Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 7:28 - 7:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_7:28. Establishment of τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ , Heb_7:27, by the definite formulating of the statement of the fourth point of superiority of the New Testament High Priest over the high priests of the Old Covenant,—a statement for which the way has been prepared by Heb_7:26-27. The law constitutes high priests men who are subject to weakness, and thus also to sin (comp. Heb_5:2-3), on which account they have to offer, as for the people, so also for themselves, and have ofttimes to repeat this sacrifice; the word of the oath, on the other hand (comp. Heb_7:21), which ensued after the law,—namely, only in the time of David,—and consequently annulled the law, ordains as high priest the Son (see on Heb_1:1), who is for ever perfected, i.e. without sin (Heb_4:15), and by His exaltation withdrawn from all human ἀσθένεια , however greatly He had part therein during His life on earth; wherefore He needed not for Himself to present an expiatory sacrifice, but only for the people, and, inasmuch as this fully accomplished its end, He needed not to repeat the same.
Entirely misapprehending the reasoning of the author, Ebrard supposes that even the first half of the proposition, Heb_7:28, is likewise to be referred to Jesus. The author, he tells us, presupposes as well known, that Christ has been as well ἄνθρωπος ἀσθένειαν ἔχων (according to chap. 5) as υἱὸς τετελειωμένος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (according to chap. 7), and is here recapitulating (!) the two. Thus, then, ὁ νόμος γὰρ … ἀσθένειαν contains a concession (!) having reference to chap. 5, and the thought is: “the law (in so far as it has not (!) been annulled) demands of all high priests (consequently (!) also of Jesus) that they be ἄνθρωποι ἔχοντες ἀσθένειαν ; the sworn word of promise, however (given after the law), proceeding far beyond and above the same, constitutes as high priest the Son for ever perfected” (!). A misinterpreting of the meaning, against which even the opposition of ὁ νόμος … ὁ λόγος δέ , as a manifest parallel to οἱ μὲν … ὁ δέ , Heb_7:20 f., Heb_7:23 f., ought to have kept him.
τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον ] The author did not write ὁ μετὰ τὸν νόμον , according to which the Vulgate and Luther translate, because he wished to accentuate ὁρκωμοσία as the principal notion.