2. Because God required that honour should be given both unto the office and person vested with it. For this end partly was he to be adorned with garments made “ for beauty and for glory,” and had power given him to rule in the house of God, 1 Sam. i, 30. But
even in general, it is a great honour, on any account, to be made nigh unto God.
*ARAG 6 xarotuevos, “but he that is called of God.” The called one of God, he hath, he receiveth, he is made partaker , of the honour of this office. He is the high priest whom God calls. And this call of God is the designation of a man unto an office or employment. He doth, as it were, look ona person among others, and calls him out to himself, as Exod. xxviii. 1. It compriseth also the end of the call, in the collation of right, power, and trust, whatever is necessary unto the due exercise of that whereunto any one is called; for God’s will and pleasure is the su- preme rule of all order and duty. And this call is here exemplified in the instance of Aaron: “even as was Aaron.”
Kaédaep xa 6 Aapay, “even as Aaron,” “in like manner as Aaron.” And the note of similitude is regulated either by the word “called,” or by the subject of the instance, “Aaron.” If by the former, no more is intended but that he must have a call of God, as Aaron had. The comparison proceeds no
O xaroduevos.
Kaédosp rad é ’Aapay.
478 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. V.
farther but unto the general nature of a call. A call he must have, but the especial nature of that call is not declared. But if the note of comparison be regulated by the instance of Aaron, then the espe- cial manner and nature of the call intended is limited and deter- mined: ‘He must be called of God as was Aaron;’ that is, immedi- ately and in an extraordinary way. And this is the sense of the words and place.
It may be objected, ‘If this be so, then all the high priests who succeeded Aaron in the Judaical church are here excluded from a right entrance into their office; for they were not immediately called of God unto their office, as Aaron was, but succeeded one another by virtue of the law or constitution, which was only an ordinary call.’ Ans. It doth not exclude them from a right entrance into their office, but it doth from being considered in this place. They had that call to their office which God had appointed, and which was a sufficient warranty unto them in the discharge of it. But our apostle disputes here about the erection of a new priesthood, such as was that of Christ. Herein no ordinary call, no law-constitution, no succession, could take place, or contribute any thing thereunto. The nature of such a work excludes all these considerations. And he who first enters on such a priesthood, not before erected nor consti- tuted, he must have such a call of God thereunto. So had Aaron at the first erection of a typical priesthood in the church of Israel, He had his call by an immediate word of command from God, singling him out from among his brethren to be set apart unto that office, Exod. xxviii. 1. And although in other things which belonged unto the administration of their office, the Lord Christ is compared to the high priests in general, executing their office according to the law, wherein they were types of him, yet as unto his entrance into his office upon the call of God, he is compared with Aaron only.
This being the proper design of the words, the things disputed by expositors and others from this place, about the necessity of an ordi- nary outward call to the office of the priesthood, and, by analogy, unto the ministry of the gospel, though true in themselves, are foreign unto the intention of this place; for the apostle treats only of the first erection of a priesthood in the persons of Aaron and Christ, whereunto an extraordinary call was necessary. And if none might take on him the office of the ministry but he that is called of God as was Aaron, no man alive could do so at this day.
Again, the note of similitude expresseth an agreement in an extraordinary call, but not in the manner of it and its special kind. This is asserted, that the one and the other had an immediate call from God, but no more. But as unto the especial kind and nature of this immediate call, that of Christ was incomparably more excel-
VER. 4.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 479
lent and glorious than that of Aaron. This will be manifest in the next verses, where it is expressed and declared. In the meantime we shall consider the call of Aaron, as our apostle doth the ministry of Moses, chap. iii, declaring wherein indeed it was excellent, that so the real honour of the call of Christ above it may appear:—
1. He was “ called of God,” by a word of command for his separa- tion unto the office of the priesthood: Exod. xxviii. 1, “ Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him,..... that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” His sons were also mentioned, because provision was herein made for succession. This made his call extraordinary,—he was “called of God.” But, (1.) This command was not given by a word from God immediately unto him- self, God doth not say unto him, ‘Thou art my priest; this day have I called thee.’ But it is Moses to whom the command is given, and with whom the execution of it isintrusted. So that, (2.) He is in his call put as it were in the power of another; that is, of Moses. To him God says, “ Take unto thee Aaron thy brother;’— ‘Be thou unto him in the room of God, and act towards him in my name.’