and festal occasions, (Joseph. Bell. Jud. Heb_7:5-6), and that the same is true of the daily incense offerings, to which there was ascribed an atoning significancy, Lev_17:11-12; Num_33:10, LXX. As this sacrifice would seem to have been originally offered morning and evening by Aaron in person, Exo_30:7; and the author of our epistle goes back in various ways, to the original institutions which were intended to be binding on all the generations of Israel, Exo_12:14; Exo_30:8, the words ἀíÜãêçí ἔ÷åé may admit this explanation all the more, as already Sir_45:14; Sir_45:16, the sacrificial service is designated generally as the service of Aaron, and also Philo (Ed. Mang. II. 321) calls the high-priest åὐ÷ὰò êáὶ èõóßáò ôåëῶí êáè ’ ἑêÜóôçí ἡìÝñáí . Against Wieseler’s assumption that this passage attests a rite existing merely in the Egyptian temple of Onias, we have the decisive fact that also in the Jerus. Talmud, tr. Chagiga, II. 4, and in the Babyl. Talmud, tr. Pesachim, 57 a, it is said of the high-priest that he offers daily sacrifice (Del. Talmud. Studien XIII. in Rudelb. and Guer. Zeitschr. für die luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1860, I 7:593 ff.). In like manner we may observe that, according to Philo, I. 497, in the daily sacrifices the priests offered a meat-offering for themselves, and the sacrificial lamb for the people. In this the ðñüôåñïí and ἔðåéôá standing in relation to the daily offering, may find an explanation. We shall thus be under no necessity of referring the language exclusively to the high-priestly minhha, i.e, to the vegetable meat offering, which according to Lev_6:13-16, the high-priest has to offer from the day of his anointing, daily, morning and evening, and this not for the people, but as a matter of daily consecration for himself; and to lay the emphasis on the fact that this meat-offering is designated Sir_45:14; Philo, I. 497, 26; II. 321, 38; Joseph. Antt. III. 10, 7, as a èõóßá , and is also mentioned by Origen (Homil. IV. in Levit.): See Lundius Jüd. Heiligth, III. 9, § 19, more recently Thalhofer: ‘The bloodless sacrifices of the Mosaic Ritual,’ p. 139–156. It may, however, well be urged that our author Heb_5:1, designates every sacrifice including the äῶñá in the narrower sense, as a sacrifice made in its ultimate ground and purpose, ὑðὲñ ἁìáñôéῶí . Only we must not deny that primarily the comparison of our passage with Heb_5:3, points certainly to a proper expiatory offering made by the high-priest ðåñὶ ἑáõôïῦ , and that the sin-offerings following in succession suit no other day so well as the annual great day of atonement. The statements above made, however, show that we need not necessarily on this account yield our assent to the view of Hofmann (Schriftb. II. 1, 287, 2 Ausg. II. 1, 404), as is done by Riehm, Alford, and Delitzsch in his commentary: “The comparison is not made between what Christ would have to do, and that which the high-priests have daily to do; but between that which the high-priests have to do, and that which Christ would have to do day by day. He would be obliged, inasmuch as ever new and perpetual expiation would be required, to do day by day that which he has now done once for all.” Delitzsch remarks that this view is favored alike by the nicely chosen position of êáè ’ ἡìÝñáí , and by the plural expression ὤóðåñ ïἱ ἀñ÷éåñåῖò ; but he has retracted his concurrence (Rudelbach, Zeitschrift, 1860, I 7:595). Hofmann refers the ôïῦôï ἐðïßçóåí to the whole expression ðñüôåñïí — ëáïῦ , as also Schlicht., Grot., Hammond did, though with different special views, inasmuch as Hofmann regards as the antitype of the sin-offering presented by the High-priest ðåñὶ ἑáõôïῦ , the supplication of Jesus in Gethsemane (Heb_5:7-8); while against all use of language, Schlichting understands by ἀìáñôßáé Christ’s infirmitates et perpessiones, Grotius understands by it the dolores assumed and submitted to by Christ as punishment for the sins of humanity, from which dolores He was only set free by death. Delitzsch, however, with the majority, refers it to the high-priestly èõóßáò ἀíáöÝñåéõ ὑðὲñ ôῶí ἁìáñôéῶí ôïῦ ëáïῦ . The ãÜñ Heb_7:28 introduces the reason, as lying in the fact of the case, for the above-mentioned relation of Christ to the Mosaic priests.
2. Its fitness for such a work this death derives from the character of the person, who is at the same time priest and victim, and unites in himself, and possesses in their truth and reality, all qualities which in the Levitical service are divided between priest and victim, and which there have but a mere symbolical efficacy.
3. The nature of this self-sacrifice of Christ excludes the continuance of the symbolico-typical priesthood and sacrificial service, just as its eternal validity and efficacy admits no repetition of this perfect sacrifice, and no substitution, or the offering of any other sacrifice of like dignity and importance with the Son, who is perfected forever.
4. The weakness which inheres in mortals is partly a creaturely limitation, partly an inborn sinfulness, partly a personal guiltiness. From this springs the partial nature of the legal high-priesthood, its purely symbolical significance, and the necessity of a plurality of persons relieving one another, and of actions which repeat themselves with special mutually supplementary acts. But within the Old Testament revelation itself, the promise of God, confirmed by His oath, points to the universal character, to the reality and to the efficacy of the atonement accomplished by the eternally perfected Son.
Starke:—Preachers bear their treasures in earthen vessels. When they err let none be stumbled thereat; they are obliged also for themselves to bring the offering of repentance.—Christ has made an offering once for all; by this we should and must abide; and thus it is to depreciate His sacrifice, to desire still daily to offer it as Popish priests assume and undertake to do.—The sacrifice of Christ made once for all, serves us, as for the strengthening of our faith, so also for the cleansing of our walk, that we may abide therein and not draw back.—Behold the ground of the efficacy and perfection of the single and final propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; He is the Son of God whom the Father hath raised from the dead, received into His glory, and placed at the right hand of His majesty.
Rieger:—The depth of our need, and the loftiness of the purposes for which God has commenced His dealings with us, demanded such a High-priest as God in this One has prepared for us.—Such a high-priest was necessary for us, who, with the purest zeal for the honor of God, could still in a becoming manner lead to Him a world full of sinners.—Jesus has shown satisfactorily that He is at once a true friend of sinners, and from the heart an enemy of sin.
Heubner:—The ground of the priestly dignity of Christ lies in His innocence, righteousness and holiness.—The repetition of sacrifices was a constant reminder of the weakness and sinfulness of men.
Menken:—Holiness in feeling and in conduct the Scripture ascribes to mortal men while they live in the flesh and on the earth, as it also demands of believers and righteous men, that they shall cherish in their heart, and evince in their life, holiness, not merely in the future but also in the present world. But it styles no mortal man perfect.
Footnotes:
Heb_7:23.—Instead of ãåãïíüôåò ἱåñéÝò , we are to read with A. C. D. E., ἱåñåἰò ãåãïíüôåò . Yet the Sin, has the words in the order first named.
[Heb_7:26.—Instead of the bare ἔðñåðåí we should read with A. B. D. E. êáὶ ἔðñåðåí , although Sin. has not the êáὶ [ êáὶ adds force and beauty to the clause, and is undoubtedly genuine. It is as if he said, “not only do we have such an high priest, but such an one also became us.”—K].