Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5:1 - 5:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_5:1-2. Justification of the δύνασθαι συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν , Heb_4:15, as a necessary qualification in the case of Christ, since it is an indispensable requirement even in every earthly high priest. γάρ does not glance back to Heb_4:16, as is maintained by Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 395) and Delitzsch. for Heb_5:1-3 can in point of contents be taken neither as enforcement nor as elucidation of the admonition, Heb_4:16. The supposition of Hofmann and Delitzsch, however, that γάρ logically controls the whole section, Heb_5:1-10, is arbitrary, inasmuch as Heb_5:4 ff. is logically and grammatically bounded off from Heb_5:1-3, and the assertion that the aim in the section, Heb_5:1-10, is to enforce the exhortation, Heb_4:16, by a reminder “of the nature of the high-priesthood of Jesus, how on the one hand it bears resemblance to that of Aaron, and on the other hand to the priesthood of Melchisedec” (Hofmann), or of the “blending of Aaronitic humanity (tenderness) with the Melchisedecian dignity in the person of Jesus” (Delitzsch), is entirely erroneous; because, Heb_5:5-10, Aaron and Melchisedec are not yet at all distinguished from each other as the lower and the higher; but, on the contrary, this relation—in which the one stands to the other—is for the present left wholly in abeyance, and all that is insisted on is the fact that Christ, even as Aaron, was called by God to the high-priesthood, and that a high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec.
πᾶς ] refers, as is evident from ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος , and from Heb_5:3, to the earthly, i.e. the Levitical, high priest. Wrongly, because going beyond the necessity of the case and the horizon of the epistle, Grotius (comp. also Peirce): Non tantum legem hic respicit, sed et morem ante legem, quum aut primo geniti familiarum aut a populis electi reges inirent sacerdotium. But neither is ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος a part of the subject (“every high priest taken from among men, in opposition to the heavenly One;” Luther, Seb. Schmidt, Wittich, Akersloot, Peirce, Wetstein, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Abresch, Kuinoel, Paulus, Stengel, comp. also Tholuck).—for then the order πᾶς γὰρἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ἀρχιερεύς would have been chosen,—nor is it intended “to lay stress upon the phenomenon, in itself remarkable, that the high priest has to represent men, who are thus his equals, in their relation to God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.),—for thereby a reference altogether foreign to the connection is introduced, and the thought thus presupposed is itself a singular one, because, so far from its being remarkable, it is, on the contrary, natural and appropriate that like should be represented by its like; it would be remarkable and unnatural if, for instance, a man should represent angels,—but it contains a note of cause to ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται . The twice occurring ἀνθρώπων stands full of emphasis, and presents a correspondence between the two. By the ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος the ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται is explained and justified. For the very reason that the high priest is taken from among men, is he also appointed or installed in his office as mediator with God.
καθίσταται ] not middle, so that τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν were accusative of object thereto (Calvin: Curat pontifex vel ordinat, quae ad Deum pertinent; Kypke), but passive, so that τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν , as Heb_2:17, is to be taken as an accusative absolute.
ἵνα κ . τ . λ .] epexegetic amplification of ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν .
δῶρα —[ ÷ÈøÀáÌÈï îÄðÀçÈä ] and θυσίαι are properly distinguished as gifts and sacrifices of every kind, and bloody sacrifices. The distinction, however, is not always observed. Comp. e.g. LXX. Lev_2:1 ff., Num_5:15 ff., Gen_4:3; Gen_4:5, where θυσία is used of unbloody sacrifices; and Gen_4:4, Lev_1:2-3; Lev_1:10, al., where δῶρα is used of bloody sacrifices. In our passage the author has, without doubt, specially the bloody sacrifices in mind; as, accordingly, in the course of the epistle he opposes the sacrifice presented by Christ to the Levitical victims in particular.
ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ] i.e. for the expiation thereof. It belongs not merely to θυσίας (Grotius, Limborch, Bengel, Dindorf) or to δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας (Owen, Alford), but to the whole clause of the design.
Heb_5:2 is to be coupled with Heb_5:1 without the placing of a comma, in such wise that the participial clause: μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος , connects itself immediately with the preceding clause of the design. The purpose of the author is not to mention the bare fact that the high priest presents gifts and sacrifices for the expiation of sins, but to dwell on the fact that he presents them as one who is capable of μετριοπαθεῖν .[71] ΜΕΤΡΙΟΠΑΘΕῖΝ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟς is therefore neither to be resolved into ἽΝΑ ΔΎΝΗΤΑΙ ΜΕΤΡ . (Heinrichs), nor is it connected, by reason of a negligent participial construction, like ΛΑΜΒΑΝΌΜΕΝΟς with ἈΡΧΙΕΡΕΎς (Stengel), nor is it added merely “appendicis loco” (Böhme).
ΜΕΤΡΙΟΠΑΘΕῖΝ ] stands not in opposition to ΣΥΜΠΑΘῆΣΑΙ , Heb_4:15, for the indication of a difference between the human high priest and the divine one (Tholuck); it is not, however, identical in meaning with ΣΥΜΠΑΘΕῖΝ (Oecumenius, Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Baumgarten, Semler, Storr, Abresch, al.), but expresses a kindred notion. It is by virtue of its composition equivalent to μετρίως or ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸ ΜΈΤΡΟΝ ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ , and is accordingly used of the moderating of one’s passions and feelings, as opposed to an unbridled surrender thereto, but also as opposed to that absolute ἈΠΆΘΕΙΑ which the Stoics demanded of the sage. Comp. Diogen. Laert. 5:31: ἜΦΗ ΔΈ (sc. Aristotle), τὸν σοφὸν μὴ εἶναι μὲν ἀπαθῆ , μετριοπαθῆ δέ . Further instances in Wetstein and Bleek. Here the moderation or tenderness in the judgment formed upon the errors of one’s neighbour is intended, as this is wont to arise from a sympathy with the unhappiness of the same which is produced by sin. Thus: to be tenderly disposed or equitable.
τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις ] Dativus commodi: in consideration of the ignorant and erring. Lenient designation of sinners. Perhaps, however, designedly chosen (comp. also Heb_9:7 : ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων ) in order to bring into relief only one species of sins, the sins of precipitancy and without premeditation, inasmuch as according to the Mosaic law the sacrificial expiation extended only to those who had sinned ἈΚΟΥΣΊΩς ; those, on the other hand, who had sinned deliberately and with forethought were to be cut off from the congregation of Jehovah, Num_15:22-31; Lev_4:13 ff.
ἘΠΕῚ ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤῸς ΠΕΡΊΚΕΙΤΑΙ ἈΣΘΈΝΕΙΑΝ ] Confirmation of the ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟς : since he indeed himself is encircled (as with a garment) by weakness (altogether beset with it). ἀσθένεια is to be understood, as Heb_7:28, of the ethical weakness, thus also actual sin, comprehended under this expression; comp Heb_5:3.
The construction περίλειμαί τι , which in the N. T. occurs likewise Act_28:20, is genuine Greek; comp. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiii. 14: ὕβριν τᾶς ὀργᾶς περικείμενος Kühner, Gramm. II. p. 231; Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 215.
[71] When for the rest Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 396, 2 Aufl.) supposes that for the expression of this relation of thought only καθίσταται … ἵνα προσφέρῃ Could be chosen, and not καθίσταται … εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν , since the latter would “only be a declaration of the vocation” of the high priest, while the former “can take to itself the participial clause μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος , and thereby signify to what end it serves in the exercise of his office, that he has been in this way appointed thereto,” this is grammatically altogether baseless. Either turn of discourse was equally open to the choice of the author. Only, in case the latter was chosen, the nominative δυνάμενος must naturally be changed into the accusative δυνάμενον .