Hebrews 5

THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

This begins the third great section of the Epistle.

Section I. (chapters 1 and 2) set forth the Deity and humanity of the Lord Jesus;

Christ’s superiority to the angels through whose ministration the old dispensation

was said to be established.

Section II. (chapters 3 and 4) set forth the surpassing greatness of our Lord as

compared with Moses, the great leader of the old dispensation.

Section III. (chapters 5-10) will present our Lord as greater than Aaron,

the representative of the purely religious element of the old dispensation.

Christ infinitely greater than all these, and therefore the new covenant in Him

infinitely better than the old — that now is the writer’s argument. The first

ten verses of this chapter are an introduction to the third section. Before

Christ’s fulfillment of high priestly work is discussed, it is necessary to show

that He does actually hold that position. Christ is really High Priest; the first

proof of that is in the passage before us. Subject: Christ’s Divine appointment

to the high priesthood the fulfillment of one essential qualification for that

position.

The purpose of the first part of this chapter (vs. 1-10) is to corroborate

the position arrived at in the conclusion of Hebrews 4., viz. that we have in

Christ a true High Priest sufficient for all our needs. This is done by

analyzing the conception of a high priest, and observing that Christ in all

respects fulfils it. And thus the full exposition of Christ’s heavenly

priesthood above that of Aaron is prepared for. But this full exposition is

still not entered on till after an exhortation (beginning at ch.5:11), longer

and more earnest than any former one, called for by the slowness of the

Hebrew Christians to apprehend the doctrine. It is at length taken up and

carried out in ch.7. The intention of vs. 1-10 being as above explained, it is a

mistake to suppose any contrast intended here between the Aaronic priesthood

and that of Christ; e.g. to take vs. 1-3 as meaning, human high priests can

sympathize in virtue of their own infirmity, — otherwise Christ; or, human

high priests have need of atonement for themselves, — not so Christ. The

main drift, on the contrary, is that all recognized essentials of high

priesthood are found in Christ. These essentials are that, the high priest’s

office being to mediate between man and God,

(1) he should be of the same nature, and sympathetic with those in whose

behalf he mediates; and

(2) that his credentials should be Divine, i.e. that God Himself should have

appointed him to his office.

1 “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in

things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices

for sins:” Here ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος - ex anthropon lambanomenos –

taken from among men; out of humans being obtained – is not (as the rendering

of the Authorized Version might suggest) a limitation of the subject

of the sentence, confining it to merely human high priests; it belongs to the

predicate, expressing what is true of every high priest. The phrase

expresses both the necessary humanity of the high priest, and also his being

set apart for his peculiar office —λαμβανόμενος ἐξ (taken from). The order, and

consequent force, of the words in the Greek is retained in the translation

given above. (For the expression, τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν – ta pros ton Theon –

pertaining to God – compare ch. 2:17; Romans 15:17.) The purpose for which

the high priest is constituted in this relation is “that he may offer both gifts and

sacrifices for sins” — a comprehensive designation of sacerdotal functions, the

essential idea, expressed by ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν – huper hamartion – for the sake of

sins - being atonement (compare ch.2:17 - εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ

λαοῦ· - eis to hilaskesthai tas hamartias tou laou - to make reconciliation for

the sins of the people). The difference between the words δῶρά - dora – gifts;

oblations - and θυσίας – thusias – sacrifices - is that the former, denoting properly

any offering regarded as a gift, is especially applied in the Septuagint to the

minchah (“meat offering”); the latter (from θὐω – thuo - denotes properly a

bloody sacrifice), and is generally so applied. The distinction, however, is

not invariably observed, δῶρον – doron – gift - being used in this Epistle (11:4)

for Abel’s sacrifice and (ch. 8:4) for all kinds of offerings, while θυσία (sacrifice)

in the Septuagint denotes (Genesis 4:3) Cain’s unbloody offering and (Leviticus

2:1) the minchah. But here, as also in ch.8:3 and 9:9, where both are

named (δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας – dora te kai thusias – gifts besides and sacrifices),

we may conclude a distinctive reference to be intended to the unbloody and

bloody offerings of the Law (compare Psalm 40:6, “Sacrifice and offering

(θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν – thusian kai prosphoran – sacrifice and offering –

Septuagint.) thou didst not desire;” Daniel 9:27, ἡ θυσία καὶ ἡ σπονδή - hae

Thusia kai hae spondae – the sacrifice and the oblation; offering - and also

Jeremiah 17:26. To both ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν (for sins) depending, not on θυσία

(sacrifice) , but on προσφὲρη – prospherae – he may offer) applies, For,

though blood-shedding (ch. 9:22) was essential for atonement, the unbloody

minchah formed part of the ceremony of expiation, and this notably on the

Day of Atonement, so specially referred to afterwards in the Epistle (see

Numbers 29:7-11).

2 “Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are

out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.”

It is not easy to find a satisfactory English equivalent for μετριοπαθεῖν –

metriopathein – to be having compassion , translated as above in

the Authorized Version; by Alford, “be compassionate towards;” in the

margin of the Authorized Version, “reasonably bear with;” by the recent

Revisers, “bear gently with;” by Bengel, “moderate affici.” The compound

had its origin, doubtless, in the peripatetic school, denoting the right mean

between passionateness and Stoic apathy. In this sense Philo uses μετριοπαθἡς –

to express Abraham’s sober grief after the death of Sarah (2:37) and

Jacob’s patience under his afflictions (2:45). The verb, followed, as here,

by a dative of persons, may be taken, therefore, to denote moderation of

feeling towards the persons indicated, such moderation being especially

opposed in the case before us, where the persons are the ignorant and

erring, to excess of severe or indignant feeling. Josephus speaks of the

emperors Vespasian and Titus as μετριοπαθἡσάντων (treat with mildness;

or moderation – my attempt to interpret – CY – 2014) in their attitude

towards the Jews after long hostility (‘Ant.,’ 12:3 2). This, then, being

the meaning of μετριοπαθεὶα it is obvious how the capacity of it is

essential to the idea of a high priest as being one who is resorted to as a

mediator by a people laden with infirmities, to represent them and to plead

for them. It is not of necessity implied that every high priest was personally

μετριοπαθἡς: it is the ideal of his office that is spoken of. And, in the case

of human high priests, this ideal was fulfilled by their being themselves human,

encompassed themselves with the infirmity of those for whom they mediated.

Christ also, so far, evidently fulfils the condition. For, though He is afterwards

distinguished (ch.7:28) from priests having themselves infirmity, yet He had,

in His human nature, experienced what it was: “He was crucified - ἐξ ἀσθενείας

– ex astheneias – through weakness” (II Corinthians 13:4); “Himself took our

infirmities (ἀσθενείας – astheneias - infirmities), and bare our sicknesses”

(Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:4); the agony in the garden (whatever its mysterious

import, of which more below) expressed personal experience of human ἀσθενεία –

astheneia – infirmity. Alford denies that ἀσθενεία, in the sense supposed by

him to be here intended, can be attributed to Christ, and hence that περίκειται

ἀσθένειαν – perikeitai astheneian – is compassed with infirmity - can apply to

Him (but see above on ch.4:15, and below on vs. 3, 7).

3 “And by reason hereof he ought (ὀφείλει – opheilei – he ought; he is

owing; or, is bound), as for the people, so also for Himself, to offer for sins.”

This obligation is evident in the case of the high priests of the Law. Consequently,

their sin offering for themselves, in the first place, was a prominent part of the

ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, which the writer may be supposed to

have especially in view (Leviticus 16.). But can we suppose any

corresponding necessity in the case of Christ? The argument does not

absolutely require that we should, since the obligation of the Levitical high

priest may be adduced only in proof of his own experience of ἀσθενεία

(infirmity). Christ, though under no such obligation, might still fulfill the

requisites of a high priest, expressed in the case of sinful high priests by the

obligation to offer for themselves; and we may leave it to the writer to

show how He does fulfill them. Whether, however, there was in Christ’s

own experience anything corresponding to the high priest’s offering for

Himself will be considered under vs. 7-8.

4 “And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of

God, (the ὁ - ho – he - of Textus Receptus before καλούμενος – kaloumenos –

that is called - as in Authorized Version — has very slight authority), as was

Aaron.” This verse expresses the second essential of a high priest, DIVINE

APPOINTMENT for assurance of the efficacy of his mediation. Of course

Aaron’s successors derived their Divine commission from his original one

(compare 26:10-13).

5 “So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest; but

He that said unto Him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the

order of Melchisedec.” So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made a High

Priest. Here begins the proof that Christ fulfils the two requirements, that

mentioned second in the previous statement being taken first in the proof

— chiastically (Chiastic structure, or chiastic pattern, is a literary technique in

narrative motifs and other textual passages. An example chiastic structure would

be two ideas, A and B, together with variants A' and B', being presented as

A,B,B',A'. Alternative names include ring structure, because the opening

and closing 'A' can be viewed as completing a circle, or symmetric structure.

Wikipedia) as is usual in this Epistle. The expression, ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν -

heauton edoxasen – Himself glorifies - may have reference to the glory

wherewith Christ is crowned in His exalted position as Priest-King (compare

ch. 2:9). But He that said unto Him, Thou art my Son, this

day have I begotten thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a

Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. These two texts

(Psalm 2:7; 110:4) must be taken together for the proof required. The

first (commented on under (ch.1:5) shows the Lord’s appointment of Christ

to His kingly office as Son; the second shows that this kingly office carries

with it, also by Divine appointment, an eternal priesthood. Christ’s entry into

this kingly priesthood is best conceived as inaugurated by His resurrection, after

accomplishment of human obedience, whereby He fitted Himself for priesthood.

Before this He was the destined High Priest, but not the “perfected” High Priest,

“ever living to make intercession for us.” (ch. 7:25) It is not during His life on

earth, but after His exaltation, that He is spoken of as the High Priest of mankind.

In His sufferings and death He was consecrated to His eternal office. This appears

from vs. 9-10, and also from Psalm 110., quoted in this verse, where the

priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and the exaltation to the right

hand of God are regarded together. See also what was said under ch.1:5,

of the application to Christ of the other text quoted, “This day have I begotten

thee.” The Messianic reference and general drift of Psalm 110. has been considered

under ch. 1:13. It was there seen to be more than a typical prophecy, David having

in it a distinct view of One far greater than himself — of the Son to come, whom

he calls his LORD. But even had it, like other Messianic psalms, a primary reference

to some theocratic king, the remarkable import of v. 4 would in itself point

beyond one. For, though David organized and controlled the priesthood

and the services of the sanctuary, though both he and Solomon took a

prominent part in solemn acts of worship, yet neither they nor any other

king assumed the priestly office, which, in its essential functions, was

scrupulously confined to the sons of Aaron. The judgment on Uzziah

(II Chronicles 26:16-22) is a notable evidence of the importance attached to

this principle. Yet the verse before us assigns a true priesthood to the

future King. For Melchizedek, as he appears in Genesis, is evidently a true

priest, though prior to the Aaronic priesthood, uniting in himself, according

to the system of the patriarchal age, the royalty and the priesthood of his

race: as a true priest, he blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him.

But of him, historically and symbolically regarded, the consideration must

be reserved for ch.7, where the subject is taken up. Enough here to

observe that in Psalm 110. a true and everlasting priesthood is assigned to

the SON in union with his exalted royalty at the LORD’S right hand, and

this by Divine appointment, by the “voice” or “oracle” of the Lord (Ibid. v.1),

confirmed by the LORD’S oath (Ibid. v. 4).

Christ’s Divine Appointment to the High Priesthood the Fulfillment

of

One Essential Qualification for that Position. (vs. 1-6)

· CONSIDER THE FACT OF MEDIATION BETWEEN GOD AND

MAN. The high priest was “appointed for men in things pertaining to God,

that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” “Gifts” equivalent to,

those of God to men — reconciliation and benediction. “Sacrifices for sins”

equivalent to, those of men to God; that is, he was charged to manage the

concerns of his brethren with the Most High, holding an intermediate

position. What was the necessity for such an intermediary?

Ø It was a witness to the sinfulness of man. Historically, one tribe,

Levi, was set apart for the service of the tabernacle. Only one family

of this might enter the sacred building, Aaron and his four sons;

five persons in all out of the thousands of Israel, and these only

permitted to undertake their duties after solemn rules of consecration.

But of this family, only one might pass into the most holy place, and

he but once in a year, and then only in a manner which must have

impressed him deeply with THE SANCTITY OF THE PLACE.

Nothing could more clearly show THE DISTANCE AT WHICH

SIN HAD PLACED MAN FROM GOD!

Ø The fact of mediation is a declaration that the broken communion

between God and man can be renewed. In Eden God communed

with man, but sin broke this relationship. Sinful man could only say

with Cain, “From thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive

and a vagabond.” (Genesis 4:14) But when the doctrine of mediation

was taught — and that must have been very early, for it underlies the

idea of sacrifice — how great a door of hope was suddenly opened

before them! The intervention of another might yet be, like Jacob’s

ladder, the means of communication between heaven and earth.

(Genesis 28:12; John 1:51)

Ø The fact of mediation is a testimony to THE PRINCIPLE OF

SUBSTITUTION. This principle which underlies the New Testament

system no less underlies the Old; it runs through the entire Word of God

as the principle which keeps it together. Mediation is representation.

The high priest represented the people before God. God treated with

him on their behalf. What they could not do for themselves, he did.

· THE NECESSITY THAT THE MEDIATOR SHOULD BE

DIVINELY APPOINTED. The stress of the passage is on the word

“appointed.”

Ø This is necessary to ensure the Divine acceptance of the Mediator.

Man has no rights, no power, he is helpless and undone, entirely

dependent on the mercy of the offended God.

Ø This Divine appointment shows the good will of God to

those for whom mediation is made. One Person of the Divine

Trinity has been set apart for this mediation.

Ø The Divine dignity of Christ adds yet greater worth to this

appointment. “Thou art my Son.” The Divine Son has free

access to the Father, and to His ear and heart. And to think,

He is at the right hand of the Father and “ever liveth to make

intercession for us.” (ch. 7:25)

7 “Who in the days of His flesh, when he had offered up (rather, when He

offered up) prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him

that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared;

8 Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He

suffered;” Here (according to the view taken above of the chiastic structure

of the passage) we have the account of how Christ fulfilled the human

requirements of a High Priest, referred to in vs. 2-3. This main intention

of vs. 7-8 must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of them.

Christ is in them regarded, not as executing His priestly office, but as being

prepared and consecrated for it. His eternal priesthood is conceived as

entered on after the human experience which is the subject of these verses

(compare καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο – kai teleiotheis egeneto – and being

perfected He became - (v. 9), and what was said under v. 5). With regard to

the participial aorists, προσενέγκας, εἰσακουσθεὶς,- prosenegkas, eisakoustheis,-

offering, being heard - it is a misapprehension of their proper force to regard

them as denoting a time previous to that of ἔｵαθεν – emathen – He learned –

in v. 8; as if the meaning were — having in Gethsemane “offered,” etc., and

“been heard,” He afterwards “learned obedience” on the cross. All they

express is that in offering, etc., and being heard, He learned obedience. The idea

of subsequent time does not come in till v. 9; “and being perfected,” after thus

learning obedience, “He became,” etc. Thus the only question with regard to time

in vs. 7-8 is whether they have reference to the agony in the garden only, or both

to the agony and the cress. That they refer mainly, if not exclusively, to the agony

is evident from the expressions used, corresponding so closely with the

Gospel history. The view presented is, as in the Gospels, of some intense

inward struggle, outwardly manifested, and expressing itself in repeated

prayers (observe the plural, δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας – deaeseis te kai hiketaerias –

petitions besides supplications) aloud for deliverance. It is true that the Gospels,

as we have them now, do not mention tears; but these too are quite in keeping

with the bloody sweat specified by Luke, and Epiphanius states that the original

copies of Luke 22:43-44 contained the verb ἔκλαυσε. Some interpreters would

identify the κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς - kraugaes ischuras – strong crying - of v. 7 with

the (φωνῇ µεγάλῃ - phonae megalae – loud voice)” from the cross (Matthew 27:46;

Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46). But there is nothing to suggest this; the “strong crying

and tears”evidently denote the manner of the “prayers and supplications;” and the

thrice-repeated prayer in the garden recorded by the evangelists may be

well conceived to have been thus loudly uttered, so as to be heard by the

three disciples, a stone’s cast distant, before sleep overcame them. What, then,

as seen in the light of these verses, was the meaning of the “prayer and supplications”

in the garden of Gethsemane? The expression, τὸν δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ

θανάτου – ton dunamenon sozein auton ek thanatou - unto Him that was able to

save Him from death - corresponding with πάντα δυνατά σοι· - panta dunata soi –

all things are possible unto thee - of Mark 14:36, confirms the view that the “cup”

which He prayed might pass from Him, was the death before Him, and that the

purport of His prayer was, not to be raised from death after undergoing it, but to

be saved from undergoing it. Such is the ordinary meaning of σῴζειν ἐκ

θανάτου – save from death - to one still alive (compare Psalm 33:19; James 5:20).

It does not indeed positively follow that, because He prayed to One who was able

in this sense to save Him, His prayer was that He might be in this sense saved. It is,

however, the natural inference. But, if so, two difficulties present themselves.

(1) How was such a prayer consistent with His distinct knowledge that

death must be undergone, and His late strong rebuke to Peter for venturing

to dissuade Him from it?

(2) How can He be said to have been heard (εἰσακουσθεὶς), since He was

not saved from death in the sense intended? To the first of these questions

the answer is that the prayer expressed, not the deliberate desire of His

Divine will, but only the inevitable shrinking of the human will from such

an ordeal as was before Him. As man, He experienced this shrinking to the

full, and as man He craved deliverance, though with entire submission to

the will of the Father. His human will did not oppose itself to the Divine

will: it conformed itself in the end entirely to it; but this according to the

necessary conditions of humanity, through the power of prayer. Had it not

been so with Him, His participation in human nature would have been

incomplete; He would not have been such as to be “touched with a feeling

of our infirmities, being in all things tempted like as we are;” (ch. 4:15)

nor would He have stood forth for ever as the great Example to mankind.

John, who so deeply enters into and interprets the mind of Christ, records

an utterance before the agony which anticipates its meaning (John 12):

“The hour is come” (v. 23); and then (v. 27), “Now is my soul troubled; and

what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [compare σῴζειν ἐκ

θανάτου]; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Name.”

The “hour” was that of the drinking of the cup (compare Mark 14:35, “And

prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him”). “Father,

save me from this hour” was the human craving of the agony; but still,

“Father, glorify thy Name” was the essence of the prayer; and perfect

submission to the Divine will was the outcome of it, after this troubling

of His human soul. The mystery surrounding the whole subject of the Divine

and human in Christ remains still. What was said with regard to it about the

temptation in the wilderness (ch. 4:15) is applicable also here. If it be further

asked how it was that Christ, in His humanity, so shrank from the “cup”

before Him, seeing that mere men have been found to face death calmly in

its most appalling forms, the answer may be found in the consideration of

what this cup implied. It was more than physical death, more than physical

pain, more than any sorrow that falls to the lot of man. Such expressions as

ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδηµονεῖν….. Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή µου ἕως θανάτου· -

haexato lupeisthai kai adaemonein…..Perilupos estin ae puchae mou hoes

thanatou – He began to be sorrowful and very heavy (depressed) (Matthew 26:37-38);

ἤρξατο ἐκθαµβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδηµονεῖν – haerxato ekthambeisthai kai adaemonein –

He began to be sore amazed and very heavy (over-awed and depressed) ,

(Mark 14:33); Γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο – Genomenos en

agonia ektenesteron prosaeucheto – being in an agony He prayed the more

earnestly - Luke 22:44); the bloody sweat, and the cry of “My God, my God,

why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) — convey in themselves the

impression of a mysterious ordeal, beyond what we can fathom, undergone

by the atoning Savior in that “hour” of the “power of darkness.” (Luke 22:53)

Of the second difficulty mentioned above, as to how Christ was “heard,” not

having been saved “from death” in the apparent sense of His prayer, the

solution may be that the prayer, conditioned as it was by εἰ δυνατόν – ei

dunaton – if possible – (Matthew 26:39), was most truly answered by the angel

sent to strengthen him, and the power thenceforth given Him to “endure the

cross, despising the shame.” (ch. 12:2) The example to us thus

becomes the more apparent. For we, too, praying legitimately for release

from excessive trial, may have our prayer best answered by grace given to

endure the trial, and by “a happy issue” out of it; as was the case with

Christ. For His bitter passion was made the path to eternal glory; and thus

in the Resurrection too His prayer was answered. The exact meaning of

εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας – eisakoustheis apo taes eulabeias – was

heard in that He feared - is not easy to determine. It is taken

by a large proportion of commentators to mean “deliverance from His

fear;” εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ being supposed to be a constructio praegnans

in the sense of “heard so as to be delivered,” and εὐλαβεία to denote the

dread experienced in Gethsemane. Some understand εὐλαβεία as meaning,

not the fear felt, but the thing feared. The objections to this view are

(1) the doubtfulness of the constructio praegnans (a form of brachylogy in

which two clauses or two expressions are condensed into one), the instances

adduced — καὶ ἐπήκουσέν μου εἰς πλατυσμόν – kai epaekousen mou eis

platusmon - answered me with freedom - Psalm 118:5; , ῥεραντισμένοι …

ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς, - rherantismenoi……apo suneidaeseos

ponaeras – having been sprinkled ……from an evil conscience -here, ch. 10:22 —

are not parallel); and

(2) the sense assigned to εὐλαβεία – eulabeia - feared; piety , since εὐλαβεῖθσαι –

eulabeithsai – holy fear; godly fear reverence - and its derivatives, when used to

express fear, denote usually, not a shrinking, but a wary or cautious fear, and

commonly carry with them (in this Epistle and Luke especially) the idea of piety.

Thus in ch.11:7, of Noah, εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασεν κιβωτὸν – eulabaetheis

kateskeuasen kiboton – moved with fear prepared an ark; being pious constructs

ark - ch. 12:28, µετ’ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους – met’ eulabeias kai deous –

with reverence and godly fear; with piety and awe - and in Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5;

8:2; 22:12, εὐλαβής – eulabaes – devout - is synonymous with εὐσεβής –

eusebaes – pious; godly. The rendering hence preferred by many,

having the authority of Chrysostom, and among moderns of Lunemann,

Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, is that of the Vulgate, “exauditus pro

sua reverentia.” So Vigilius, “propter timorem;” the Authorized Version,” heard

in that he feared,” or, as in the margin, “heard for his piety;” and in the recent

revision, “for his godly fear;” which is the Authorized Version’s rendering

of εὐλαβεία in ch.12:28. The objection to the use of ἀπὸ to express the

cause of His being heard is met by reference to the frequent usage of Luke,

whose language most resembles that of our Epistle. Thus: ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου –

apo tou ochlou – for the press; from the throng - (Luke 19:3); ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς –

apo taes charas – for joy; from the joy (Ibid. ch. 24:41 and Acts 12:14);

ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου – apo tou hupnou – with sleep; from the sleep (Ibid. ch.20:9);

ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης – apo taes doxaes – for the glory; from the glory(Ibid. ch. 22:11).

The phrase, thus understood, brings out the more markedly the thoroughly

human conditions to which Christ was subjected. It was not in right of His

sonship that He was heard. He won His hearing by His human piety; though

He was SON, and as such knew that His Father heard Him always (John 11:42),

He learned humanly His lesson of obedience. In the expression, καίπερ ὢν υἱὸς –

kaiper on huios – Though He was a Son; Even being a Son - , Son is surely meant

in the peculiar sense in which it has all along been applied to Christ, expressing

more than that His relation to God was that of any son to a father, and thus we

perceive the full force of καίπερ. It is true that it was not till after the Resurrection

that He attained His exalted position as SON (see under ch. 1:5 and 5:5); but still

He was all along the Son, in virtue of His origin as well as of His destiny. Compare

ἐλάλησεν ἡµῖν ἐν υἱῷ - elalaesen haemin en huio – speaks to us in [the] Son (ch. 1:2) -

ὢν υἱὸς (being a Son) does not indeed, in itself, express that he was the Second Person

of the Trinity (this application of the word υἱὸς being nowhere found in the Epistle);

but it implies that, even in his state of humiliation, he was more than man; for

there would be nothing very extraordinary, so as to justify καίπερ, in the case of

an ordinary son learning obedience to his father through suffering. Recurring

now to the question raised under v. 3, whether the high priest’s

obligation to offer in the first place for himself had any counterpart in the

case of Christ, we may perceive such a counterpart in the agony, as above

regarded. For, although for Himself Christ needed no atonement, yet the

“prayers and supplications” were offered in His own behalf, being due to His

own entire participation in the conditions of humanity; the whole “agony

and bloody sweat” were part of His own preparation and consecration for

executing the office of a High Priest for others, and, like the Aaronic

priest’s offering for himself, they were the sign and evidence of His being

one µετριοπαθεῖν δυνάµενος – metriopathein dunamenos - being able to

have compassion. Thus (χωρὶς ἁµαρτίας.– choris haemartias – without sin –

being all along understood) they answered truly to the preparatory part of

Aaron’s original consecration (Leviticus 8:14 - 9:15), or to the high priest’s own

offering, before his offering for the people and entering behind the veil, on

the Day of Atonement (Ibid. ch. 16:6). It may be (though not necessarily so)

that the word προσενέγκας (offering) in v. 7, corresponding with

προσφέρειν (to offer; to be offering) in v. 3, is intended to suggest this analogy.

The Suffering Savior (vs. 7-8)

“Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered,” etc. Our text suggests

the following observations:

· IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH OUR LORD ENDURED SEVEREST

SUFFERINGS. “The things which He suffered” induced the agonizing

prayer, the “strong crying and tears.” He bore the common sufferings of

our humanity; e.g. hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. He suffered from the cruel

ingratitude of men, from the base slanders of His enemies, and from the

subtle and sinful solicitations of Satan. His sensitive and holy soul suffered

keenly from His contact with so much of sin and sorrow and pain in this

world. But the particular reference in the text is to His anguish in

Gethsemane. How sore was His sorrow, how terrible His agony, upon that

occasion! “He began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled: and he saith,

My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death.” (Mark 14:33)

· IN HIS SUFFERINGS OUR LORD SOUGHT RELIEF IN PRAYER.

“He offered up prayers and supplications,” etc. (v. 7). Notice:

Ø The Being to whom He addressed His prayer. “Unto Him that was

able to save Him from death,” i.e. to the great Sovereign of both life

and death; “the God in whose hand our breath is” (Daniel 23), who

“giveth to all life and breath and all things,… in whom we live and

move and have our being.” (Acts 17:25,28) Our Savior directed

his prayer to His Father, saying, “O my Father, if it be possible,

let this cup pass from me.” (Matthew 26:39)

Ø The object which He sought in His prayer. This is not mentioned here;

but it is in the narrative of the conflict in Gethsemane. “O my Father,

if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me.” From what did the

Savior recoil so shudderingly? Certainly neither from mere death, nor

from “the dread of something after death.” The pains of dissolution

could not have affrighted him, and beyond death there was nothing to

dismay or repel Him. But death, with all the dread significance and

terrible circumstances such as awaited Him, He shrank from in intense

spiritual pain. It was something far deadlier than death. It was the burden

and the mystery of the world’s sin which lay heavy on his heart;

it was the tasting, in the Divine humanity of a sinless life, the bitter cup

which sin had poisoned; it was the bowing of Godhead to endure a

stroke to which man’s apostasy had lent such frightful possibilities. It

was the sense, too, of how virulent, how frightful, must have been the

force of evil in the universe of God which could render necessary SO

INFINITE A SACRIFICE! It was the endurance, by the perfectly

guiltless, of the worst malice which human hatred could devise; it was

to experience, in the bosom of perfect innocence and perfect love, all

that was detestable in human ingratitude, all that was pestilent in human

hypocrisy, all that was cruel in human rage. It was to brave the last

triumph of Satanic spite and fury, uniting against His lonely head all the

flaming arrows of Jewish falsity and heathen corruption — the concentrated

wrath of the rich and respectable, the yelling fury of the blind and brutal

mob. It was to feel that his own, to whom He came, loved darkness rather

than light — that the race of the chosen people could be wholly absorbed

in one insane repulsion against infinite goodness and purity and love.

Through all this He passed in that hour which, with a recoil of sinless

horror beyond our capacity to conceive, foretasted a worse bitterness

than the worst bitterness of death. This was the cup which He

prayed might pass away from Him.

Ø The intensity with which He urged His prayer. This is indicated:

o by the fact that two words, which are nearly synonymous, are used

to express His prayer. He “offered up prayers and supplications.”

The conjunction of synonymous words is “a mode of expressing

intensity, which is very frequent in the sacred writings.”

o By His “strong crying.” The loud cries were the expression of

agonized feeling and of earnest entreaty.

o By His “tears.” Great natures weep, but not for trifles. Their tears

indicate deep emotion. Our Lord’s tears in Gethsemane welled up

from a “soul exceeding sorrowful,” and were significant of a

painful fervency of supplication. “Being in an agony He prayed

more earnestly,” etc. (Luke 22:44).

· IN ANSWER TO HIS PRAYER OUR LORD OBTAINED

SUPPORT IN HIS SUFFERINGS.

Ø The nature of the answer to His prayer. Not exemption from the cup,

but victory over the dread of it, and support in drinking it. He was

fortified for His future sufferings and trials, and sustained in them.

“There appeared unto Him an angel from heaven, strengthening

Him.” (Ibid. v. 43) His personal wishes were now lost in the perfect

will of His Father. His dread anxieties are gone, and He is divinely

calm. His trembling fears have departed, and He is sublimely

courageous. Henceforth, even unto the bitter end, He is serene in

sternest sufferings, patient under the most irritating provocations,

a meek yet majestic Conqueror. Such was the Father’s answer to

His prayer. And every true prayer which is offered to God is

answered by Him, though not always by granting the specific

requests (compare II Corinthians 12:7-10).

Ø The reason of the answer to His prayer. “And was heard in that He

feared;” margin, “for His piety;” Revised Version, “Having been

heard for His godly fear;” He was heard by reason of His reverent

submission.” His pious resignation to the holy will of His Father was

the ground upon which His prayer was answered, and the victory

was given unto Him. “Nevertheless,” said He, “not as I will, but

as Thou wilt.... O my Father, if this cannot pass away, except I

drink it, thy will be done.” (Matthew 26:42) When we can thus say,

“Thy will be done,” we have already an installment of the answer

to our prayers, and the fullness of the blessing will not tarry.

· BY HIS SUFFERINGS HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE HOLY WILL

OF HIS FATHER WAS PERFECTED. “Though He was a Son, yet

learned He obedience by,” etc. His obedience as a Son was always perfect.

His obedience here spoken of is obedience in suffering. As His obedience

became more difficult, involving more and more of self-renunciation, and

pain ever increasing in severity, He still obeyed, He willed to endure the

sharpest, sternest sufferings rather than fail even in the slightest degree in

His practical loyalty to the perfect will of His Father. “He became obedient

unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8) This obedience

He learned, as He proceeded step by step along His painful path, until the

lesson was finished and the obedience was consummated on the cross.

All Christ’s disciples need the discipline of suffering to perfect them in

the practice of the Father’s will (compare Matthew 16:24).

9 “And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation

unto all them that obey Him; 8 Called of God an high priest after the order

of Melchisedec.” And being made perfect, he became unto all them that

obey him the Author of eternal salvation; called (or rather so

addressed) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Here

τελειωθεὶς - teleiotheis - being made perfect) refers to the time of His

resurrection, when the sufferings were over and the atonement

complete (compare Luke 13:32, τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦµαι – tae tritae teleioumai –

the third [day] I shall be perfected). The word may be used in its general sense of

perfected, i.e. “being made perfectly that which He was intended to become.”

In such sense Paul uses the word of himself, ὅτι ἤδη ….τετελείωµαι – hoti adae

…..teteleiomai – that already…..have been perfected - (Philippians 3:12). Or the

specific sense of priestly consecration may be here, as well as in ch.2:10 and 7:28,

intended. In (Ibid) the Authorized Version renders εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωµένον –

- eis ton aiona teteleiomenon - by consecrated for evermore. And this view is

supported by passages in the Septuagint, where the word τελειωςὶς – teleiosis –

fulfillment; completion; perfection - is used with special reference to the consecration

of the high priest. Compare:

· ἔστιν γὰρ τελείωσις αὕτη – estin gar teleosis autae – for it is a ram of

consecration (Exodus 29:22);

· τοῦ κριοῦ τῆς τελειώσεως ὅ ἐστιν Ααρων – tou kriou taes teleioseos

ho estin Aaron – Aaron’s ram of consecration (vs. 26-27, 31);

· τελειῶσαι τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν – teleiosai tas cheiras auton –

consecrated in their hands - (vs. 29, 33, 35);

· τῆς θυσίας τῆς τελειώσεως - taes thusias taes teleioseos – the

sacrifice of the consecration (v. 34)

· τὸν δεύτερον κριὸν τῆς τελειώσεως – ton deuteron krion taes teleioseos –

the second ram of consecration (Leviticus 8:22, 29);

· ἀπὸ τοῦ κανοῦ τῆς τελειώσεως – apo tou kanou taes teleioseos –

out of the basket of unleavened bread [consecration] -(Ibid.v. 26);

· τὸ ὁλοκαύτωμα τῆς τελειώσεως – to holokautoma taes teleioseos –

conscecrated burnt offering (v. 28);

· ἕως ἡμέρα πληρωθῇ ἡμέρα τελειώσεως ὑμῶν – hoes haemera plaerothae

haemera teleioseos humon – until the days of your consecration are

fulfilled (v. 33);

also Leviticus 21:10, where the high priest ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ -

ho iereus ho megas apo ton adelphon autou – he who is high priest among his

brothers — is described as τοῦ ἐπικεχυμένου ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἐλαίου τοῦ

χριστοῦ καὶ τετελειωμένου ἐνδύσασθαι τὰ ἱμάτια – tou epikechumenou epi taen

kephalaen tou elaiou tou christou kai teteleiomenou endusasthai ta himatia –

upon whose head the anointing oil is poured and that is consecrated to put on

the garments. See also Gesenius on the Hebrew word μyaLum. Hence, and in

view of the drift of the passage before us, Jackson very decidedly regards

τελειωθεὶς (being made perfect) in v. 9 as a verbum solenne, denoting specifically

Christ’s consecration to His eternal office of High Priest. Being thus perfected,

or consecrated, He became, for ever afterwards, the Author, not of mere ceremonial

cleansing or temporary remission of guilt, BUT OF ETERNAL SALVATION;

potentially to all mankind (compare ὑπὲρ παντὸς – huper pantos – for the sake of

everyone - ch. 2:9), and effectively to “all them that obey Him;” being addressed,

in this his consummated position (the reference being to Psalm 110.) as

“High Priest for ever,” etc. Here again we perceive that it is not till after the

Resurrection that the prophetic ideal of the SON at God’s right hand, and of

the eternal High Priest, are regarded as fully realized. If it be objected that His

high priesthood must have begun before the Resurrection for His death upon

the cross to be a true atonement, it may be replied that His one oblation of Himself

upon the cross at once consummated His consecration and effected the atonement.

Doubtless, as a true High Priest on earth, He thus “offered one sacrifice for sins

for ever” (ch.10:12); all that is meant above is that it was not till after the

Resurrection that He entered on His eternal office of mediation in virtue of

that one accomplished sacrifice.

The High Priesthood of Christ (vs. 1-10)

In these verses the author proceeds with his discussion of the priestly

character and work of the Lord Jesus, as typified by the Aaronical

priesthood.

· WHAT A HIGH PRIEST IS. The office is a most honorable one; it is

referred to in v. 4 as “the honor.” This will appear from a consideration

of the high priest’s functions and qualifications.

Ø His functions. The most important of these are indicated in v. 1.

o He acts for other men in things respecting their relations to

God. The root-idea of the office is that, while access to God

is denied to sinners on the ground of nature, He has been

pleased to grant it in connection with special arrangements

of grace.

o He offers sacrifices, both free-will offerings and sin offerings.

As men are guilty, this is indispensable; and thus in common

speech the terms “priest” and “sacrifice” are correlatives.

There can be no priest without a sacrifice.

Ø His qualifications.

o He must be human (v. 1) — a partaker of the nature that

is to be redeemed.

o He must be humane (v. 2) — capable of considerate sympathy

with the people for whom he mediates. How sadly opposite in

character to this have the world’s priests almost always been!

How dark are the thoughts suggested by the word “priestcraft”!

Priests have been arrogant, cruel, tyrants over conscience, enemies

of progress, patrons of ignorance and error. But the typical priest

is a man of culture and refinement, who has abjured the motto,

“Odi profanum vulgus et arceo,” (I hate the common people and

try to steer clear of them) and who, realizing his own frailty,

“can bear gently with the ignorant and erring.”

o He must have a sacrifice (v. 3) — “somewhat to offer.”

Without a sin offering priestly mediation would be impotent,

and the holy and just God would remain inaccessible.

o He must be appointed by God. (v. 4.) It is for God to decide

whether He will allow Himself to be approached at all on

behalf of the guilty, and it belongs to Him also to select the

person whose mediation will be acceptable to Him.

· THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S HIGH PRIESTHOOD. The apostle

goes on to show — but arranging his thoughts for the most part in the

reverse order — that the Lord Jesus possesses all the needful qualifications

for the high priesthood, and that he actually discharges its duties (vs. 5-10).

Ø He has the qualifications of a high priest.

o He was appointed by God. (vs. 5-6.) The reference to Psalm 2

suggests His perfect fitness for the office, and the quotation

from Psalm 110 is a proof of His ordination by the irrevocable

oath of God.

o He is a man. (vs. 7-8.) Although God said to Him, “My Son,”

He had taken “the form of a servant,” and “in the days of His

flesh” had “learned obedience.”

o He is able to sympathize. (vs. 7-8.) He passed through a course of

the deepest affliction and the most dreadful temptation, that He

might acquire the necessary experience for His work. He

“suffered,” not only at Nazareth and Capernaum, and during

the whole period of His public ministry, but especially by

means of the unparalleled agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha.

o He offered himself as a sacrifice. (vs. 7-8.) By His “obedience”

Jesus effected complete reconciliation for sin. His trembling

agony in the garden and the woe which He bore upon the tree

are inexplicable on the principle that He was only a martyr, or

on any other principle than that in some mysterious way He

was thus bearing the wrath of God against sin.

Ø He discharges the duties of a high priest. (v. 9.) The Savior’s

acquisition of all the qualifications “made Him perfect,” i.e. officially

all accomplished as the Priest of mankind.

o He has procured for us everlasting salvation.

o He bestows it upon all who obey Him by faith.

o He has expiated sin.

o He has rendered God propitious.

o He gives His people access.

o He prays to God for them.

In short, He performs all the duties of a high priest, and His priesthood

has superseded every other.

· THE CONTRAST BETWEEN CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD AND

THE AARONICAL.

Ø Being personally holy, Jesus needed not to offer any sacrifice for

Himself (v. 3).

Ø He is both Priest and Victim (vs. 7-8).

Ø His priesthood really procures salvation (v. 9), and not merely

typically.

Ø It is of a higher order than Aaron’s, and was more fully represented

by that of Melchizedek (v. 10); for it is

o intransferable and everlasting;

o a royal priesthood, CHRIST BEING KING, AS WELL

AS PRIEST!

· LESSONS.

Ø We, being guilty and sinful, can have communion with God

only through Christ as our Priest.

Ø Christian ministers are not “called of God” to be priests (v. 4),

and must beware of importing sacerdotal conceptions into the

idea which they entertain of their office; yet every pastor should,

like the model high priest of ancient times, “bear gently with the

ignorant and erring.” (v. 2)

Gethsemane (vs. 7-9)

Here we have Gethsemane, apart from external circumstances — the

treachery of Judas, the apathy, ignorance, and drowsiness of the disciples.

The one thing of supreme importance is set before us, even the struggle

and suffering in the heart of Jesus Himself. Note:

· THE ELEMENTS OF THE SUFFERING.

Ø The possession of a suffering nature. This struggle happened in

the days of His flesh. It was nothing wonderful that He should

shrink from physical pain, especially when He knew it was to be

such pain as of the scourging and the cross.

Ø The possession of a sinless nature. To find a sinless human being

shrinking with peculiar horror from death, accords with the great

theological dictum that death is the result of sin. The right of Jesus

couldnot be less than to pass from this world as Enoch did (Genesis

5:24), by translation into glory. Death is the thing from which He

shrinks. And full of life as Jesus was, life of the whole being, spiritual

life most of all, how should He not shrink from death?

· INTENSITY OF THE SUFFERING. This is shown by the urgency of

the supplications. Jesus had had His times of intercession, His times for

sweet remembrance of His disciples, and of a sinning, sorrowing world;

but now here is a prayer out of keen personal agony — agony with an

overpowering effect on the very thoughts and intents of the heart. Here in

Gethsemane is the field of the Lord’s supreme temptation. He who had

raised others from the dead, it was not for Him to submit to death without

clear proof that such was the will of His Father. We have to submit. We

look on death as a constant possibility; in us there are no resources for

warding it off or recovering us from its captivity, as there were in Jesus.

Hence the considerations which would press on Him, “Can it be right that I

should die? Shall I let myself sink into the hands of this approaching band,

and finally into the grasp of Pilate, to become passive and yielding in

everything save spiritual integrity?” What wonder was it that in such a

struggle of the heart he should sweat as it were great drops of blood!

(Luke 22:44)

· SUCCESSFUL ENDURANCE OF THE SUFFERING. Jesus goes

into this struggle of Gethsemane with one great practical truth in His heart,

viz. that His Father’s will was the supreme determining guide of His course.

To adopt a subsequent metaphor of the Epistle, this was the anchor within

the veil. That will, His guide hitherto, had led Him to Gethsemane, had led

Him into the very midst of plots and treacheries, into a thick circle of the

wicked, each with his own special interest, and yet all wonderfully

combined in bringing Jesus to the cross. This great truth, that He was in the

midst of these things by God’s will, kept Jesus as on the rock in the great

hour of His temptation. There was more to be done for God’s glory and the

world’s good through death, than through mere continuance of life. A

dying Jesus is INFINITELY MORE than a translated Enoch.

· RESULT OF THE SUFFERING. His obedience becomes the measure

of obedience to others; and also their inspiration — the thing that prompts

ever to ask inquiringly, earnestly, with singleness of heart, as to what the

will of God is. To the right-hearted. God ever gives an infallible intimation;

and before such ever stands also THE FIGURE OF THEIR PERFECTED

LEADER! By the will of God He went to the cross, yielded to death; and

then came the resurrection, the ascension, the passing within the veil, the

entrance on the functions of the true High Priest. And so HE BECAME

THE CAUSE OF ETERNAL SALVATION as distinguished from temporal.

To Lazarus He had once been the cause of temporal salvation; but Lazarus

would die again, and needed, through faith and obedience, ETERNAL

SALVATION! That is the salvation which transcends death. Death may

get mixed up with the process, may for a time even conceal, or at least dim,

the reality; but in due course death is left behind, and eternal salvation

shines forth in all its DIVINE GLORY!

Salvation: Its Author and Its Recipients (v. 9)

“And being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation.” The subject

of the writer in this part of his Epistle is the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. In

treating this subject he dwells upon the sufferings of Christ in His priestly

office, and a certain perfection which resulted from His sufferings. He was

God’s only and well-beloved Son, yet He was not exempt from suffering.

“He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.” We must not

suppose that He was not perfectly acquainted with the nature of obedience,

or that He did not fully recognize the duty of it, or that He was in any way

indisposed to render it, before He suffered. The meaning is that though He

was so highly exalted in His relationship to the Father, yet He was subjected

to learn experimentally what it is to obey in the midst of suffering. He learned

the lesson perfectly. He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the

cross.” (Philippians 2:8) Our text leads us to consider three things.

· THE PERFECTION WHICH CHRIST ATTAINED THROUGH

SUFFERING. “And having been made perfect.” Having assumed human

nature, Christ was capable of suffering; and in that nature He did indeed

suffer. His entire life upon earth was one of humiliation and sacrifice. Being

sympathetic, the sufferings of men were a constant grief to Him. Being

holy, the sins of men constantly stung His soul with pain. At the last His

sufferings deepened into awful intensity. In Gethsemane His sorrow and

conflict almost brought down His human nature unto death. And on the

cross His pain and woe were unutterable, and to us inconceivably severe.

Of all sufferers CHRIST IS THE SUFFERER! In all these sufferings He

was obedient. He endured them voluntarily. Through His obedience in

suffering He became perfect. The author of our salvation was made “perfect

through sufferings” (ch.2:10). This acquired perfection was not personal

As God He is eternally perfect; as man He was perfect without suffering.

The perfection of our text is relative. By suffering He became perfect in

His relation to us as:

Ø our Savior,

Ø our Intercessor, and

Ø our great High Priest.

By suffering:

Ø He made a perfect atonement for sin.

Ø He became perfectly qualified to sympathize with and to succor

His suffering people. (compare ch.4:14-16)

Ø He became a perfect example for His people in their sufferings.

Ø He entered upon His perfect triumph and glory. (compare ch.2:9;

12:2; Philippians 2:5-11.)

· THE GREAT END BOTH OF CHRIST’S SUFFERING AND OF

HIS PERFECTION ACQUIRED THROUGH HIS SUFFERING.

This end was that He might Be the Author, or the great procuring cause,

of a perfect salvation for men. “Being made perfect, He became the

Author of eternal salvation.” Here are three points.

Ø The salvation.

o Forgiveness of sin,

o freedom from condemnation,

o deliverance from the sovereignty of sin,

o the awakening of a new ruling principle and power in man,

o conversion into a condition of holiness, peace and joy,

o entrance into heaven, and

o blessed union with God.

Ø The perpetuity of salvation. “Eternal salvation.” No partial,

incomplete, temporary blessing; but “eternal salvation” —

“the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

(II Timothy 2:10) Does not this, at least, suggest that there

is no falling back from the hand of Christ into the power of

Satan? Doubtless man always can do so, inasmuch as he is

morally free; but this “eternal salvation” establishes man’s

freedom, yet binds it to holiness, and leads him to cry,

“I delight to do thy will, O my God.” (Psalm 40:8) This

Blessing shall continue when bonds and banks, estates and

fortunes, coronets and crowns, shall have perished. Blessed

be the Lord for His “ETERNAL SALVATION!”

Ø The Author of salvation. Our salvation is owing to Jesus Christ. The

ministry of providence, of religious ordinances, and of good men, may

assist us in availing ourselves of this salvation; but they cannot save us;

they are not “the cause of salvation.” Our salvation originated in THE

INFINITE LOVE OF GOD! “God so loved the world, that He

gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall

not perish, but have everlasting life!,” (John 3:16) Our salvation was

effected by His Son, our Savior. He became man, taught, labored,

suffered, lived, died, and ever lives to save us. HE IS OUR ONLY

SAVIOR! The great end of His sufferings was our “ETERNAL

SALVATION!”

· THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS SALVATION. “Unto all them that

obey Him.” This, of course, does not mean that we merit salvation by

obeying the Savior. But those who have merely some doctrinal knowledge

of Christ and His salvation, those who have only a dead faith in Him, a

mere intellectual assent to the great facts of His history and teaching, are

not partakers of His salvation. As He attained His mediatorial perfection

and glory by complete and hearty obedience to His Father, so must man

obey Him if we would attain unto “eternal salvation.” Salvation is found

in obedience to Him, because:

Ø True and saving faith inspires the life and shapes the conduct.

(compare Acts 15:9; Romans 16:26; Galatians 5:6; James 2:17-26.)

Ø Christ saves men from their sins. He is a Prince to rule us, as well

as a Savior to deliver us.

Ø All who are being saved by Christ love Him, and the loving heart

delights to obey the loved One.

Ø The disobedient cannot enter heaven. Heaven is a realm of perfect

obedience to the supreme will, of loyal and loving devotion to God’s

service. Unless the spirit of hearty obedience be ours, we are out of

sympathy with heaven.

Christ’s Human Experience the Second Qualification

for

High Priestly Work (vs. 7-10)

The second proof that Christ holds the high priestly position. In vs. 1-2

the double qualification for this is shown: a qualification

o Godward and

o manward;

He must be appointed by God, and able to sympathize with man.

Both these are shown to be true of Christ, and that He is, therefore,

officially “perfect” (vs. 9-10).

· THE NECESSITY THAT THE HIGH PRIEST SHOULD HAVE

PERSONAL ACQUAINTANCE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE. He

“must be taken from among men.”

Ø Apart from this He could be no true representative of mankind.

Human obedience to the Divine Law was required of men. Christ

undertook, as their Representative, to meet all requirements; that

made the Incarnation a necessity. (He “was in all points tempted

like as we are, yet without sin!” – ch. 4:15) Christ must keep the

Law on the same footing on which Adam stood when he came from

God’s hand. So, likewise, bearing man’s penalty, He must assume a

nature which could die. That is, He must become man.

Ø This way He could secure the confidence of the people. Christ

need not pass through human experience in order to understand it;

He understands it by His omniscience. But the infirmity of human

faith can better confide in the sympathy of one who, it knows, has

personally endured its trials.

· THE FULFILMENT OF THIS QUALIFICATION IN THE LORD

JESUS CHRIST. “Who in the days of His flesh, …..offered up prayers

and supplications with strong crying and tears,” etc. (v. 7) The

reference is, evidently, to Gethsemane. It could only have been because

death would be to him what it could be to none other — THE BEARING

OF THE WORLD’S SIN! Gethsemane was the culminating point of

our Lord’s suffering? The writer leads us to look at Jesus when He has

reached THE DEEPEST DEPTH OF SUFFERING POSSIBLE!

However deep his people’s darkness, JESUS HAS GONE DEEPER

STILL. HE BORE THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD! My

sins, your sins, everyone’s sins!

Ø An illustration of the pain involved in submitting our will to God.

“He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.”

Obedience is submission of the will to God. That was the burden

of the prayer in Gethsemane. He laid His will absolutely at the

Father’s feet. He came to do God’s will; that was His meat and

drink. He did always (from the first) those things which please

the Father. (John 8:29) He learned obedience — came to know

what it means for the flesh to submit ever to the will of Heaven;

what it is to obey God amidst human frailties, pains, temptations.

Ø An illustration of Christ’s dependence for fidelity on heavenly helps.

He prayed to be saved (not “from”) “out of death;” not that death

might be averted — for His prayer “was heard” — but that He might

be delivered out of it. Divine support was given, and a glorious

resurrection. Christ, as man, had no inherent power by reason of His

Deity for what, as man, He had to do and bear. He stood on man’s

footing. Perhaps nothing brings Him closer to us than that for all He

needed He had to cling to God in trustful supplication as we have,

and receive delivering and sustaining grace because thereof as we do.

· THE WORTH TO HIS PEOPLE OF CHRIST’S FULFILMENT OF

THIS QUALIFICATION. He was thus “made perfect” — perfect as to

His fullness for high priestly work. Then:

Ø The perfection of Christ’s priesthood makes every other priesthood

needless. He is “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek;” not

in the Aaronic order, not thus for Israel after the flesh, but “for all

those who obey Him,” i.e. submit to Him. Christ, High Priest for

every sinner who yields himself to Him; and for this He is perfect.

Then what room for any other mediator? (“For there is one God,

and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

(I Timothy 2:5)

Ø The power of sympathy in a God who has Himself suffered.

When we see that there is not a trial we experience whose

counterpart we cannot find in Christ’s earthly life, we can rest

in the Lord.

Christ passed through the whole circle of teaching, working, enduring contradiction,

until He could say, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work thou

gavest me to do.” (John 17:4) Christ passed through His Divine consecration, and

received the approving voice of His Father, who raised Him from the dead. From

Him NOWFLOWS ETERNAL SALVATION which begins here in:

Ø redemption from guilt,

Ø the restraint of sin,

Ø the indwelling of the Spirit,

Ø freedom from the penal stroke of death, and

Ø the blessedness of eternal life.

All this is connected with obedience on the part of believers, who, while they trust

in His sacrifice, yield their life to His authority as the King of Zion. He was

“called of God.” The appointment is VALID and UNCHANGEABLE, and

foreshadowed by the ministry and office of Melchizedek.

From v. 11- ch. 7:1, is a long admonitory digression (see under v. 1) felt by the

writer to be necessary before his exposition of κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ -

kata taen taxin Melchisedek – according to the order of Melchisedek (v. 10).

He is entering on a new theme, higher and less level to the comprehension of

his readers than any that has gone before. Even so far, we have seen how their

Jewish prejudices had evoked admonitions, frequently interposed in the course

of the argument. Much more so now, when it is to be shown how the priesthood

of Christ not only fulfils the idea of, but also supersedes, that of the sons of Aaron,

being of a different order from theirs. The region of thought to be entered now,

being that of “the mystery of Christ,” transcends more than any that has been so

far entered the ordinary conceptions of traditional Judaism. Hence the

writer’s shrinking from entering all at once on the subject for fear of not

being even understood; hence his earnest warnings to his readers as to the

necessity of advancing to the state of full-grown Christians who can

discern spiritual things.

INTERPOSED EXHORTATION (v.11- ch. 6:20)

11 “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing

ye are dull of hearing.” Of whom (the most obvious antecedent being

Melchizedek, but with regard to his typical significance, as referred to in Psalm 110.)

we have many things to say (the subject itself admits a lengthy exposition)

and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become (not, as in Authorized Version,

“ye are”) dull of hearing, Their dullness is the reason of the λόγος – logos –

say; word – being δυσερμήνευτος – dusermaeneutos – hard to be uttered;

ill translated. It was not that the subject was in itself inexplicable, or

that the writer was incompetent to explain it; his difficulty was in adapting

the interpretation to the capacity of his readers. It seems from γεγόνατε –

gegonate - ye are become), in this and the following verse, that the Hebrew

Christians had even retrograded in spiritual perception. This is easily

conceivable. As, through the teaching of Paul especially, the tie between

Christianity and Judaism became more and more broken, there was likely

to be a certain reaction among the Hebrew Christians, who, having gone to

a certain extent with the tide of thought, became conscious how far it was

carrying them. They would be inclined to cling the more fondly to their old

associations from the fear of losing them altogether. Such retrogressions

have been observable in other times of upheaval of old ideas.

12 “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that

one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of

God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong

meat.” For when, by reason of the time (i.e. the time that has

elapsed since your conversion), ye ought to be teachers, ye have need

that some one teach you (or, that one teach you which be) the first

principles (literally, the elements of the beginning) of the oracles of God;

and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. τῆς ἀρχῆς –

taes archaes – original; of the beginning - in this verse seems best taken in

union with τὰ στοιχεῖα – ta stoicheia – the elements – rather than with

τῶν λογίων – ton logion – of the oracles; the phrase, τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς

meaning “the initiatory elements” — the A, B, C’s of Christian teaching.

The word λογία – logia - oracles, is used elsewhere for the revelations of the

Old Testament, as Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2. Here its meaning can hardly be

taken as confined to them, since the first principles of the gospel are being

spoken of. Still, a word that includes them in its meaning may be purposely

used by way of intimating that the elements intended are those of Judaism as

well as Christianity, or of the latter only in its first emergence out of Judaism.

And accordingly, ch.6:1-2 , where they are enumerated, are (as will be seen)

so worded as to imply no more than this; nor are the first principles there

mentioned beyond what an enlightened Jew might be expected to understand

readily. Be it observed that the Hebrew Church need not be supposed to have

actually lost sight of these first principles, so as to require a new indoctrination

into them. There may be a vein of delicate irony in what is said, after the manner

of Paul. All that is of necessity implied is that there had been such a failure in

seeing what these principles led to as to suggest the necessity of their being learned

anew. The writer does not, in fact, as he goes on, require them to be learned anew;

for he bids his readers leave them behind, as though already known, and

proceed from them to perfection, though still with some misgiving as to

their capability for doing so. The figure of milk for babes and solid food for

full-grown men, to illustrate the teaching suitable for neophytes and for

advanced Christians, is found also in I Corinthians 3:1-2; and that of

ηπιάζετε – aepiazete – be ye children - in Ibid. ch.14:20; Galatians 4:19;

Ephesians 4:14. This correspondence, though no proof of the Pauline

authorship, is among the evidences of the Pauline character of the Epistle.

13 “For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of

righteousness: for he is a babe.” Reason for saying that they are

such as have need of milk; for milk is the nourishment of infants, and he

that is an infant in respect of spiritual growth is ἄπειρος λόγου

δικαιοσύνης – apeiros logou dikaiosunaes – unskillful in the word of

righteousness - not of necessity unacquainted with it altogether, but still

not versed in it; he is but a novice. “Word of righteousness” may be taken as

a general term to denote what we might call religious lore; referring here

especially to the gospel, which is eminently the revelation of the

“righteousness of God” (Romans 1:17; compare II Corinthians 3:9,

ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης – hae diakonia taes dikaiosunaes – ministration

of righteousness: and 11:15, διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης – diakonoi dikaiosunaes –

ministers of righteousness); but not excluding a more general conception.

There is no need to suppose an exclusive reference to the more perfect doctrine

in opposition to the elements, since, of the whole subject of religious knowledge,

the νήπιος – naepios – childish - may be said to be ἄπειρος (unskillful) in the sense

of being without the matured skill that experience gives. Hence, too, we are certainly

not justified in finding in the phrase a specific allusion to the Pauline doctrine of

justification by faith only, which is not suggested by the context or by what

follows. Still less may we so ignore the notable significance of δικαιοσύνης

(righteousness) as to reduce the expression to a synonym for “rightly framed,

that is sound and orthodox discourse.”

14 “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those

who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both

good and evil.” But solid food is for them that are of full age (τελείων –

teleion – of mature ones; of full age - , equivalent to “perfect;” but in the

sense of maturity of age or growth, in contrast with νήπιος (children);

as in I Corinthians 14:20; compare Ibid ch. 2:6; Ephesians 4:13;

Philippians 3:15), those who by reason of use have their senses exercised

to discern good and evil. Here the comparison is carried out with peculiar

aptness. τὰ αἰσθητήρια – ta aisthaetaeria – faculties; the senses - in the

illustration are the organs of sense. In the infant the digestive organs, in the

first place, exercised in the beginning on milk, acquire through that exercise

the power of assimilating more solid and more complex food, while at the

same time its sensitive organs generally, also through exercise, become

consciously discriminative of “good and evil” (compare Isaiah 7:15-16,

where “to know to refuse the evil and choose the good” denotes, as if

proverbially, the age after early childhood). So, in the spiritual sphere, the

mental faculties, exercised at first on simple truths, should acquire by

practice the power of apprehending and distinguishing between higher and

more recondite ones. It was because the Hebrew Christians had failed thus

to bring out their faculties that they were open to the charge of being still

in a state of infancy. However, the perfect and full-grown men who use

their senses and spiritual powers aright are privileged to “eat of fat things

full of marrow, and drink wine on the lees well refined.” (Isaiah 25:6)

A Sharp Reproof for Ignorance (vs. 11-14)

The apostle, having used the expression, “after the order of Melchizedek,”

remembers that his readers will not be likely to understand it without

careful explanation. So he pauses in his argument to chide them for their

backwardness in religious knowledge.

· THE TRUTHS OF REVELATION ARE PROFOUND AND FAR-

REACHING. The story of God’s love in redemption may, no doubt, be

called with propriety “the simple gospel;” but, while it is so, it exhibits at

the same time “the manifold wisdom of God.” (Ephesians 3:10) The Bible

is not merely a book; it is a literature. It does not simply contain a message

of mercy; it is the record of a long and gradually developing process of

redeeming grace. It may be studied profoundly from many different

standpoints, as e.g. those of history, of dogmatic theology, of morals, of

ecclesiology, etc. The Bible deals, too, with all the deepest and most

wonderful of themes, such as:

Ø the human soul,

Ø the problem of sin,

Ø God,

Ø eternity, and

Ø immortality.

So there is spiritual food in Holy Scripture, at once for the shallowest and

the profoundest minds. Revelation supplies not only “milk” for “babes in

Christ,” i.e. the alphabet and rudiments of religious knowledge, but “solid

food” for “full-grown men,” i.e. materials for the more recondite study of

Christianity as A GREAT AND HARMONIOUS SYSTEM OF DIVINE

TRUTH!

· CHRISTIANS DIFFER IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL

KNOWLEDGE. They differ because:

Ø Some are “babes.” Believers who are young in years, and those of

maturer age who have newly come to the knowledge of the truth,

require to be fed with the “milk” or simplest elements of religious

instruction.

Ø Some are “full-grown men,” who can relish and digest the “solid

food” of the Word. An advanced Christian who is a diligent student

of Scripture will acquire so firm a grasp of truth as to become

qualified to act the part of a “teacher” in the Church (v. 12). His

proficiency in knowledge will sharpen his spiritual perceptions,

so that he will learn readily to distinguish between “good and evil”

in doctrine (v. 14).

Ø Some are invalids. The apostle chides his Hebrew readers for having

become such, as the result of their disregard of the laws of spiritual

health. It was now many years since they had first believed, and by

this time they should have been adults in Christian knowledge —

quick of apprehension in relation to the higher reaches of truth. So far,

however, from being able to assimilate the “solid food” of the Word,

they had degenerated into spiritual weaklings and invalids. They heard

the gospel indolently (v. 11). The “solid food” which they had once

enjoyed now occasioned them the miseries of dyspepsia. They could

digest nothing but gospel “milk.” In our own time, too, there are many

such invalids. What multitudes attend church through the years, and

yet never get beyond the attainments of the Sunday School! How many

otherwise intelligent men are quite ignorant of the organic structure of

the Bible! How many betray an utter want of living interest in the

doctrines and truths of the New Testament!

· REASONS WHY THE RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF MANY

CHRISTIANS IS SO DEFECTIVE. The Hebrews were “dull of hearing”

because they had got divided in heart between Christianity and Judaism,

and because they were beset with temptations to apostatize from a faith

which had involved them in much trial. Now, our temptations are

substantially similar. Our hearts are prone to try to serve both God and

mammon (Jesus teaches that we can’t do that! Luke 16:13); and we are

tempted to avoid very intimate acquaintance with a religion faithfulness

to which demands from us very serious sacrifices. In addition to these

fundamental reasons others may be indicated, as follows:

Ø The lack of earnest Bible study. The hurry of the age acts on the side

of spiritual ignorance. Other studies and pursuits are clamorous in their

claims; those e.g. of business, politics, literature, philosophy, science, art.

Thus many Christians do not read the Bible systematically, or with

sufficient intellectual effort. The larger part of the Old Testament is, to

their minds, a kind of desert of Sahara. Perhaps they interest themselves

only in isolated texts, apart from the scope of the passage in which these

occur.

Ø Neglect of parental instruction. Every parent is bound to sow the seeds

of Divine truth in the minds and hearts of his children. Where this duty

becomes generally neglected the rising generation can only continue one

of spiritual infants.

Ø Irregularity in attendance upon God’s house. (ch.10:25.)

Church-going is not religion, but as it is a divinely appointed ordinance,

a man need not expect to grow in grace and in Christian knowledge

without it.

Ø Unedifying preaching. The consecutive exposition of Scripture from

the pulpit, when wisely and skillfully done, trains a people into

“experience of the Word of righteousness.” The congregation

which receives no instruction of this kind may be expected to

become “dull of hearing.”

Ø Misconception of what adequate religious knowledge is. (“In whom

the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe

not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of

God, should shine in their hearts.” - II Corinthians 4:4 – CY – 2014)

Many good people judge that, having apprehended and embraced

“the simple gospel,” they have finished their spiritual education.

They love a few pet texts which express “the rudiments of the first

principles” (v. 12), and are content to leave the rest of the Bible alone.

They count it a virtue to relish only “evangelistic preaching,” and seem

even proud of occupying always only the first form in the school of

Christ. But the fruit of their neglect of the truth in its higher and deeper

and broader aspects becomes apparent in the imperfection of their

Christian character, and in their lack of progress towards perfection.

· THE IMPORTANCE OF AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF

CHRISTIAN TRUTH.

Ø Reverence to God requires it. He has not given any portion of His

Word in vain. (Isaiah 55:11) Intelligent Christians dishonor Him

when they do not “press on unto perfection” as students of the

Bible in every department of its glorious design and drift and

method.

Ø Duty to our own souls requires it. If we would not become spiritual

dwarfs, but “full-grown men,” we must “search the Scriptures.”

(John 5:39) If we would be truly happy and. prosperous, we must

“meditate on God’s law day and night.” (Psalm 1:2)

Ø Usefulness to others requires it. Believers who have become

established in knowledge and grace are expected to serve the

Lord Jesus as “teachers” (v. 12). A Christian, too, should be

“ready always to give answer to every man that asketh him

a reason concerning the hope that is in him.” (I Peter 3:15)

Spiritual Dullness (vs. 11-14).

· SPIRITUAL DULLNESS IS SOMETIMES VERY GREAT. It was

so in the case of the persons here addressed, as may be seen by contrasting

what they might and ought to have been and what they were. They should

have been men in spiritual intelligence, they were only babes. “And are

become such as have need of milk,” etc. It is pitiful and painful to

reflect upon the prevalence of spiritual dullness in our own age. How

many Christians are perfectly content and self-satisfied having only the

barest rudiments of Scripture truth!. We fear that the Bible is far more

widely circulated than read, and far more extensively read than studied

or understood.

· SPIRITUAL DULLNESS IS SOMETIMES SINFUL. We say

“sometimes;” for when this dullness of perception or difficulty of

apprehension arises from original deficiency of faculty, or from the scarcity

of opportunities for progress in acquaintance with Christian truth, no moral

blame attaches to it. It is deplorable, but not censurable. To whom only

little is given, of him only little will be required. But in the case before us

the writer says, “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers,”

etc. Let us look at the argument expressed or implied here.

Ø Time and opportunities for progress had been given to them. “By

reason of the time” since they became Christians they should have

made sufficient advancement to have been able to have instructed

others. Therefore the time must have been considerable.

Considering how much the diffusion of the gospel at that time

(and now) depended upon the living voice, their inability to teach

was a loss to themselves and many others!

Ø The existence of spiritual dullness notwithstanding opportunities of

progress is morally wrong. Such spiritual dullness is not a misfortune,

but a sin. It is an evidence of:

o opportunities of progress neglected, (and to think that all

these advantages are crowned with the willingness and love

of the Divine Spirit to encourage and bless any who will

promulgate His Word.)

o responsibilities unacknowledged or unfulfilled, and,

o sins indulged in.

Purity of heart and the power of perceiving spiritual truth are

closely related. Slowness of spiritual apprehension often arises

from the corruption of the heart. The pure heart is quick and

true in its perceptions. “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they

shall see God.” (Matthew 5:8) Worldliness of spirit also dims and

diminishes the perceptive powers of the soul. If a man’s eyes are

ever fixed upon the earth, how can he see the brilliance and beauty

of the starry heavens? If a man’s affections are fixed upon the

material and perishable things of this present world, he will

gradually lose his power for perceiving the ethereal and perennial

beauty of religious truth, or even for perceiving such truth AT ALL!

· SPIRITUAL DULLNESS INVOLVES SERIOUS LOSS.

Ø Loss to the community. Parents should be able to instruct their

children, the elementary truths of Christianity.; the Christian should

be able to help his friend who is seeking for life and truth!

Ø Loss to the individual. The man of dull spiritual apprehension loses the

fuller and higher teaching. The full beauty of the landscape is not for the

man of diseased or impaired physical vision. In like manner the beauty

and sublimity of Divine truth and the serene splendors of holiness are

invisible to those who are spiritually obtuse. Or, changing the figure,

the food of moral manhood is not for them; they are unable to

assimilate it, and must needs be limited to the dietary of

babyhood. Several practical and profitable reflections arise

from our subject.

o The need of adaptation in Christian teaching. The sacred

writings contain “milk for babes,” “solid food for full-

grown men,” and food suited for all the intermediate stages

of the Christian life. The wise teacher will endeavor to

distribute to each the food suited to his condition.

o The obligation of progress in Christian discipleship. Infancy

has its charms, but not as a permanent state. Infancy must

pass on by orderly development into manhood. CONTINUOUS

SPIRITUAL INFANCY is unnatural and sinful. A permanent

milk diet in the spiritual life indicates stagnancy in life which is

unhealthy and culpable (compare Ephesians 4:11-15).

o In the mature stage of Christian life there is the qualification

for the exercise of discrimination in spiritual things. “Full-

grown men by reason of use have their senses exercised to

discern good and evil.” Their spiritual faculties are trained

and disciplined, and so they are able to distinguish

between the true and false, the superior and the inferior,

in Christian teaching. Alas, that the people who are least

mature are often the most forward in exercising this

critical function!

o We see why the ministry of the gospel is sometimes

comparatively ineffectual. In some instances the smallness

of its success is owing to the want of adaptation in the

ministry itself; in others, to the sinful and almost

insuperable spiritual dullness of the hearers thereof.

The Powers of the Full-Grown Christian (vs. 12-14)

There is a close analogy between the natural life and the spiritual.

· THE PROGRESS OF THE NATURAL LIFE. At birth the babe finds

food provided for it, without effort, without thought — food exactly suited

to its infantile state, and which it makes use of by a kind of instinct.

Nothing is expected from it save that which it is certain to do by a law of

its nature. But this season, when nothing is expected from it, is only a

season of preparing for the day when much will be expected. Nature will

not always provide food in this easy, simple fashion. Milk has to make the

way for solid food, and, what is even more important, food to be chosen by

us. Whenever we are fit to choose, God leaves us to choose, not between

the pleasant and the unpleasant, not between that which appeals most

powerfully to the taste, and that which is plainer, simpler fare; but, as the

writer here emphatically puts it, between the good and the bad. That is the

great matter to decide in the choice of food — Is it good or bad? Will it

minister to growth, health, energy of function, fullness of life, length of

days? (First Ladies in the White House have nothing better to do than

to get involved with school children’s nutrition, while the foundations

of society are being destroyed by much more serious issues! – CY – 2014)

God leaves us to settle this. He gives us, without our choice, a

suitable food up to the time when our perceptions are sufficiently trained

to choose for ourselves. Then He leaves us to freedom and responsibility.

· THE SIMILAR PROGRESS OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. There is the

new creature in Christ Jesus, born again, beginning in feebleness, alive to

new and heavenly things, and yet hardly knowing for a while what that life

is. Needing to be treated with great long-suffering and consideration

because of infirmity (I Corinthians 3:2). But, as in the natural man,

there should be growth, development of spiritual perception and grasp, so

that the spiritual man may come to discern the difference between:

Ø the true and the false,

Ø the fleshly and the spiritual,

Ø the abiding and the temporary, and

Ø the earthly and the heavenly.

Jesus Christ is the Bread of life. Recollect His own words, all important in

the present connection: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and

drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and

drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6:53-55)

How many, spiritually considered, are monstrosities (deformed) to what they

ought to be! The natural man, nourished by proper food, full of life,

growing and connecting itself with a thousand things around, while the

new creature in Christ Jesus within is but A STARVED AND PINING

BABE! There may, perhaps, be much talk of living a life of faith on

the Son of GoD, BUT NO REALITY!

We are reminded of the words of Jesus, “He that hath ears… let him hear.”

(Mark 4:9) Progress in the apprehension of Christian truth, true progress in

theology, depends on our own disposition. Great attainments in human sciences

are not for all, or even for many. They demand a certain degree of intellectual

power, a certain amount of leisure, and perhaps other facilities; so that it is

quite certain all men cannot be learned any more than all can be rich. But God

has made progress in Christian truth to depend on THE STATE OF THE

HEART! He has ordered things so that those who are babes in this world’s

knowledge may be as giants in THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IN

CHRIST JESUS! Spiritual things are spiritually discerned; and if God

has given His Holy Spirit that we may be led into all the truth, and if

nevertheless we stumble among misapprehensions, then assuredly we are to

blame, and especially will blame fall upon us when the element of time is

brought into consideration. Here were people who had had gospel truth a

long time before them, and yet knew little more than the alphabet. (Think

of the status of education in the United States! We live in a country and

in a time that if God was ever to be known, He could be known by us!

CY – 2014) Still learners when they ought to be teachers? What worse

reproach could there be — seeing how much spiritual ignorance there is in

the world, and how much error, AND HOW MANY THERE ARE WHO

ARE BUSY MISLEADING MEN! Nor must we omit to notice how

this gentle yet searching rebuke of the writer here shows his own advanced

attainments. He is writing of things which he well understands, and knows

what he means. His topics are not mere trifles. They are very practical, and

point forward into the developments and occupations of the future

"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

This material can be found at:

http://www.adultbibleclass.com