VERSE 4
The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of a high priest. But these alone are not sufticient actually to invest any one with that office; it is required, moreover, that he be law- fully called thereunto, The former make him meet for it, and this gives him his right unto it. And in the application of the whole unto Jesus Christ, this is first insisted on, verse 5.
Ver. 4.—Kai oby Eaur® ris AamCaver ray TILAY, GAAS 6 xaAodmEVOS Dad Tov Qcod, xabdrsp xual 6” Aapwy.
* The article before xwAcvpevos is omitted by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most other modern critics. —Eb.
476 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. V.
Ver. 4.—And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
There is no difficulty in the rendering of these words, and conse- quently very little difference among translators. The Syr. and Vulg. Lat. read “ honour” absolutely, without taking notice of the article rjv, Which is here emphatical, “this honour;’ the honour of the priesthood. And for “himself,” the Syriac reads, “to his own soul;” by an idiom of speech peculiar to the eastern languages.
The words may be taken as a negative universal proposition, with a particular exception subjoined. “No man taketh this honour to himself but” only “he who is called.” He that is called taketh this honour to himself, or he that hath right so to do,—namely, to possess and exercise the office of a high priest. Or they may be resolved into two disjunctive propositions: the one universally nega- tive, without exception or limitation, “ No man taketh this honour unto himself ;” the other particularly affirmative, “He that is called of God,” he doth so, or he receiveth this honour. Thus there is an opposition expressed between a man’s taking this honour unto him- self and his receiving of it on the call of God. Or we may yet more plainly express the meaning of the apostle. Having laid down the qualifications necessary unto him who was to be a high priest, he declares what is required for his actual investiture with this office. And this he expresseth,—1. Negatively, he is not to assume this honour to himself: 2. Positively, he is to be called of God; which he exemplifies in the instance of Aaron, “as was Aaron.”
Ody iaur® ris AawCdver, “ any one doth not take;” that is, no man doth. And Aauéévw is not here simply “sumo,” “to take;” but “assumo,” “to take upon,” “to take to him:” or as it sometimes signifies, “ prehendo, corripio,” “ un- duly to take,” by laying hold of any thing. “No man taketh,” that is, according to the law, according to divine institution. It was not the law that men should so do. Men might do otherwise, and did do otherwise, both as to the office and exercise of the priesthood. So did king Uzziah as to the exercise of it, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16. And at the time of the writing of this epistle, as also for many years before, there had been no lawful order or call observed in those who possessed the office of the high priesthood among the Jews. Some invaded it themselves, and some were intruded into it by foreign power. And both Chrysostom and Cicumenius suppose that our apostle in this place doth reflect on that disorder. His principal intention is plainly to declare how things ought to be, by the law and constitution of God. ‘No man doth;’ that is, no man ought so to do, for it is contrary to the law and the order appointed of God in his church. See Num. xviii. God’s institution in the Scripture is so far the sacred rule of all things to be done in his worship, that
Obxy taura wis Aap Caves,
VER. 4.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 477
whatever is not done by virtue thereof, and in conformity thereunto, is esteemed as not done, or not at all done to him. But,—
Ti» shy. This is the object of the act prohibited: “The honour;” ‘this honour whereof we treat. Ti, here intends |, either the office itself or the dignity of it. The office 7” itself may be called “ honour,” because it is honourable. So also is the word used, chap. ii. 3. ‘No man taketh this honourable office upon him of his own head, of himself, without warrant, call, and authority from God.’ If only the dignity of the office be intended, then it is, ‘No man arrogateth so much to himself, so sets up or ad- vanceth himself, as to set himself out for an high priest’ I judge the office itself is first intended, yet not absolutely, but as it was honourable, such as men would naturally desire and intrude them- selves into, had not God set bounds to their ambition by his law. So did Korah; for which he was first rebuked and afterwards de- stroyed, Num. xvi. 9,10, etc. And this office was exceeding honour- able, on a twofold account :—
1. From the nature of it: wherein there was, (1.) An especial separation unto God, Exod. xxviii; (2.) An especial appropinqua- tion or drawing nigh unto him, Lev. xvi.; (3.) The discharge of all peculiar divine services. These things made the office honourable,— a high honour unto them that were duly vested with it. For what greater honour can a mortal creature be made partaker of, than to be peculiarly nigh unto God?