Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5:5 - 5:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_5:5. In like manner also Christ appointed not Himself to be High Priest, but God the Father has appointed Him. The main emphasis in the verse falls upon οὐχ ἑαυτὸν … ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας . With Hofmann for the rest (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398, 2 Aufl.), to take the opening words of the verse: οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός , separately as an independent clause, is not warranted on any ground. οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα ] He did not glorify (comp. Joh_8:54) Himself (arbitrarily encircle Himself with honour and glory) in order to be made a high priest.
ἐδόξασεν ] is to be taken quite generally, so that it first acquires its nearer definition and completion, under the form of the intention, by means of γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα . See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 298. The referring of the verb, with de Wette, specially to the glorification, mentioned Heb_2:9, is forbidden by the parallel relation to Heb_5:4, in that οὐχ ἑαντὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα manifestly corresponds exactly to the foregoing statement, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν . On account of this parallel relationship in itself, clearly indicated as it is above by the οὕτως καί , is the view of Hofmann too (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 398 f. 2 Aufl.) entirely erroneous, namely, that οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν acquires its nearer defining of signification from Heb_5:7-8, in that this relative clause denotes the same thing as that negative clause, and consequently is to be brought into relief; not a path of self-glorification was it, but a path of anguish and suffering, by which Christ attained to glory. The violence done in this explanation is already shown, in the fact that the relative clause, Heb_5:7 ff., is logically subordinate to the οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν , as a farther demonstration of the truth thereof; and, moreover, in this relative clause the mention of the suffering of Christ forms not the main element, but only a subsidiary member.
ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν κ . τ . λ .] sc. αὐτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα . The participle aorist λαλήσας is anterior in point of time to the ἐδόξασεν . Thus ὁ λαλήσας : He who had said, sc. before the creation of the world; comp. Heb_1:1-3. Inasmuch as the connection with that which precedes, and the opposition οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας , place it beyond doubt that the author can here only design to mention the person or authority by virtue of which Christ possesses His high-priesthood, it results that in the words υἱός μου εἰ σὺ κ . τ . λ . a proof for the fact that Christ is High Priest is not to be sought. Against Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, Whitby, Peirce, Stengel, Ebrard, Maier, and others. If it were here already a question with the author of adducing a proof, he would have written without an article ἀλλʼ ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας (“but God, in saying to Him,” etc.), instead of writing with the article ἀλλʼ ὁ λαλήσας . But why does not the author simply say ὁ θεός ? Why does he employ the periphrasis of the idea of God by means of the words (already cited, Heb_1:5) from Psa_2:7? In order to render already apparent, by this designation of God, how little ground can exist for surprise that He who occupies the rank of the Son of God should, moreover, also of God be appointed High Priest.