Ver. 4.—The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of a high priest. But these alone are not sufficient actually to invest any one with that office. Itis required moreover, that he be lawfully called thereunto. The former makes 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, ver. 5.
Ver. 4.—And no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.:
There is πο difficulty in the rendering of these words, and consequently very little difference among translators. The Syr. and Vulg. Lat. read honour, absolutely, without taking notice of the article τὴν» which is here emphatical; ‘ this honour;’ the honour of the priesthood,
And for ‘ himself, the Syriac reads ‘to his own soul;’ by an idiom peculiar to the Eastern languages. Ἢ:
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 negative without exception or limitation; ‘no man taketh this honour to 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 himself, 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.’
Ovy ἕαυτῳ τις AauEaver; ‘any one doth not take;’ that is, no man doth. And λαμξανω, is not here simply sumo, ‘ to take;” but assumo, ‘to take upon,’ to take to him; or as it sometimes signifies, prehendo, corripio, ‘unduly 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 nor 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 Chrysestome and Cicumenius suppose that our apostle inthis 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 whatever is not done by virtue thereof, and in conformity thereunto, is esteemed as not done, or not at all done to him. But,
Τὴν τιμὴν; this is the object of the act prohibited. ‘The honour;’ this honour whereof we treat. Τίμη here intends either the office itself, or the dignity of it. The office itself may be called honour, because it is honourable. So also is the word used ch. iii. 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 advanceth himself, as to set out himself for a 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 themselves into, had not God set bounds to their ambition by his law. So did Korah, for which he was first rebuked, and afterwards destroyed, Num. xvi. 9, 10. And this office was exceeding honourable, on a twofold account.
1. From the nature of it; wherein there was, 1. An especial separation unto God, Exod. xxvii. 2. An especial appropinquation or drawing nigh unto him, Lev. xvi. 3. The discharge of all peculiar divine services. ‘I'hese things made the office honourable; a high honour unto them that were duly vested with it. For what greater honour can a mortal creatare be made partaker of, than to be peculiarly nigh unto God?
2. Because God required that honour should be given, both to the office, and to the person vested with it. For this end partly was he to be adorned with garments made for beauty and glory, and had power given him to rule in the house of God, 1 Sam. τ. 30. But even in general, it is a great honour, on any account, to be made nigh unto
Αλλα 6 καλουμενος, 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 oflice or employment. He doth, as it were, look on a person among others, and calls him out to himself, as Exod. xxvii. 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 supreme rule of all order and duty. And this call is here exemplified in the instance of Aaron, ‘ Even as was Aaron.’
Καϑαπερ και ὃ Aapwv, ‘ 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 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 especial manner and nature of the call intended, is limited and determined. He must be called of God as was Aaron; that is, immediately 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 froma 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 warrant 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 anything thereunto, The nature of such a work D2 excludes all those considerations. And he who first enters on such a priesthood not before erected, nor constituted, 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 from 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 calls 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 ordinary 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 his immediate call, that of Christ was incomparably more excellent 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 in the ministry of Moses, ch. iil. 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 separation 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 given by a word from God immediately unto himself. 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 is intrusted. 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.’
_ 2. This command or call of God was expressed in his actual separation unto his office, which consisted in two things.
1. His being arrayed by God’s appointment with glorious garments Exod. xxvii. 3. And they are affirmed to be contrived on purpose for beauty and glory. But herein also a double weakness is included or supposed. 1. That he stood in need of an outward robe to adorn him, because of his own weakness and infirmities, which God would, as it were, hide and cover in his worship under those garments. 2. That indeed they were all of them but typical of things far more glorious in our high priest, namely, that abundant fulness of the graces of the Spirit, which being poured on him rendered him fairer than the children of men. It was therefore a part of the glory of Christ, that in the discharge of his office he stood in no need of outward ornaments, all things being supplied by the absolute perfection of his own personal dignity and holiness.
2. His actual consecration ensued hereon; which consisted in. two things. 1. His unction with the holy consecrated oil. 2. In the solemn sacrifice which was offered in his name and for him, Exod. xxix. And there was much order and glory in the solemnity of his consecration.
But yet still these things had their weakness and imperfection. For, 1. He had nothing of his own to offer at his consecration, but he was consecrated with the blood ofa bullock and a ram. 2. Another offered for him, and that for his sins, And this was the call of Aaron, his call of God; and that which God vindicated, setting a notable remark upon it, when it was seditiously questioned by Korah, Num. xvi. 3, xvii. 10. And all these things were necessary unto Aaron, because God in his person erected a new order of priesthood, wherein he was to be confirmed by an extraordinary call thereunto. And this is that, and not an ordinary call, which the call of Christ is compared unto and preferred above. After this all the successors of Aaron had a sufficient call to their office, but not of the same kind with that of Aaron himself. For the oftice itself was established to continue by virtue of God’s institution. And there was a law of succession established, by which they were admitted into it, whereof I have treated elsewhere. But it was the personal call of Aaron which is here intended.
Obs. I. It is an act of sovereignty in God, to call whom he pleaseth unto his work and especial service; and eminently so when it is unto any place of honour and dignity in his house. The office of the priesthood among the Jews, was the highest and most honourable, that was among them at the first plantation of the church. And an eminent privilege it was, not only unto the person of him who was first called, but with respect also unto his whole posterity; for they, and they only, were to be priests unto God. Who would not think now, but that God would call Moses to this dignity, and so secure also the honour of his posterity afterhim? But he takes another course, and calls Aaron and his family, leaving Moses and his children after him in the ordi-_ nary rank and employment of Levites. And the sovereignty of God is evident herein: 1. Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction. Some one is called out from among others. So was it in the call of Aaron, Exod. xxviii. 1, ‘ Take unto thee Aaron, from among the children of Israel.’ By mere act of sovereign pleasure, God chose him out from among the many thousands of his brethren. And this sovereign choice, God insisted on to express the favour and kindness that is in any call of his, 1 Sam. ii. 27,28. And herewith he reproacheth the sins and ingratitude of men, upbraiding them with his sovereign kindness, Num. xvi. 9,10. 2. Because antecedently unto their call, there is nothing of merit in any to be so called, nor of ability m the most, for the work whereunto they are called. Under the New Testament, none was ever called to greater dignity, higher honour, or more eminent employment, than the apostle Paul. And what antecedaneous merit was there in him unto his vocation? Christ takes him in the midst of his madness, rage, and blasphemy, turns his heart unto himself, and calls him to be his apostle, witness, and great instrument for the conversion of the souls of men, bearing forth his name to the ends of the earth. And this we know that he himself mentions on all occasions, as an effect of sovereign grace, wisdom, and mercy. What merit was there, what previous disposition unto their work, in a few fishermen about the Lake of Tiberias, or sea of Galilee, that our Lord Jesus Christ should call them to be his apostles, disposing them into that state and condition, wherein they sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelves tribes of Israel? So was it ever with all that God called in an extraordinary manner. See Exod. iv. 10, 11; Jer. 1. 6; Amos vil. 15, 16. In his ordinary calls there is the same sovereignty, though somewhat otherwise exercised. For in such a call, there are three things: 1. A providential designation of a person to such an office, work, or employment. When any office in the house of God, suppose that of the ministry, is fixed and established, the first thing that God doth in the call of any one thereunto, is the providential disposition of the circumstances of his life, directing his thoughts and designs toward such an end. And were not the office of the ministry in some places accompanied with many secular advantages, yea provisions (for the Justs and luxuries of men) that are foreign unto it, this entrance into a call for God thereunto, by a mere disposal of men’s concerns and circumstances, so as to design the ministry in the course of their lives, would be eminent and perspicuous. But whilst multitudes of persons, out of various corrupt ends, crowd themselves into the entrances of this office, the secret workings of the providence of God towards the disposal of them, whom he really designs unto his work herein, are greatly clouded and obscured. 2. It isa partof this call of God, when he blesseth, succeedeth, and prospereth the endeavours of men, to prepare themselves with those previous dispositions and qualifications which are necessary unto the actual call and susception of this office. And hereof also there are three parts. First. An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with his designation of them unto their office. Where this is not affected, but men proceed according as they are stimulated by outward impressions or considerations, God is not as yet at all in this work. Secondly. An especial blessing of their endeavours for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities, in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom, Thirdly. The communications of peculiar gifts unto them, rendering them meet and able unto the discharge of the duty of their office, which in an ordinary call is indispensably required as previous to an actual separation unto the office itself. 3. He ordereth things so, as that a person whom he will employ in the service of his house, shall have an outward call according unto rule, for his admission thereinto. And in all these things, God acts according to his own sovereign will and pleasure.
That we should have an awful reverence of, and a holy readiness to comply with the call of God; not to run away from it, or the work called unto, as did Jonah, ch. 1, nor to be weary of it because of difficulty and opposition which we meet withal in the discharge of our duty, as it sundry times was ready to befal Jeremiah, Jer. xv. 10, xx. 7—9, much less to desert or give it over, on any earthly account whatever; seeing that he who sets his hand to this plough, and takes it back again, is unworthy of the kingdom of heaven. And it is certain that he who deserts his calling on worldly accounts, first took it up on no other. 2. That we should not envy nor repine at one another, whatever God is pleased to call any unto. 3. That we engage into no work wherein the name of God is concerned, without his call; which gives a second observation, namely, that,
Obs. II. 'The highest excellency and utmost necessity of any work to be done for God in this world, will not warrant our undertaking of it, or engaging in it, unless we are called thereunto. Yea,
Obs. III. The more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought our call unto it to be-—Both these observations will be so fixed and confirmed, in the consideration of the instance given us in the next verse, as that there is no occasion here to insist upon them.
Obs. IV. It is a great dignity and honour to be, duly called unto any work, service, or office in the house of God.
Ver. 5.—The description of a high priest according to the law, with respect, Ist. unto his nature; 2d. his employment, (ver. 1;) 3d. his qualification, (ver. 2;) 4th. his especial duty with regard, 1. to himself, 2. to others, (ver. 3;) Sth. his call in the instance of him who was the firs of the order, (ver. 4,) being completed; an application of the whole, is in these verses entered upon, unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is done in all the particulars wherein there was, or could be, an agreement or correspondence between them and him, with respect unto this office. And it was necessary to be thus declared by the apostle, unto the end designed by him, for two reasons. 1. Because the original institution of those priests, and their office, was to teach and represent the Lord Christ and his, which was his main intention to manifest and prove. Now this they could not do, unless there were some analogy and likeness between them; neither could it be apprehended or understood for what end and purpose they were designed, and did so long continue in thechurch. 2. That the Hebrews might be satisfied, that their ministry and service in the house of God was now come to an end, and the whole use whereunto they were designed, accomplished. For by this respect and relation that was between them, it was evident that he was now actually exhibited, and had done the whole work which they were appointed to prefigure and represent. It was therefore impossible that there should be any farther use of them in the service of God; yea, their continuance therein, would contradict and utterly overthrow the end of their institution. For it would declare that they had a use and efficacy unto spiritual ends of their own, without respect unto him and his work, whom they did represent; which is to overthrow the faith of both churches, that under the Old Testa- went, and that under the New. Wherefore a full discovery of the proportion between them, and relation of the one unto the other was necessary, to evince that their continuance was useless, yea pernicious. But on the other side, it could not be, but that those high priests had many imperfections and weaknesses inseparable from their persons 18 the administration of their office, which could represent nothing, nor receive any accomplishment, in our Lord Jesus Christ. For if anything in him had answered thereunto, he could not have been such a high priest as did become us, or as we stood in need of. Such was it, that they were subject to death, and therefore were necessarily many, succeeding one another in a long series according to a certain genealogy. ‘ They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood,’ or a priesthood that passeth not from one to another, ch. vil. 23, 24. Herein therefore, there was a dissimilitude between them, because of their being obnoxious unto death; whence it was inevitable that they must be many, one succeeding to another. But Jesus Christ was to be one high priest only, and that always the same. |
Again, They were all of them personally sinners, and that both as men and as high priests, whence they might and did miscarry and sin, even in the administration of their office. Wherefore it was needful that they should offer sacrifice for their own sins also, as hath been declared. Now, as nothing could be represented hereby in Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, nor could therefore offer sacrifice for himself; so these things do cast some darkness and obscurity on those instances wherein they did represent him. Wherefore our apostle steers a strait course between all these difficulties. First. He manifests and proves, that the legal high priests were indeed types of Jesus Christ in his office, and did bear forth a resemblance of him therein; as also that they were appointed of God, for that very end and purpose. Secondly. He shows what were their qualifications and properties, which he distinguisheth mto two sorts. 1. Such as belonged essentially, or were required necessarily unto the office itself, and its regular discharge. 2. Such as were unavoidable consequents or concomitants of their personal weakness or infirmity. This latter sort in this application of their description unto Christ and his office, as prefigured thereby, he discards and lays aside, as things which, though necessary unto them trom their frail and sinful condition, yet had no respect unto Christ, nor accomplishment in him. And as for the former, he declares in the discourse immediately ensuing, how they were found in Christ as exercising this office, in a far more eminent manner than in them. This is the design of the discourse in the second part of the chapter, which we are now entering on. Only whereas in the description of a high priest in general, he begins with his nature, qualifications, work, and duty, closing and issuing it in his call; in his application of the whole unto the Lord Christ, he taketh up that first, which he had
~ lastly mentioned, namely, the call of a high priest, and proceedeth unto the other in an order absolutely retrograde.
Vir. 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 1 begotten thee.
Oirw καὶ ‘so also,’ and so, or in like manner, A note rnc amosocewe, of the application of things before spoken, unto the subject principally intended. A respect may be herein unto all the instances in the preceding discourse; as it was with the legal high priest in all the things necessary unto that office, so in like manner was it with Christ, which he now designeth to manifest. Or the intention of this expression, may be restrained to the last express instance of a call to office. As they were called of God, so or in like manner was Christ also, which he immediately declares. And this is first regarded, though respect may be had to it, in all the particular instances of analogy and similitude which ensue.
On this note of inference, there ensueth a double proposition on the same supposition. The supposition that they both are resolved into is that Christ is a high priest. Hereon the first proposition with respect unto his call and entrance on that office is negative; ‘ He glorified not himself to be made a high priest.’ The other is positive or affirmative; ‘ but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son;’ that is, he glorified him so to be, or he made him so.
Ὁ Χριστος, “ Christ,’ the subject spoken of; that is, the promised Messiah, the anointed One. The apostle in this Epistle calls him occasionally by all signal names; as the Son, ch. 1. 2—8; the Son of God, ch. iv. 14; the word of God, ch. iv. 12; Jesus, ch. ii. 9; Christ, ch. 11. 6; Jesus Christ, ch. iii. 1. Here he useth the name of Christ, as peculiarly suited unto his present occasion. For he had designed to prove that the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers, was to be the high priest for ever over the house of God. Therefore he calls him by that name whereby he was known from the beginning, and which signified his unction unto his office: the anointed One. He was to be, mwnr jr, ‘ the anointed priest;’ that is, Christ.
The subject spoken of being stated or described by his name, the supposition of his bemg a high priest takes place. This the apostle had before taught and proved, ch. 11. 17, 1. 1, iv. 14, But yet considering the constitutions of the law, and the way of any one’s entering on that office, a difficult inquiry yet remained, namely, how he came so to be. Had he been of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron, he might have been a priest, he would have been so, and have been so acknowledged by all. But how he should become so, who was a stranger to that family, who sprang of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood, might be highly questioned. Fully and satisfactorily to resolve this doubt, and therein to take in the whole difficulty whence it arose, the apostle in the pre- ceding verse, lays down a concession in a universal maxim, that none who had not a right thereunto by virtue of an antecedent law or constitution, which Christ had not, as not being of the tribe of Levi, could be a priest, without an immediate call from God, such as Aaron had. By and on this rule, he offers the right of the Lord Christ unto this office to trial, and therein acknowledgeth, that if he were not extraordinarily called of God thereunto, he could be no high priest. To this purpose he declares, yeh.:
First, negatively; οὐχ ἑαυτον εδοξασε, that he ‘ glorified not himself to be made a high priest.’ Outward call by men, or a constitution by virtue of any ordinance of the law, he had none. Seeing therefore he is a priest, or if so he be, he must be made so by God, or by himself. But as for himself, neither did he take this honour to himself, nor was it possible that so he should do. For the whole office, and the benefit of his discharge of it, depended on a covenant or compact between him and his Father. Upon the undertaking of it also, he was to receive many promises from the Father, and was to do his will and work, as we have elsewhere declared and fully proved. It was therefore impossible that he should make himself a high priest.
The Socinians do but vainly raise a cavil against the Deity of - Christ from this place. They say, if he were God, why did another glorify him in any kind, why did he not glorify himself? And the Jews, on all occasions, make the same exceptions. There were indeed some force in the objection against us, if we believed or professed that the Lord Christ were God only. But our doctrine concerning his per- — son is that which is declared by our apostle, Phil. 11. 6—8. ‘ Being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.’ ~Wherefore there is no more weight in this cavil, than there would be in another; if one, unto those testimonies, ‘ that all things were made by him,’ and he ‘in the beginning laid the foundation of the world,’ should ask, * How could this be seeing he was a man, born in the fulness of time ῥ᾽ But this objection, for the substance of it, was raised by the Jews of old, and fully answered by himself. For whereas they objected unto him, that he being not fifty years old, could not have seen Abraham, as he pretended, who was dead near two thousand years before; he replied, ‘ Before Abraham was, I am, John viii. 58. If he had no other nature than that wherein they thought he was not fifty years old, being indeed little more than thirty, he could not have known Abraham, nor Abraham him. As therefore, if he had been man only, he could not have been before Abraham, so had he been God only, another could not have glorified him to be a priest. But he was man also. And these words are spoken not with respect unto his divine nature, but his human.
Again, As it was impossible he should, so it is plain that he did not glorify himself to be a high priest, or take this dignity and honour to himself by his own will and authority. And this may be evidenced by a brief rehearsal of the divine acts necessary to the making of him a high priest; ali which I have handled at large in the previous Exercitations. And they were of two sorts; 1. Authoritative, and wholly without him; 2. Perfective whereunto his own concurrence was required. Of the first sort were, 1. His eternal designation unto this office: 2. His mission unto the discharge of it: 3. His unction with the Spirit for its due discharge: 4. The constitution of the law of his priesthood, which consisted of two parts; the first prescribing what he should do, what he should undergo, what he should offer, or what should be the duties of his office; the other declaring, appointing, promising, what should be attained, effected, and accomplished thereby. 5. The committing and giving a people unto him, for whose sake, and on whose account, he was to bear, execute, and discharge this holy office. And all these, whereby he was authoritatively vested with his office, were sovereign acts of the will and wisdom of the Father, as I have elsewhere proved. By these was he eailed and glorified to be a high priest. Again, there were some acts perfective of his call, or such as gave it its complement; and these were wrought in him and by him; neither could they be otherwise: but yet by them did he not make himself a high priest, but only complied with the will and authority of the Father. Thus when Aaron was called of God to his office, the law for its constitution being made and given, the person designed and called out by name, his pontifical garments put on, and the anointing holy oil poured on him, a sacrifice was to be offered to complete and perfect his consecration. But because of his imperfection, whence it was necessary that he should come to his office by degrees, and the actings of others about him, he could not himself offer the sacrifice for himself. He only laid his hand on the head of it to manifest his concern therein, but it was Moses that offered it unto God, Exod. xxix. 1O—12. Thus it could not be with respect unto Jesus Christ, nor did he need any other sacrifice than his own for his consecration, seeing it was necessary unto the legal high priests, on the account of their personal sins and infirmities. But although he was perfectly and completely constituted a high priest, by those acts of God the Father before mentioned, yet his solemn consecration and dedication, not to his office, but to the actual discharge of it, were effected by acts of his own, in his preparation for, and actual offering up himself a sacrifice once for all. And so he was perfected and consecrated in and by his own blood. Wherefore he did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that was an act and effect of the will and authority of God.
It remains only, as unto this first clause, that we inquire how it is said that Christ glorified not himself, as unto the end mentioned. Was there an addition of glory or honour made unto him thereby ὃ Especially may this be reasonably inquired, if we consider what befel him, what he did, and what he suffered in the discharge of this office? Nay, doth not the Scripture every-where declare this as an act of the highest condescension in him, as Phil. ii. 6—9; Heb. ii. 102 How, therefore, can he be said not to glorify himself herein? Let those answer this inquiry, who deny his divine nature and being. They will find themselves in the same condition as the Pharisees were, when our Saviour posed them with a question to the same purpose; namely, how David came to call Christ -his Lord, who was to be his Son so long after. Unto us these things are clear and evident. For although, if we consider the divine nature and person of Christ, it was an infinite condescension in him to take our nature, and therein to execute the office of a priest for us; yet, with respect unto the nature assumed, the office itself was an honour and dignity unto him, on the accounts to be afterwards insisted on.. y Secondly. In the affirmative proposition the way whereby Christ came unto his office is declared, or by what authority he was appointed a high priest. AXA’ ὁ λαλησας προς autor, “ but he that said unto him.’ There is an ellipsis in the words which must be supplied to complete the antithesis; but he glorified him, or he made him to be a high priest, who said unto him, υἷος pov εἰ ov, eyw σημερον γεγεννηκα oc. It is not easily apprehended how the apostle confirmeth the priesthood of Christ, or his call to office by these words. They are twice used elsewhere by himself to other ends, Heb. 1. 5; Acts xii. 33. For these words do originally signify, the eternal relation that is between the Father and the Son, with their mutual love thereon. To this purpose are they applied, Heb. 1. 5. And because this was manifested in and by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when and wherein ‘ he was declared to be the Son of God with power,’ Rom. i. 4; this testimony is applied thereunto, Acts xiii. 33. For the direct intention, and the full meaning of the words, the reader may consult our exposition of ch. i. 5, where they are handled at large. But how they are produced by our apostle here, as a confirmation of the priesthood of Christ, is an inquiry that is not without its difficulties; and seeing expositors are variously divided about it, their apprehensions must necessarily be inquired into and examined. First. Those of the Socinian way, as Crellius and Slichtingius affirm, that these words are constitutive of the priesthood of Christ; and that they were spoken to him after his resurrection. Hence they suppose two things will ensue: 2. That the Lord Christ was not a priest, at least no complete priest until after his resurrection; for not until then, was it said unto him, ‘thou art my Son.’ 2. That his priestly and kingly office are the same; for his exaltation in his kingly power, is principally intended in these words. But these things are fond and impious. For if the Lord Christ were not a priest until after his resurrection, then he was not so in the offering of himself to God, in his death and blood-shedding; which to say, is to offer violence to the common sense of all Christians, to the whole institution of the types of old, to the analogy of faith, and to express testimonies of Scripture in particular; as hath been evinced in our Exercitations. 2. It expressly contradicts the apostle in this very place, or would make him contradict himself. For after this he affirms, that as a priest he offered unto God in the days of his flesh, ver. 7. They say, therefore, that he had some kind of initiation into his office by death, but he was not completely a priest until after his resurrection. The meanine whereof is, that he was nota complete priest, until he had completely finished and discharged the principal work which belonged unto that oflice. I say therefore, 1. That this distinction of the Lord
Christ being first an incomplete priest, and then afterwards made so completely, is foreign to the Scripture, a vain imagination of bold men, and inconsistent with his holy perfection, who was at once made so by the oath of God. 2. It is destructive of all the instructive parts of the type; for Aaron neither did nor could offer any sacrifice to God, until he was completely consecrated unto his office. Nor is any thing in the law more severely prohibited, than that any one should draw nigh to God in offering sacritice, that was not completely a priest. 3. Thus to interpret the testimony urged by the apostle, is completely to disappoint his purpose and intention in it. For he designs by it to prove, that Christ in the offering which he made in the days of his flesh, did not glorify himself to be made a priest, but was made so by him who said unto him, ‘ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ And if this was not said unto him until after his | vesurrection, then in his offering of himself before, he glorified himself to be a priest, for he was not yet made so of God the Father. 4. The vanity of confounding the kingly and priestly offices of Christ, hath been sufficiently detected in our Exercitations.
Secondly. Others say, that the confirmation of the priesthood of Christ in these words, is taken from the ancient usage before the law, whereby the priesthood was annexed unto the primogeniture. Wherefore God declaring the Lord Christ to be his only begotten Son, the first-born, Lord and heir of the whole creation, did thereby also declare him to be the high priest. And this exposition is embraced by sundry learned men, whose conjecture herein I cannot comply withal, For 1. The foundation of it is very questionable, if not unquestionably false; namely, concerning the priesthood of the first-born before the law. This indeed is the opinion of the Jews, and is so reported by Hierome, Epist. ad Evagr.. But the matter is not clear in the Scripture. Abel was not the first-born, nor Abraham either, yet they both offered sacrifice to God. 2. This would include an express contradiction unto the scope of the apostle. For his design is to prove, that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, called of God, and raised up extraordinarily, in a way peculiar and not common to any other. But on this supposition, he should be a priest after the order of the first-born. For what belonged unto Christ as the firstborn, see our exposition on ch. 1. 3. |
Thirdly, Some judge, that although the apostle recites expressly only these words, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ yet he directs us thereby to the whole passage in the Psalm, whereof these words are a part, ver. 7, 8, ‘I will declare thy decree; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and 1 shall give the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Here seems to be an express constitution, such as the apostle refers unto. For if we would know when, or how God the Father glorified Christ to be a high priest, it was in that decree of his which is declared, Ps. ii. 7. It was before established in heaven, and then declared in prophecy. And moreover, here is added an especial mention of the discharge of one part of his office as a priest, in these words, ‘ Ask of me;’ where- in authority is given him to make intercession with God. And this exposition, whereof, as far as I can find, Junius was the author, I shall not oppose; only for two reasons, I cannot readily assent unto 1. For, 1. It seems not probable that the apostle in the quotation of a testimony, should omit that which was directly to his purpose, and produce those words only, which alone were not so. 2. The asking here enjoined is not his sacerdotal intercession, but only an expression denoting the dependence of Christ as king on God the Father, for the subduing of his enemies.: Fourthly. Some conceive that the apostle intends not a testimony of the constitution of Christ in his office of priesthood, but only to give an account of the person by whom he was called thereunto. He made not himself a high priest, but was made so by him from whom he had all his honour and glory as Mediator, and that because he was his Son, and in his work declared so to be. But the testimony given unto his priesthood is brought in, in the next verse. Nor do I see any more than one exception which this exposition is liable unto, and which those that follow it have no notice of. And this is, that the manner of the introduction of the next testimony, ‘as he also saith in another place,’ doth evidence that they are both produced and urged to the same purpose, for the confirmation of the same assertion. But withal, 1 answer thereunto by concession, that indeed they are both here of the same importance, and used to the same purpose. For these words in this place, ‘Thou arta priest after the order of Melchisedec,’ are considered as spoken to him by God the Father, even as the former were. ‘This, therefore, is the design of the apostle in the introduction of this testimony; for the clearing whereof, we may observe, 1. That it is not the priesthood of Christ, but his call thereunto, which in this place the apostle asserts, as was before declared. 2. As to this, he intends to show only, that it was God the Father, from whom he had all his mediatory power, as king, priest, and prophet to his church. 3. This is evidently proved by this testimony, in that therein God declares him to be his Son, and his acceptance thereby of him in the discharge of the work committed unto him. For this solemn declaration of his relation unto God the Father, in his eternal sonship, and his approbation of him, doth prove that he undertook nothing, performed nothing, but what he had appointed, designed, and authorized him unto. And that he had so designed him unto this office, is more particularly declared in the ensuing testimony. Obs. I, The office of the high priesthood over the church of God, was an honour and glory to Jesus Christ. It was so unto his human | nature, even as it was united unto the divine. For it was capable of glory, of degrees of glory, and an augmentation in glory, John xvii. 3; 1 Pet.i 21. And the Lord Christ had a twofold glory upon him, in the bearing and discharging of this office: First. The glory that was upon him, or of the work itself; Secondly. The glory that was proposed unto him in the effects of it. 1. There was a glory upon him in his work, from the nature of the work itself. So it was prophesied of him, Zech. vi. 13, ‘ He shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear the glory.’ All the glory of the house of God shall be on him, Isa. xxii. 24. And it was a glory unto him, because the work itself was great and glorious. It was no less than the healing of the breach made between God and the whole creation, by the first apostasy.. Sin had put variance between God and all his creatures, Gen. 11.; Rom. vii. 20. No way was left but that God must be perpetually dishonoured, or all creatures everlastingly cursed. And hereby there seemed to be a kind of defeating of God’s first design to glorify himself in the making of all things. For to this purpose he made them all exceedingly good, Gen. 1.91. And his glory depended not so much upon their being, as their being good; that is, their beauty and order and subjection to himself. But this was now lost, as to all the creation, but only a part and portion of the angels, who sinned not. But yet the apostasy of those who were partakers of the same nature, privileges, and advantages with them, made it manifest what they also in their natural state and condition, were obnoxious unto. How great, how glorious a work must it needs be, to put a stop unto this entrance of confusion; to lay hold on the perishing creation, running headlong into eternal ruin, and to preserve it, or some portion of it, some firstfruits of it unto God from destruction? Must not this be a work equal unto, if not exceeding the first forming of all things? Certainly it is a glorious and honourable thing unto him that shal! undertake and accomplish this great and glorious work. What is said with respect unto one particular in it, may be applied unto the whole. When the sealed book, containing the states of the church and the world was represented unto John, it is said that there was ‘none in heaven, or earth, or under the earth, that was able to open the book, or look thereon,’ Rev. v. 3, whereon the apostle wept, that none was found worthy to engage in that work. But when the Lord Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, appeared to do it, and prevailed therein, ver. 5, all the host of heaven, all the saints of God, jomed together in ascribing glory and honour unto him, ver. 6—14. The work was great and honourable; and therefore, on the account of it, doth that harmonious ascription of glory and honour unto him ensue. How » much more must the whole work be esteemed such, whereof that book contained only a small portion. Herein then was the Lord Jesus Christ exceedingly glorious in his priestly office, because in the discharge of it, he was the only means and way of the recovery and advancement of the glory of God; the greatness of which work, no heart can conceive, nor tongue express. 2. It appears from the effects and consequents of the discharge of his office, or the glory proposed unto him. And that, Ist. On the part of them for whom he did discharge it. And these were all the elect of God. He himself looked on this as a part of the glory set before him, that he should be a Captain of salvation unto them, and bring them unto the eternal enjoyment of God in immortal glory. Anda double honour ariseth hence unto Jesus Christ. First. Initial, the love, thankfulness, and worship of the church in all ages in this world, see Rev. i. 5, 6. This is a glory wherein he is delighted, that all his saints, in all parts of the world, do severally, and in their assemblies, with all humility, love, and thankfulness, worship, adore, bless, praise, and glorify him, as the
Author and Finisher of their recovery unto God, and eternal salvation. Every day do they come about his throne, cleave unto hin, and live in the admiration of his love and power. Secondly. This glory will be full at the latter day, and so hold unto all eternity, when all his saints, from the beginning of the world unto the end thereof, shall be gathered unto him, and abide with him, adoring him as their Head, and shouting for joy when they behold his glory. 2dly. On his own part there is a peculiar honour and glory given him of God, as a consequent of his discharge of this office, and on the account thereof, 1 Pet. i. 21; Phil. ii. 9, 10; Eph. i. 20—23, whereof see our exposition of ch.i.2. 3dly. That glory wherein God will be exalted unto all eternity in the praise of his grace, the end of all his holy purposes towards his church, Eph. 1. 6, doth ensue and depend hereon. For these and the like reasons it was, that our blessed Saviour, knowing how unable we are in this world to comprehend his glory, as also how great a part of our blessedness doth consist in the knowledge of it, makes that great request for us, that after we are preserved in, delivered from, and carried through our course in this world, as a principal part of our rest and reward, we may be with him where he is, to behold his glory which is given him of his Father, John xvii. 24. And our present delight in this glory and honour of Christ, is a ereat evidence of our love of him, and faith in him.
Obs. II. Relation and love are the fountain and cause of God’s committing all authority in and over the church, to Jesus Christ. By this expression of relation and love, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ doth the apostle prove that God called him to be the high priest of the church. To the same purpose himself speaketh John 1. 35, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.’ In his constitution and declaration to be the great and only prophet of the church, God did it by an expression of his relation and love to him,—‘ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,’ Matt. xvii. 5. And this also was the foundation of his kingly office, ch. i. 2. He hath spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things; he who was his Son, and because he was his Son. God would give this glory and honour unto none, but unto his only Son, which to prove is the design of our apostle in the first chapter of this Epistle. And this his relation unto God, manifested itself in all that he did in the discharge of his offiee; for, saith the evangelist, ‘We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, John i. 14. Now, first, the relation intended, is that one single eternal relation of his being the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, through the divine ineffable communication of his nature with him or unto him. And hence, the faith hereof is the foundation of the church For when Peter made that confession of it, in opposition unto all false conceptions of others concerning his person, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;’ he answers, ‘ Upon this rock will I build my church,’ Matt. xvi. 16, 18, And why doth the Lord Christ build his church on the profession of this article of our faith concerning his person? It is because we declare our faith therein, that God would not commit all power in and over the church, and the work of mediation in its behalf, unto any but to him who stood’ in that relation to him, of his only begotten Son. And hereby, as God declares the greatness of this work, which none could effect but his Son, he who was God with himself, that none other should partake with him in this elory; so he directs us to the worship and honour of him as his Son. For it is the ‘ will of God, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father,’ John ν. And those who put in themselves, their wills and authorities, as the Pope; or bring in others into the honour of this work, as saints and angels; do rise up in direct opposition to the design of the will and wisdom of God. They must first give any one the relation of an only Son to God, before they ought to ascribe any thing of this great work or the honour of it to him. Secondly. The love intended is twofold. 1. The natural and eternal love of the Father unto the Son, and his delight in him, as participant of the same nature with himself. This is expressed, Prov. viii. 30, 31, which place hath been explained and vindicated before. 2. His actual love towards him on the account of his infinite condescension and grace, in undertaking this work, wherein his glory was so deeply concerned, see Phil. ii. 6—11. And this love hath a peculiar influence into the collation of that glory and honour on Christ, which God bestowed on him. And in these things, which must not be here enlarged on, doth lie the blessed, sure, stable foundation of the church, and of our salvation, by the mediation of Christ.
Ver. 6.—THE next verse gives us a farther confirmation of the call of Christ unto his office, by another testimony taken from Ps. ex. 4. And much time with diligence would be needful to the explanation hereof, but that this is not its proper place. For that the whole Psalm was prophetical of Christ, I have proved before, and vindicated it from the exceptions of the Jews, both in our Exercitations and expositions on the first chapter. The subject-matter also spoken of, or the priesthood of Melchisedec, with the order thereof, the apostle expressly resumes and handles at large, ch. νι, where it must be considered. There is, therefore, only one concernment of these words here to be inquired into. And this is, how far, or wherein they do give testimony to the assertion of the apostle, that Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that he was designed thereunto of God, even the Father.
Ver. 6.—As he says in another (Psalm,) thou (art) a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.
There are two things in these words. 1. The manner of the introduction of a new testimony. 2. The testimony itself. The first, as ‘he saith in another.’ And therein we may consider, 1. The connection unto, and compliance with that foregoing. Ka@we και, ‘ in the same manner,’ as he had said in Ps. ii. ‘Thou art my Son, this day have 1 begotten thee:᾿ so he speaks in another place to the same purpose. So great and important a truth had need of solid confirmation. 2. The author of the testimony, or he that spake the words of it; λεγει; ‘he saith” And this may be taken two ways. 1. With respect unto the delivery of the words. 2. With respect unto the subject-matter of them, or the thing signified in them. In the first way, he that speaks may be, 1. David. He who was the penman of the second Psalm, was so also of this hundred and tenth. As, therefore, the words foregoing, as to the declaration of them, were his, so were these also. As he said in that place, so he saith in this. Or 2. The Holy Spint himself, who in both places spake in and by David. ‘Saying in- David,’ ch.iv.7. But 2. The thing spoken and signified is principally here intended. And λεγει, ‘he saith,’ referreth immediately to God the Father himself. That which the apostle designed to prove, is, that Christ was called and constituted a high priest, by the authority of God the Father. And this was done by his immediate speaking unto him. The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David, speaks these things tous. But he doth only therein declare what the Father said unto the Son; and that was it whereby the apostle’s intention was proved and confirmed. ‘He saith.’ This was that which God said unto him, and this is recorded, 3. Ev érepw, ‘in another;’ that is, ror, ‘ place,’ or rather ψαλμῳ, in another ‘ Psalm;’ that is, Ps. ex. Secondly. The testimony itself is expressed, or the words of the Father unto the Son, whereby the apostle’s assertion is confirmed.— ‘Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.” It was sufficient for the apostle at present to produce these words only, but he will elsewhere make use of the manner how they were uttered; namely, by and with the oath of God, as it is declared in the Psalm, ‘The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, thou art a Priest,’ &c. And these words of ver. 4, do indissolubly depend on the first verse: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord;’ that is, God the Father said unto the Son, with respect unto his incarnation and mediation, as 1 have proved elsewhere. And this word, ‘ Thou art,’ is verbum constitutivum, ‘a constituting word,’ wherein the priesthood of Christ was founded. And it may be considered, 1. As declarative of God’s eternal decree, with the covenant between the Father and the Son, whereby he was designed unto this office, whereof we have treated expressly and at large in the previous Exercitations. 2. As demonstrative of lis mission, or his actual sending to the discharge of his office. These words are the symbol and solemn sign of God’s conferring that honour upon him which gave him his instalment. 3. There is included in them a supposition that God would prepare a body for him, wherein he might exercise his priesthood, and which he might offer up unto him. In the whole, it is undeniable from this testimony, that God called and appointed him to be a priest, which was to be proved. Thus Christ was called of God, as was Aaron; that is, immediately and in an extraordinary manner, which was necessary in the first erection of that office in his person. But yet, as to the special manner of his call, it was every way more excellent and glorious than that of
Aaron. What his call was, and what were the weaknesses and imperfections of it, was before declared. _But the call of Christ, 1. had no need of any outward ceremony to express it; yea, it had a glory in it which no ceremony could express. 2. It consisted in the words of God spoken immediately to himself, and not to any others concerning him, only they are reported unto the church in the two Psalms mentioned. 3. The words spoken are present, effective, constituting, authoritative words, and not merely declarative of what God would have done. By these words was he called and made a Priest. 4. They are expressive of infinite love to, and acquiescency in the person of Christ as a high priest. “ποῦ art my Son; THovu art a priest for ever. 5. They were spoken and pronounced with the solemnity of an oath:—the Lord hath sworn; whereof elsewhere. He was not, therefore, only called of God, as was Aaron, but also in a peculiar way far more eminently and gloriously.
Obs. I. We may hence observe, that in all things wherein God hath to do with mankind, Jesus Christ should have an absolute preeminence. It was necessary that of old,some things should be made use of to represent and prefigure him.. And it is necessary now that some things should be made use of to reveal and exhibit him unto us. And these things must, as they are appointments of God, effects of his wisdom, and out of their respect unto him, be precious and excellent. But yet, in and through them all, it is his own person, and what he doth therein, that hath the preeminence. And this is so on a twofold account. 1. Because in the representation which they made of him, there was an imperfection, by reason of their own nature, that they could not perfectly represent him. So Aaron was called in an extraordinary manner, to preficure his call unto his priesthood. But that call of his was accompanied with much weakness and imperfec= tion, as hath been declared. It belonged unto the preeminence of Christ, that there should be something, yea, very much in his call absolutely peculiar. 2. The principal dignity of all these things, depended on their respect and relation unto him, which exalts him infinitely above them. And so also is it with all the means of grace, whereby at present he is exhibited, and the benefits of his mediation communicated unto us.
Ver. 7.—IN this verse, two instances of the qualifications of a high priest, are accommodated unto our Lord Jesus Christ, and that in the retrograde order before proposed. For the last thing expressed concerning a high priest according to the law, was, that he was encompassed with infirmities, ver. 2. And this in the first place is applied unto Christ, for that it was so with him when he entered upon the discharge of his office. And therein the apostle gives a double demonstration:—1, From the time and season wherein he did execute his oftice—it was in the days of his flesh. So openly do they contradict the Scripture, who contend that he entered not directly on his priestly office, until these days of his flesh were finished and ended. Now, in the days of his flesh, he was compassed with infirmities, and that because he was in the flesh. 2. From the manner of his depos in E this discharge of his office—he did it with cries and tears. And these also are from the infirmity of our nature.
Secondly. The acting of the high priest, as so qualified in the discharge of his office, is accommodated unto him. For a high priest was appointed, iva προσφερῃ δωρα τε και ϑυσιας ὑπερ ἁμαρτιων, ver. |, ‘that he might offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.’ So itis here affirmed of our Saviour, that he also offered to God, which is expressive of a sacerdotal act, as shall be declared. And this is farther described, 1. By an especial adjunct of the sacrifice he offered, namely, prayers and tears. 2. By the immediate object of them, and his sacrifice which they accompanied—he that was able to save him from death. 3. By the effect and issue of the whole—he was heard in that which he feared.
Ver. 7.— Who in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications, with a strong cry (or vehement outcry) and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard (or delivered) from (his) fear.
The person here spoken of, is expressed by the relative ὃς, ‘ who;’ that is, 6 Χριστος; mentioned ver. 4, to whose priesthood thenceforward testimony is given. Who, that is Christ, not absolutely but as a high priest.
The first thing mentioned of him, is an intimation of the infirmity wherewith he was attended in the discharge of his office, by a description of the time and season wherein he was exercised in it: it Was ἐν ταῖς ἧμεραις της σαρκος αὑτου, ‘in the days of his flesh.’ That these infirmities were in themselves perfectly sinless, and absolutely necessary unto him in this office, was before declared. And we may here inquire, 1. What is meant by the flesh of Christ? 2. What were the days of his flesh? |
1. The flesh of Christ, wherein he was, is in the Scripture taken two ways. 1. Naturally, by a synecdoche, for his whole human nature, John i. 14, ‘The Word was made flesh.’ 1 Tim. iii. 16, ‘God was manifest in the flesh. Rom. ix. 5, ‘Ofwhom was Christ aceon ing to the flesh.” Heb. 1. 9, 10, 14, ‘ He partook of flesh and blood.’ 1 Pet. iii. 18; Rom. i. 3. See our exposition of ch. 11. 9-—11. In this flesh, or in the flesh in this sense, as to the substance of it, Christ still continues. The body wherein he suffered and rose from the dead, was altered upon his resurrection and ascension, as to its qualities, but not as to its substance; it consisted still of flesh and bones, Luke xxiv. 39. And the same spirit which, when he died, he resigned into the hand of God, was returned unto bim again when he was quickened in the Spirit, 1 Pet. i. 18, when God showed him again the path of life, according to his promise, Ps. xvi. 11. This flesh he carried entire with him into heaven, where it still continueth, though inwardly and outwardly exalted and glorified beyond our apprehension, Acts 1. 11, and in this flesh shall he come again unto judgment, Acts 1.11, i. 21, xvn. 31; Rev.i.7. For the union of this flesh with the divine nature in the person of the Son of God, is eternally indissoluble. And they overthrow the foundation of faith, who fancy the Lord Christ to have any other body im heaven, than what he had on the earth; as they also do who make him to have such flesh as they can eat every day. It is not, therefore, the flesh of Christ in this sense as absvlutely considered, which is here intended. For the days of this flesh abide always, they shall never expire to eternity.
2. Flesh, as applied unto Christ, signifies the frailties, weaknesses, and infirmities of our nature, or our nature as it is weak and infirm, during this mortal life. So is the word often used, Ps. Ixxvii. 39, ‘He remembereth man -wa ‘3, that they are but flesh 7 that is, poor, weak, mortal, frail creatures. Ps. ἰχν. 2, ‘Unto thee shall all flesh come:’ poor helpless creatures, standing in need of aid and assistance, _ So flesh and blood is taken for that principle of corruption, which’ must be done away before we enter into heaven, 1 Cor. xv. 50. And this is that which is meant by the flesh of Christ in this place—human nature not yet glorified, with all its infirmities, wherein he was exposed unto hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, sorrow, grief, fear, pain, wounding, death itself. Hereby doth the apostle express what he had before laid down, in the person of the high priest according to the law—he was compassed with infirmities.
Secondly. What was intended by ‘the days of his flesh? It is evident that in general his whole course and walk in this world, may be comprised herein. From his cradle to the grave, he bare all the infirmities of our nature, with all the dolorous and grievous effects of them. Hence, all his days he was ‘Sn yrm maxscna wn, Isa. 1Π|. 3, “a man of sorrows,’ filled with them, never free from them, and familiarly acquainted with grief, as a companion that never departed from him. But yet respect is not had here unto this whole space of time, only the subject-matter treated of, is limited unto that season; it fell out neither before nor after, but in and during the days of his flesh. But the season peculiarly intended, is the close of those days, in his last suffering, when all his sorrows, trials, and temptations, came unto ahead. The sole design of the expression is to show, that when he offered up his sacrifice, he was encompassed with infirmities, which hath an especial influence into our faith and consolation.
Secondly. An account is given of what he did in these days of his flesh, as a high priest, being called of God unto that office. And this in general was his acting as a priest, wherein many things are to be considered.
First. The act of his oblation, in that word προσενεγκας. Προσφε- pw, is accedo, appropinquo, or accedere facio, when applied unto things in common use, or unto persons in the common occasions of life. So doth ap signify in the Hebrew; but when it doth so, the LXX. constantly render it by εγγιζω and προσεγγιζω, that is, ‘to draw near.’ But when it is applied to things sacred, they render it by προσφερω, that is, offero, or ‘to offer.” And although this word is sometimes used in the New Testament in the common sense before mentioned, yet it alone, and no other, is made use of to express an access with gifts and sacrifices, or offerings on the altar; see Matt. 11. 11, v. 23, 24, viii. 4; Mark i. 44; Luke v. 14, ja>sp ap 3, Lev. 3. 2, that is, προσφερῃ Swoor, ‘ offer a gift,’ that is, at the altar. And in this Epistle, it constantly expresseth a sacerdotal act, ch. v. 1, 3, | win. 3, 4, 1x. 7,9, 14,'25,'28)x. 1, 2; 85°11, 12; x14, 172 And zoo: ἴορα, is ‘a sacred oblation,’ or ‘a sacrifice, οἢ. χ. 5, 8, 10, 14, 18.
or is the word otherwise used in this Epistle; and the end why we observe it, is to manifest, that it is a priestly sacerdotal offering that is here intended. He offered as a priest. |
Secondly. The matter of his offering, is expressed by denose καὶ ἱκετηρίας, ‘ prayers and supplications. Both these words have the same general signification. And they also agree in this, that they respect an especial kind of prayer, which is for the averting or turning away of impendent evils, or such as are deserved and justly feared. For whereas all sorts of prayers may be referred unto two heads, 1. Such as are petitory, for the impetration of that which is good. 2. Such as are deprecatory for the keeping off, or turning away that which is evil: the latter sort only are here intended. δεήσεις, are every-where preces deprecatorie; and we render it ‘supplications,’ 1 Tim. ii. 1. And supplicationes are the same with supplicia, which signifies both punishments and prayers for the averting of them; asin the Hebrew, nxom is both sin, and a sacrifice for the expiation of it.
‘Ikernpra is nowhere used in the Scripture, but in this place only. In other authors, it originally signifies ‘a bough, or olive branch, wrapped about with wool or bays,’ or something of the like nature, which they who were supplicants carried in their hands, and lifted up unto others for the obtaining of peace from them, or to avert their displeasure. Hence is the phrase of vélamenta pretendere, ‘to hold forth such covered branches.’ So Liv. de Bell. Punic. lib. 4. Ramos olew ac velamenta alia supplicum porrigentes orare ut reciperent feste. ‘Holding ferth olive branches, and other covered tokens used by supplicants, they prayed that they might be received into grace and favour.” And Virgil, of his Aineas to Evander,
Optime Grajugenum cui me fortuna precari, Et vitta comptos voluit pretendere Ramos.
as here by our apostle. So Isoc. de Pace, ἱκετηρίας πολλας καὶ δεησεις ποιουμενος, ‘using many deprecatory entreaties and supplications.’ So constantly the heathen called those prayers which they made solemnly to their gods, for the averting of impendent evils, supplicia and supplicationes. Liv. lib. 10, ‘Eo anno multa prodigia erant, quorum averruncandorum causa, supplicationes in biduum Senatus decrevit,’ that is, Ire Detm averruncande, as he speaks, lib, 8, “ to turn away the wrath of their gods.’ And such akind of prayer is that whose form is given in Cato de re Rustic., cap. 14,‘ Mars pater, te precor, quesoque, ut calamitates intemperiasque prohibessis, defendas, averrunces.’? Hesychius explains ixernora by wapaxAnorc, a word of a much larger signification; but ἱκετωσυνα, a word of the same original and force, by καϑαρτηρία, λυτηρια, ‘expiations and purgations’ from guilt deserving punishment, ἱκετηρια, Gloss. Vet. Oratio, precatio supplicum, ‘the prayer of suppliants.’ The word being used only in this place in the Scripture, it was not unnecessary to inquire after the signification of it in other authors. It is a humble supplication for peace, or deprecation of evil, with the turning away of anger. And this sense singularly suits the scope of the place. For respect is had in it to the sufferings of Christ, and the fear which befel him in the apprehension of them as they were penal, as we shall see afterwards.
But it must also be here farther observed, that however this word might be used to express the naked supplication of some men in distress to others, yet whenever it is used in heathen authors, with respect to their gods, it was always accompanied with expiatory sucrifices, or was the peculiar name of those prayers and supplications which they made with those sacrifices. As [ have shown before, that the solemn expiatory sacrifice of the high priest among the Jews, was accompanied with deprecatory supplications, a form whereof, according to the apprehensions of their masters, I gave out of the Mishna. And so he was appointed in the great sacrifice of expiation, to confess over the head of the scape-goat, all ‘the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,’ Lev. xvi. 21, which he did not without prayers for the expiation of them, and deliverance from the curse of the law due to them. And they are not the mere supplications of our blessed Saviour that are here intended, but as they accompanied, and were a necessary adjunct of, the offering up of himself, is soul and body, a real propitiatory sacrifice to God. And therefore wherever our apostle elsewhere speaks of the offering of Christ, he calls it the offering of himself, or of his body, Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14, 25, 28, x. 10. Here therefore he expresseth the whole sacrifice of Christ, by the prayers and supplications wherewith it was accompanied, and therefore makes use of that word; which peculiarly denotes such supplications. And he describes the sacrifice or offering of Christ by this adjunct, for the reasons ensuing.
1. To evince what he before declared, that in the days of his flesh, when he offered up himself to God, he was encompassed with the weakness of our nature; which made prayers and supplications needful for him, as at all seasons, so especially in straits and distresses, when he cried from the lion’s mouth, and the horns of unicorns, Ps.
xxii. 21. He was in earnest and pressed to the utmost in the work that was before him. And this expression is used, 8
2. That we might seriously consider how great a work it was to expiate sin. As it was not to be done without suffering, soa mere and bare suffering would not effect it. Not only death, and a bloody death, was required thereunto, but such as was to be accompanied with prayers and supplications, that it might be effectual to the end designed, and that he who suffered it might not be overborne in his undertaking. The redemption of souls was precious, and must have ceased for ever, had not every thing “been set on work which is ac~ ceptable and prevalent with God. And,
3. To show that the Lord Christ had now made this business his own, he had taken the whole work and the whole debt of sin on himself. He was now therefore to manage, as if he alone were the person concerned. And this rendered his prayers and supplications necessary in and to his sacrifice. And,
4, That we might be instructed how to make use of, and plead his sacrifice in our stead. If it was not, if it could not be offered by him but with prayers and supplications, and those for the averting of divine wrath, and making peace with God, we may not think to be interested therein whilst under the power of lazy and slothful unbelief. Let him that would go to Christ, consider well how Christ went to God for him, which is yet farther declared,
Thirdly. In the manner of his offering these prayers and supplications to God, whereby he offered up himself also to him. He did it μετα κραυγῆς ἰσχυρας Kat δακρυων, “ with strong crying, or ‘a strong cry and tears.’ Chryscstome on the place observes that the story makes no mention of these things. And indeed of his tears in particular it doth not, which from this place alone we know to have accompanied his sacerdotal prayers. But his strong crying is expressly related. ‘To acquaint ourselves fully with what is intended therein, we may consider, 1. How it was expressed in prophecy. 2, How it is related in the story. ὃ. How reported here by our apostle.
1. In prophecy, the supplications here intended are called his ‘roaring.” Ps. xxu. 1, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ὃ Why art thou so far from helping me, and from ‘naxw “at the words of my roaring?” Rugitus, the proper cry of the lion is κραυγὴ ἰσχυρα» clamor validus, ‘a strong and vehement outcry.’ And it is used to express such a vehemency in supplications, as cannot be compressed or confined, but will ordinarily break out into a loud expression of itself, at least such an intention of mind and affection, as cannot be outwardly expressed without ‘fervent outcries,’ Ps. xxxii.3. ‘ When I keep silence,’ that is, whilst he was under his perplexities from the guilt of sin, before he came off to a full and clear acknowledgment of it, as ver 5, ‘My bones waxed old through my roaring all the da long.’ The vehemency of his complainings consumed his natural strength. So Job ii. 24, ‘ My sighing cometh before I eat, nvas sn ‘maw, and my roarings are poured out like waters,’ namely, that break out of any place with great noise and abundance. So is a sense of extreme pressures and distresses signified. ‘I have roared by reason of the disquietment of mine heart, Ps. xxxvii. 8. This is κραυγὴ tsxvoa, ‘a strong cry.’ And if we well consider his prayer as recorded, Ps. xxii. especially from ver. 9, to 21, we shall find that every word almost, and sentence, hath in it the spirit of roaring and a strong cry, however it were uttered. For it is not merely the outward noise, but the inward earnest intention and engagement of heart and soul, with the greatness and depth of the occasion of them, that is princi- ‘pally intended.
2. We may consider the same matter as related in story by the evangelists. The prayers intended are those which he offered to God during his passion, both in the garden and on the cross, The first are declared Luke xxi. 44, ‘ And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as great drops of blocd falling on the earth.’ The inward frame is here declared, which our apostle shadows out by the external expressions and signs of it, in strong cries and tears; ev aywvia γενόμενος, ‘ constitutus in agonia.’ He was in, under the power of, wholly pressed by, an agony; that is, a strong and vehement conflict of mind, in and about things dreadful and terrible, Αγωνια is φοξος διαπτωσεως, saith Nemes. de Natur. Hom. ‘A dread of utter ruin” Timor extrinsecus advenientis mali, Aquin. ‘ A dread of evil to come on us from without.’ It signifies, Ita vehementi discriminis objecti metu angi ut quodammodo exanimis et attonitus Sis, saith Maldonat. on Matt. xxvi. 37. He prayed εκτενεστερον, ‘with more vehement intention of mind, spirit, and body.’ For the word denotes not a degree of the acting of grace in Christ, as some have imagined, but the highest degree of earnestness in the actings of his mind, soul, and body, another token of that wonderful conflict wherein he was engaged, which no tongue can express, nor heart conceive. This produced that preternatural sweat, wherein θρομξοι αἱματος, ‘thick drops of blood’ ran from him to the ground. Concerning this he says, snow) ovas, Ps. xx, 14, 41 am poured out like water, that is, my blood is so, by an emanation from all parts of my body, descending to the ground. And they consult not the honour of Jesus Christ, but the maintenance of their own false suppositions, who assign any ordinary cause of this agony, with these consequents of it, or such as other men may have experience of. And this way go many of the expositors of the Roman church. So A Lapid. in loc. ‘ Nota secundd hunc Christi angorem, Jacrymas et sudorem sanguineum, testem infirmitatis a Christo assumptz, provenisse ex vivaci imaginatione, flagellationis, coronationis, mortis, doloruamque omnium quos mox subiturus erat; inde enim naturaliter manabat ecorundem horror et angor.’ He would place the whole cause of this agony, in those previous fancies, imaginations, or apprehensions, which he had of those corporeal sufferings which were to come on him. Where then is the glory of his spiritual strength and fortitude? Where is the beauty of the example which herein he set before us? His outward sufferings were indeed grievous; but yet considered merely as such, they were as to mere sense of pain, beneath what sundry of his martyrs have been called to undergo for his name’s sake. And yet we know that many, yea through the power of his grace in them, the most of them who haye so suffered for him in all ages, have cheerfully, joyfully, and without the least consternation of spirit, undergone the exquisite tortures whereby they have given up themselves to death for him. And shall we imagine that the Son of God, who had advantages for his support and consolation, infinitely above what they had any interest in, should be given up to this dreadful trembling conflict, wherein his whole nature was almost dissolved, out of a mere apprehension of those corporeal sufferings which were coming on him? Was it the forethought of them only, and that as such, which dispelled the present sense of divine love and satisfaction from the indissoluble union of his person, that they should not influence his mind with refreshments and consolations? God forbid that we should have any such mean thoughts of what he was, of what he did, of what he suffered. There were other causes of these things, as we shall see immediately.
Again, on the cross itself it is said, avebonse φωνῃ peyady, Matt. xxvil. 46, that is plainly, he prayed pera κραυγης ἰσχυρας, “ he cried out with a great outcry,’ or ‘ loud voice,’ with a strong cry. This was the manner of the sarcerdotal prayers of Christ, which concerned his oblation, or the offering of himself as a sacrifice, as is reported in the Evangelist. ‘The other part of his sarcerdotal prayer, which expressed his intercession on a supposition of his oblation, he performed and offered with all calmness, quietness, and sedateness of mind, with all assurance and joyful glory, as if he were actually. already in heaven, as we may see John xvii. But it was otherwise with him, when he was to offer himself a sin-offering in our stead. If, therefore, we do compare the 22nd Psalm, as applied and explained by the evangelists and our apostle, with the 17th of John, we shall find a double mediatory or sarcerdotal prayer of our Saviour in behalf of | the whole church. The first was that which accompanied his oblation, or the offering of himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin. And this having respect to the justice of God, the curse of the law, and the punishment due to sin, was made in an agony, distress, and conflict, with wrestlings, expressed by cries, tears, and most vehement intensions of soul. The other, which though in order of time, antecedent, yet in order of nature, was built on the former, and a supposition of the work perfected therein, as is evident ver. 4; and ver. 11, represents his intercession in heaven. The first was pera κραυγῆς ἰσχυρας και δακρυων, the other μετα TETOLIHOEWC Kal πληροφοριας.
3. These are the things which are thus expressed by our apostle, ‘he offered up prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears.’ Such was the frame of his soul, such was his prayer and deportment in his sacrifice of himself. His tears indeed are not expressly mentioned in the story. But weeping was one of those infirmities of our nature which he was subject to, John xi. 35, ‘Jesus wept.’. He expressed his sorrow thereby. And being now in the greatest distress, conflict, and sorrow which reached to the soul, until that was sorrowful to death, as we may well judge that in his dealing with God, he poured out tears with his prayers, so it is here directly mentioned. So did he here offer up himself through the eternal Spirit.
Fourthly. The object of this offering of Christ. He to whom he offered up prayers and supplications, is expressed and described. And this was ὁ δυναμενος σωζειν avrov εκ Savarov, ‘he that was able to save him from death,’ that had power so to do. It is God who is intended, whom the apostle describes by this periphrasis, for the reasons that shall be mentioned. He calls him neither God, nor the Father of Christ, although the Lord Jesus in the prayers intended, calls on him by both those names. So in the garden he calls him Father, ‘ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,’ Luke xxii. 42, And on the cross he called him God, ‘ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ Matt. xxvii. 46. And Father, again, in the resignation of his life and soul into his hands, Luke xxii. 46. But in the reporting of these things our apostle waveth these expressions, and only describeth God as ‘he who was able to save him from death.’ Now this he doth, to manifest the consideration that the Lord Christ at that time had of God, of death, and of the causes, consequents, and effects of it. For his design is to declare what was the reason of the frame of the soul of Christ, in his suffering and offering before described, and what were the causes thereof.
1. In general, God is proposed as the object of the actings of Christ’s soul in this offering of himself, as he who had all power in -his hand to order all his present concerns. ‘'Fo him who was able.’ Ability or power is either natural or moral. Natural power is strength and active efficiency, in God omnipotency. Moral power is nght and authority, in God absolute sovereignty. And the Lord Christ had respect to the ability or power of God in both these senses. In the first, as that which he relied on for deliverance. In the latter, as that which he submitted himself to. The former was the object of his faith, namely, that God by the greatness of his power could support and deliver him, in and under his trial. The latter was the object of his fear, as to the dreadful work which he had undertaken. Now because the apostle is on the description of that frame of heart, and those actings of soul, wherewith our high priest offered himself for us to God, which was with prayers and supplications, accompanied with strong cries and tears, I shall consider from these words three things, considering the power or ability of God principally in the latter way.
I What were the general causes of the state and condition, wherein the Lord Christ is here described by our apostle, and of the actings ascribed to him therein.
2. What were the immediate effects of the sufferings of the Lord Christ in and on his own soul. i
3. What limitations are to be assigned to them; from all which it will appear, why and wherefore he offered up his prayers and supplications to him who was ‘able to save him from death,’ wherein a fear of it is included, on the account of the righteous authority of God, as well as a faith of deliverance from it, on the account of his omnipotent power. wv
First. The general causes of his state and condition, with his actings therein, were included in that consideration and prospect which he then had of God, death, and himself, or the effects of death on him,
1. He considered God at that instant, as the supreme Rector and Judge of all; the author of the law, and the avenger of it; who had ower of life and death, as the one was to be destroyed, and the other inflicted according to the curse and sentence of the law. Under this notion he now considered God, and that as actually putting the law in execution, having power and authority to give up to the sting of it, or to save from it. God represented himself to him first, as armed and attended with infinite holiness, righteousness, and severity, as one that would not pass by sin, nor acquit the guilty; and then as accompanied with supreme or sovereign authority over him, the law, life, and death. And it is of great importance under what notion we consider God, when we make our approaches to him. The whole frame of our souls, as to fear and confidence, will be regulated thereby.
2. He considered death not naturally, as a separation of soul and body, nor yet merely as a painful separation of them, such as was that death which in particular he was to undergo; but he looked on it as acurse of the law, due to sin, inflicted by God, as a just and righteous judge. Hence in and under it he himself is said to ‘ be made a curse,’ Gal. iii. 13. This curse was now coming on him as the sponsor or surety of the new covenant. For although he considered himself, and the effects of things on himself, yet he offered up these prayers as our sponsor, that the work of mediation which he had undertaken, might have a good and blessed issue.
From hence may we take a view of that frame of soul which our Lord Jesus Christ was in when he offered up prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears, considering God as he who had authority over the law, and the sentence of it, that was to be inflicted on him. Some have thought that on the confidence of the indissolubleness of his person, and the actual assurance which they suppose he always had of the love of God, his sufferings could have no effect of fear, trouble, sorrow, or perplexity on his soul, but only what respected the natural enduring of pain and shame which he was exposed to. But the Scripture gives another account of these things, It informs us that he ‘began to be afraid,’ and ‘sore amazed,’ ‘ that his soul was heavy and sorrowful to death,’ that he was ‘in an agony,’ and afterwards cried out, ‘ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ under a sense of divine dereliction. There was indeed a mighty acting of love in God towards us, in the giving up his Son to death for us, as to the gracious ends and purposes thereby to be accomplished. And his so doing is constantly in the Scripture reckoned on the score of love. And there was always in him a great love to the person of his Son, and an ineffable complacency in the obedience of Christ, especially that which he exercised in his suffering. But yet the curse and punishment which he underwent, was an effect of vindicative justice, and as such did he look on it, and conflict with it. I shall not enter into the debates of those expressions which have been controverted about the sufferings of Christ, as whether he underwent the death of the soul, the second death, the pains of hell. For it would cause a prolix digression, to show distinctly what is essential to these things, or purely penal in them, which alone he was subject to, and what necessarily follows a state and condition of personal sin and guilt, in them who undergo them, which he was absolutely free from, But this alone I shall say, which I have proved elsewhere, whatever was due to us from the justice of God and sentence of the law, that he underwent and suffered. This then was the cause in general of of the state and condition of Christ here described, and of his actings therein expressed.
Secondly. The effects of his sufferings on himself, or his sufferings themselves, on this account, may be reduced in general to these two heads.
1. His dereliction. He was under a suspension of the comforting influences of his relation to God. His relation to God as his God and Father, was the fountain of all his comforts and joys. The sense hereof was now suspended. Hence was that part of his ery, ‘ My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ The supporting influences of this relation were continued, but the comforting influences of it were suspended, see Ps. xxii. 1—3, &c. And from hence he was filled with ‘heaviness and sorrow.’ This the Evangelists fully express; he says of himself that his ‘ soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,’ Matt. xxvi. 38, which expressions are emphatical, and declare a sorrow that is absolutely inexpressible. And this sorrow was the effect of his penal desertion. For sorrow is that which was the life of the curse of the law. So when God declared the nature of that curse to Adam and Eve, he tells them that he will give them ‘sorrow,’ and ‘multiply their sorrow,’ Gen. 11. 16, 17. With this sorrow was Christ now filled, which put him on these strong cries and tears for relief, And this dereliction was possible, and proceeded from hence, in that all communications from the divine nature to the human, beyond subsistence, were voluntary.:
2. He had an intimate sense of the wrath and displeasure of God, against the sin that was then imputed to him. All our sins were then caused by an act of divine and supreme authority to meet on him, ‘God laid on him the iniquity of us all, Isa. lui. 6. Even all our guilt was imputed to him, or none of the punishment due to our sins could have been justly inflicted on him. In this state of things, in that great hour and wonderful transaction of divine wisdom, grace, and righteousness, whereon the glory of God, the recovery of fallen man, with the utter condemnation of Satan depended, God was pleased for a while, as it were, to hold the scales of justice in equilibrio, that the turning of them might be more conspicuous, eminent, and glorious. In the one scale, as it were, there was the weight of the first sin and apostasy from God, with all the consequents of it, covered with the sentence and curse of the law, with the exigence of vindictive justice; a weight that all the angels of heaven could not stand under one moment. In the other were the obedience, holiness, righteousness, and penal sufferings of the Son of God, all having weight and worth given to them by the dignity and worth of his divine person. Infinite justice kept these things for a season, as it were, at a poise, until the Son of God by his prayers, tears, and supplications, prevailed to a glorious success in the delivery of himself and us.
Thirdly. Wherefore, as to the limitation of the effects of Christ's sufferings in and on himself we may conclude in general, 1. That they were such only as were consistent with absolute purity, holiness, and freedom from the least appearance of sin. 2. Not such as did in the least impeach the glorious union of his natures in the same person. Nor, 3. Such as took off from the dignity of his obedience, and merit of his sufferings, but were all necessary thereunto. But then, 4. As he underwent all that is or can be grievous, dolorous, afflictive, and penal in the wrath of God, and sentence of the law executed; so these things really wrought in him sorrow, amazement, anguish, fear, dread, with all the like penal effects of the pains of hell, fromm whence it was that he offered up ‘ prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, the event whereof is described in the last clause of the verse..
Kar eucaxoveSee απὸ τῆς ευλαξἕξειας; Sand was heard in that which he feared.’ To be heard in Scripture signifies two things: 1. To be accepted in our requests, though the thing requested be not granted unto us. God will hear me, is as much as God will accept of me, is pleased with my supplication, Ps. lv. 17, xxi. 21. 2. To be answered in our request. To be heard is to be delivered. So is this expressed, Ps. xxu. 24. In the first way there is no doubt but that the Father always heard the Son, John xi. 42, always, in all things, accepted him, and was well pleased in him. But our inquiry is here, How far the Lord Christ was heard in the latter way, so heard as to be delivered from what he prayed against. Concerning this, observe, that the prayers of Christ in this matter were of two sorts.
1. Hypothetical or conditional; such was that prayer for the pass-= ing of the cup from him, Luke xxu. 42, ‘ Father, if thou wilt, let this cup pass from me.’ And this prayer was nothing, but what was absolutely necessary unto the verity of human nature in that state and condition. Christ could not have been a man, and not have had an extreme aversation to the things that were coming upon him. Nor had it been otherwise with him, could he properly have been said to suffer. For nothing is suffering, nor can be penal unto us, but what is grievous unto our nature, and what it is abhorrent of. This acting of the inclination of nature, both in his mind, will, and affections, which in him were purely holy, our Saviour expresseth in that conditional prayer. And in this prayer he was thus answered. His mind was fortified against the dread and terror of nature so as to come unto a perfect composure in the will of God. ‘ Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.’ He was heard herein, so far as he desired to be heard. For although he could not but desire deliverance from the whole as he was a man; yet he desired it not absolutely, as he was wholly subjected to the will of God.
2. Absolute. The chief and principal supplications which he offered up to him who was able to save him from death were absolute, and in them he was absolutely heard and delivered. For upon the presentation of death unto him, as attended with the wrath and curse of God, he had deep and dreadful apprehensions of it; and of how unable the human nature was to undergo it, and prevail against it, if not mightily supported and carried through by the power of God. In this condition, it was part of his obedience, it was his duty to pray that he might be delivered from the absolute prevalency of it; that he might not be cast in his trial, that he might not be confounded nor condemned. This he hoped, trusted, and believed, and therefore prayed absolutely for it, Isa. 1. 7, 8. And herein he was heard absolutely. For so it is said, ‘ he was heard,’ azo τῆς ευλαβειας.
The word here used, evAaea, is in a singular construction of speech, and is itself of various significations. Sometimes it is used for a religious reverence; but such as hath fear joined with it, that is, the fear of evil. Frequently it signifies fear itself, but such a fear as is accompanied with a reverential! care and holy circumspection. The word itself is but once more used in the New Testament, and that by our apostle, ch. ΧΙ. 28, where we will render it godly fear; ευλαξες, the adjective, is used three times, Luke 11. 25; Acts ii. 5, viii. 2, everywhere denoting a religious fear. Heb. xi. 7, we render the verb evAa- {nSee, by ‘moved with fear;’ that is, a reverence of God mixed with a dreadful apprehension of an approaching judgement. And the use of the preposition azo, added to εἰσακουσϑεις is also singular; auditus ex metu, ‘heard from his fear.’ Therefore is this passage variously interpreted by all sorts of expositors. Some read it, ‘he was heard because of his reverence.’ And in the exposition hereof they are again divided. Some take reverence actively, for the reverence he had of God; that is, his reverential obedience. He was heard because of his reverence, or reverential obedience unto God. Some would have the reverence intended to relate to God; the reverential respect that God had unto him. God heard him from that holy respect and regard which he had of him. But these things are fond, and suit not the design of the place; neither the coherence of the words, nor their construction, nor their signification, nor the scope of the apostle will bear this sense. Others render it, pro metu, ‘ from fear,’ or out of fear. And this also is two ways interpreted. 1. Because ‘heard from fear,’ is somewhat a harsh expression, they explain auditus by liberatus, delivered from fear; and this is not improper. So Grotius, ‘Cum mortem vehementer perhorresceret, in hoc exauditus fuit ut ab isto metu liberaretur.’ In this sense fear internal and subjective is intended. God relieved him against his fear, removing it, and taking it away by strengthening and comforting of him. Others by fear intend the thing feared, which sense our translators follow, and are therefore plentifully reviled and railed at by the Rhemists. He was heard; that is, delivered from the things which he feared as coming upon him. And for the vindication. of this sense and exposition, there is so much already offered by many learned expositors, as’ that I see not what can be added thereunto, and I shall not unnecessarily enlarge. And the opposition that is made hereunto, is managed rather with clamours and outcries, than Scripture reasons or testimonies. Suppose the object of the fear of Christ here, to have been what he was delivered from, and then it must be his fainting, sinking, and perishing under the wrath of God, in the work he had undertaken. Yet, 1. The same thing is expressed elsewhere, unto a higher degree, and more emphatically; as where in this state he is said, λυπεισϑαι καὶ adnuoverv, and ἐκϑαμβεισϑαι, Matt. xxvi. 37; Mark xiv. 33; Luke xxii. 42—44, ‘to be sorrowful, perplexed, and amazed.’ 2. All this argues no more, but that the Lord Christ underwent an exercise in the opposition that was made unto his faith, and the mighty conflict he had with that opposition. That his faith or trust in God, was either overthrown or weakened by them, they prove not, nor do any plead them unto that purpose. And to deny that the soul of Christ was engaged in an ineffabie conflict with the wrath of God, in the curse of the law, that his faith and trust in God were pressed and tried to the utmost by the opposition made unto them, by fear, dread, and a terrible apprehension of divine displeasure due to our sins, 15 to renounce the benefit of his passion, and turn the whole of it into a show, fit to be represented by pictures and images, or acted over in ludicrous scenes, as it is by the Papists.
It remains that we consider the observations which these words afford us for our instruction, wherein also their sense and importance will be farther explained. And the first thing that offers itself unto us is, that,
Obs. I. The Lord Jesus Christ himself had a time of infirmity in this world. A season he had wherein he was beset and encompassed with infirmities. So it was with him in the days of his flesh. It is true, his infirmities were all sinless, but all troublesome and grievous. By them was he exposed unto all sorts of temptations and sufferings, which are the two springs of all that is evil and dolorous unto our nature. And thus it was with him not a few days, nor a short season only, but during his whole course in this world. This the story of the gospel gives us an account of, and the instance of his offering up prayers with strong cries and tears, puts out of all question. These things were real, and not acted to make an appearance and representation of them. And hereof himself expresseth his sense, Ps. xxu. 6, 7, ‘I am a worm and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people: all that see me laugh me to scorn,’ ver. 14,15. How can the infirmities of our nature, and a sense of them be more emphatically expressed. So Ps. Ixix. 20, ‘Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness; I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.’ And Ps. xl. 12, ‘Innumerable evils have compassed me about.’ He had not only our infirmities, but he felt them, and was deeply sensible, both of them, and of the evils and troubles which through them he was exposed unto. Hence is that description of him, Isa. liii. 3.