Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 7:27 - 7:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_7:27. In the πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν , ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ there is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16.), comp. Heb_9:7. We are prevented, however, from referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offering prescribed, Lev_4:3 ff.) by καθʼ ἡμέραν , instead of which, as at Heb_9:25, Heb_10:1; Heb_10:3, κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν must have been placed. For καθʼ ἡμέραν can signify nothing else than “daily” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the signification: “yearly on a definite day” (“ καθʼ ἡμέραν ὡρισμένην or τεταγμένην ”), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, M‘Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “ πολλάκις ” (Böhme, Stein), or “ διὰ παντός ” (de Wette), or in the sense of “one day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice!), is linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the Levitical high priests need to do daily.[84] Nor does it avail anything that Kurtz will take καθʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ in conjunction only with ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ ἈΝΆΓΚΗΝ , since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ has “nothing whatever to do with the ΘΥΣΊΑς ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ ,” is a mere assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation) he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacrifice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which even the ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ , ἜΠΕΙΤΑ , expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary character of the one half of the statement, πρὸ τοῦ with the infinitive, or ΠΡΊΝ ( ΠΡῚΝ Ἤ ), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice of the Levitical priests (Exo_29:38-42; Num_28:3-8), and by reason of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii. 3 : in general as often as he was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and took part in the sacrificial service. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5. 7 : Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνῄει μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀεί , ταῖς δʼ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις , καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη διʼ ἔτους . To be compared also are the words of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), remarks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for themselves, but the lambs for the people ( Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας , ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμιδάλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν , οὓς ἀναφέρειν ΔΙΕΊΡΗΤΑΙ ), and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the offering of a daily sacrifice ( οὕτω τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους συγγενὴς καὶ ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι , πρυτανεύων μὲν τὰ δίκαια τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους , εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθʼ ἐκάστην ἡμέραν ). Recently also Delitzsch (Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. für die luther. Theol, u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f.) has further drawn attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim, 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily.
τοῦτο ] namely, ΤῸ ὙΠῈΡ ΤῶΝ ΤΟῦ ΛΑΟῦ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΘΥΣΊΑΝ ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ . So rightly—as is even demanded by Heb_7:28 (comp. Heb_4:15)
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, Storr, Heinrichs, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 463), Alford, Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Bengel, and Ebrard supplement τὸ θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ; while, altogether wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back τοῦτο to the whole proposition ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ … ΛΑΟῦ . For in the application to Christ, to explain the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ as the “dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per mortem” (Grotius), or as “Christi infirmitates et perpessiones” (Schlichting, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς , besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much opposed to the context (Heb_7:28) as to the linguistic use of ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ .
ἘΦΆΠΑΞ ] once for all; comp. Heb_9:12, Heb_10:10; Rom_6:10. Belongs to ἐποίησεν , not to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς .
ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς ] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered. Comp. Heb_8:3, Heb_9:12; Heb_9:14; Heb_9:25 f., Heb_10:10; Heb_10:12; Heb_10:14; Eph_5:2.
[84] The unsatisfactory character of the above exposition was afterwards acknowledged by Delitzsch himself, and the explanation retracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. diegesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 595).