Hebrews 5
EdwardsHebrews 5:1-4
Heb. 5:1-4. For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things (pertaining) to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as (was) Aaron.
Heb. 5:5-6
Hebrews 5:5-6
Heb. 5:5-6. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou are my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another (place), Thou (art) a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:6 enforces “Christ’s Example to Gospel Ministers”:
Ministers should imitate their great Master in his fervent prayers for the good of the souls of men. We find it to be Christ’s manner whenever he undertook any thing of special importance in the work of his ministry, first to retire and pour out his soul in extraordinary prayer to his Father. Thus when he was about to enter on a journey, and go a circuit throughout all Galilee, to preach in their synagogues, “he rose up a great while before day, and went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed,” Mark 1:35-39. And when he was about to choose his twelve apostles, and send them out to preach the gospel, he first went out into a mountain to pray and continued all night in prayer to God, Luke 6:12. And the night before his crucifixion, wherein he offered up himself a sacrifice for the souls of men, he pours out his soul in extraordinary prayer, for those he was about to die for, as we have an account in John 17. That wonderful and most affecting prayer of his, was not so much for himself as for his people.
Although he knew what amazing sufferings he was to undergo the next day, yet he seems as it were to be unmindful of himself, and to have his heart all taken up with concern about his disciples; which he manifests in his spending so much time in comforting and counselling them, and praying for them with great affection, compassion, earnest care and fatherly tenderness. And the prayers that he made in the garden of Gethsemane, under the amazing view of the cup he was to drink the next day, seem to be intercessory; especially the last of the three prayers which he there made, when being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground: when he did not pray that the cup might pass from him, as he had done before, but that God’s will might be done. (Compare Luke 22:44, with Matthew 26:42.) That prayer, as the apostle teaches us, Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 5:7, was a prayer that he put up as our High Priest; and therefore must be a prayer of intercession for us, a prayer offered up with his blood which he sweat in his agony; as prayers were wont to be offered up with the blood of the sacrifices in the temple. His prayer at that time, Thy will be done, was not only an expression of submission, but had the form of a petition, as it is in the Lord’s prayer. He prayed that God’s will might be done in his being enabled to do the will of God, persevering in obedience unto death; and in the success of his sufferings; which might in an eminent manner be called the will of God, as it is in Psalms 40:7; Psalms 40:8 : “Then said I, Lo, I come. - I delight to do thy will, O my God.”
In the Humble Attempt Edwards uses this text to show that “the same he shed his blood for, he also shed tears for, and poured out prayers for.”
This is the sum of the benefits Christ obtains for men by his intercession (John 14:16-17). “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of Truth.” Herein consists Christ’s communicative fullness, even in his being full of the Spirit, and so “full of grace and truth” [John 1:14], that we might of “this fulness receive, and grace for grace” [John 1:16]. He is “anointed with the Holy Ghost” [Acts 10:38]; and this is the ointment that goes down from the head to the members. “God gives the Spirit not by measure unto him” [John 3:34], that every one that is his “might receive according to the measure of the gift of Christ” [Ephesians 4:7]. This therefore was the great blessing he prayed for in that wonderful prayer, that he uttered for his disciples and all his future church, the evening before he died : the blessing he prayed for to the Father, in behalf of his disciples, was the same he had insisted on his preceding discourse with them: and this doubtless was the blessing that he prayed for, when as our high priest, he “offered up strong crying and tears,” with his blood (Hebrews 5:6-7). The same that he shed his blood for, he also shed tears for, and poured out prayers for. Heb. 5:7
Hebrews 5:7
Heb. 5:7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
The mostly-in-outline sermon of August 1741 on this text states: it is “My design from these words at this time is to contemplate these two things that Christ shed for sinners, viz. tears and blood.”
In the sermon our preacher at the height of Northampton’s great awakening first considers the compassionate, grieving, supplicating tears of Christ. There follows an even more moving description of Christ’s shedding his blood as well. The sermon ends, after instruction, with a passionate invitation to come to Jesus.
Heb. 5:8
Hebrews 5:8
Heb. 5:8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Perhaps surprisingly Edwards mentions Hebrews 5:8 while discussing in Freedom of the Will “that it was impossible that the Acts of the Will of the human soul of Christ should be otherwise than holy….”
Thus it is evident, that it was impossible that the acts of the will of the human soul of Christ should be otherwise than holy, and conformed to the will of the Father; or, in other words, they were neessarily so conformed. I have been the longer in the proof of this matter, it being a thing denied by some of the greatest Arminians, by Episcopius in particular; and because I look upon it as a point clearly and absolutely determining the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians, concerning the necessity of such a freedom of will as is insisted on by the latter, in order to moral agency, virtue, command or prohibition, promise or threatening, reward or punishment, praise or dispraise, merit or demerit. I now therefore proceed, II. To consider whether Christ, in his holy behavior on earth, was not thus a moral agent, subject to commands, promises, etc.: Dr. Whitby very often speaks of what he calls a freedom ad utrum libet, without necessity, as requisite to law and commands; and speaks of necessity as entirely inconsistent with injunctions and prohibitions. But yet we read of Christ’s being the subject of the commands of his Father (John 10:18; John 15:10). And Christ tells us, that every thing he said, or did, was in compliance with commandments he had received of the Father (John 12:49; John 12:50; John 14:31). And we often read of Christ’s obedience to his Father’s commands (Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 5:8).
It is not as surprising in the sermons on Justification by Faith.
So Christ’s laying down his life might be part of that obedience by which we are justified, though it was a positive precept not given to Adam. It was doubtless Christ’s main act of obedience, because it was obedience to a command that was attended with immensely the greatest difficulty, and so to a command that was the greatest trial of his obedience. His respect shown to God in it, and his honor to God’s authority was proportionably great: it is spoken of in Scripture as Christ’s principal act of obedience. Philippians 2:7; Philippians 2:8, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Hebrews 5:8. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered.” It was mainly by this act of obedience that Christ purchased so glorious a reward for himself; as in that place in Philippians 2:8; Philippians 2:9, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” And it therefore follows from what has been already said, that it is mainly by this act of obedience that believers in Christ also have the reward of glory, or come to partake with Christ in his glory. We are as much saved by the death of Christ, as his yielding himself to die was an act of obedience, as we are, as it was a propitiation for our sins: for as it was not the only act of obedience that merited, he having performed meritorious acts of obedience through the whole course of his life; so neither was it the only suffering that was propitiatory; all his sufferings through the whole course of his life being propitiatory, as well as every act of obedience meritorious: indeed this was his principal suffering; and it was as much his principal act of obedience. Heb. 5:9
Hebrews 5:9
Heb. 5:9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; [142] Hebrews 5:9. “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” By obeying, here, is not meant believing, but obedience to the law and commands of God, as it is understood in the foregoing verse. §83. The conditions of justification are, repentance and faith; and the freedom of grace appears in the forgiving of sin upon repentance, or only for our being willing to part with it, after the same manner as the bestowment of eternal life, only for accepting of it. For to make us an offer of freedom from a thing only for quitting of it, is equivalent to the offering the possession of a thing for the receiving of it. God makes us this offer, that if we will in our heart quit sin, we shall be freed from it, and all the evil that belongs to it, and flows from it; which is the same thing as the offering us freedom only for accepting it. Accepting, in this case, is quitting and parting with, in our wills and inclination. So that repentance is implied in faith; it is a part of our willing reception of the salvation of Jesus Christ; though faith with respect to sin implies something more in it, viz., a respect to Christ, as him by whom we have deliverance. Thus by faith we destroy sin, Galatians 2:18. §84. As to that question, Whether closing with Christ in his kingly office be of the essence of justifying faith? I would say: 1. That accepting Christ in his kingly office, is doubtless the proper condition of having an interest in Christ’s kingly office, and so the condition of that salvation which he bestows in the execution of that office; as much as accepting the forgiveness of sins, is the proper condition of the forgiveness of sin. Christ, in his kingly office, bestows salvation; and therefore, accepting him in his kingly office, by a disposition to sell all and suffer all in duty to Christ, and giving proper respect and honor to him, is the condition of salvation. This is manifest by Hebrews 5:9 “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him;” and by Romans 10:10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” The apostle speaks of such a confessing of Christ, or outward and open testifying our respect to him, and adhering to our duty to him, as exposed to suffering, reproach and persecution. And that such a disposition and practice is of the essence of saving faith, is manifest by John 12:42; John 12:43 : “Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also, many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God;” - compared with John 5:44, “How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” Heb. 5:10-11
Hebrews 5:10-11
Heb. 5:10-11. Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. In Some Thoughts on the Revival of Religion in New England, Edwards uses this text to show the need of the gradual introduction of new ideas so long as they are not matter of “absolute duty.”
Under this head of carelessness of the future consequences of things, it may be proper to say something of introducing things new and strange, and that have a tendency by their novelty to shock and surprise people. Nothing can be more evident from the New Testament, than that such things ought to be done with great caution and moderation, to avoid the offense that may be thereby given, and the prejudices that might be raised, to clog and hinder the progress of religion: yea, that it ought to be thus in things that are in themselves good and excellent, and of great weight, provided they are not things that are of the nature of absolute duty, which though they may appear to be innovations, yet cannot be neglected without immorality or disobedience to the commands of God. What great caution and moderation did the apostles use in introducing things that were new, and abolishing things that were old in their day? How gradually were the ceremonial performances of the law of Moses removed and abolished among the Christian Jews? And how long did even the Apostle Paul himself conform to those ceremonies which he calls “weak and beggarly elements” [Galatians 4:9]? Yea, even to the rite of circumcision (Acts 16:3) that he speaks so much in his epistles of the worthlessness of, that he might not prejudice the Jews against Christianity?
So it seems to have been very gradually that the Jewish Sabbath was abolished, and the Christian Sabbath introduced, for the same reason. And the apostles avoided teaching the Christians in those early days, at least for a great while, some high and excellent divine truths, because they could not bear ’em yet, 1 Corinthians 3:1-2; Hebrews 5:11 to the end. Thus strictly did the apostles observe the rule that their blessed Master gave them, of not putting new wine into old bottles, lest they should burst the bottles, and lose the wine [Matthew 9:17 and parallels]. Heb. 5:12
Hebrews 5:12
Heb. 5:12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which (be) the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Edwards has an entire sermon devoted to the exposition of this text. Frequently published, this is one of Edwards’ most important writings on Christian education. There is little doubt about the text though the MS is missing. A prelude to the awakening of 1740, its admonitions to earnest Bible study may well have been effective to that end.
Heb. 5:13
Hebrews 5:13
Heb. 5:13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. This verse Edwards sees as significant for the Qualifications controversy which led to his dismissal from Northampton:
And as to the words following in the next verse, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body;” these words by no means make it evident (as some hold) that what the apostle would have them examine themselves about, is whether they have doctrinal knowledge, sufficient to understand, that the bread and wine in the sacrament signify the body and blood of Christ. But on the contrary, to interpret the apostle in this sense only, is unreasonable upon several accounts. (1.) None can so much as go about such an examination, without first knowing that the Lord’s body and blood is signified by these elements. For merely a man’s putting this question to himself, Do I understand that this bread and this wine signify the body and blood of Christ? supposes him already to know it from previous information; and therefore to exhort persons to go about such an examination, would be absurd. And then (2), it is incredible, that there should be any such gross ignorance appearing in a number of the communicants in the Corinthian church, if we consider what the Scripture informs us concerning that church. As particularly, if we consider what an able and thorough instructor and spiritual father they had had, even the Apostle Paul, who founded that church, brought them out of their Heathenish darkness, and initiated them in the Christian religion, and had instructed them in the nature and ends of gospel ordinances, and continued at Corinth, constantly laboring in word and doctrine for a long while together, no less than a year and six months; and, as we may well suppose, administering the Lord’s supper among them every Lord’s day; for the apostle speaks of it as the manner of that church, to communicate at the Lord’s table with such frequency, 1 Corinthians 16:2. And the Corinthian church, at that day, when the apostle wrote this epistle, was a church noted for excelling in doctrinal knowledge; as is evident by chap. 1 Corinthians 1:5-7, and several other passages in the epistle.
Besides, the communicants were expressly told at every communion, every week, when the bread and wine were delivered to them in the administration, that that bread signified the body, and that wine signified the blood of Christ. And then besides (3), the apostle by his argument, chap. 1 Corinthians 10:16, supposes the Corinthians doctrinally acquainted with this subject already.
It therefore appears to me much more reasonable, to apprehend the case to be thus. The offensive behavior of the communicants at Corinth gave the apostle reason to suspect, that some of them came to the Lord’s table without a proper impression and true sense of the great and glorious things there signified; having no habitual hunger or relish for the spiritual food there represented, no inward, vital and experimental taste for that flesh of the Son of Man, which is meat indeed. The word translated discerning, signifies to discriminate or distinguish. The taste is the proper sense whereby to discern or distinguish food, Job 34:3. And it is a spiritual sense or taste which is that whereby we discern or distinguish spiritual food. Hebrews 5:14, “Those who by reason of use, have their sense exercised to discern both good and evil;” p??? d?a???s??, etc.
A word of the same root with that rendered discerning, in 1 Corinthians 11:29. He that has no habitual appetite to and relish of that spiritual food, which is represented and offered at the Lord’s table; he that has no spiritual taste, wherewith to perceive any thing more at the Lord’s supper, than in common food; or that has no higher view, than with a little seeming devotion to eat bread, as it were in the way of an ordinance, but without regarding in his heart the spiritual meaning and end of it, and without being suitably affected with the dying love of Christ therein commemorated; such a one may most truly and properly be said not to discern the Lord’s body.
When therefore the apostle exhorts to self-examination as a preparative for the sacramental supper, he may well be understood to put professors upon inquiring whether they have such a principle of faith, by means whereof they are habitually in a capacity and disposition of mind to discern the Lord’s body practically and spiritually (as well as speculatively and notionally) in their communicating at the Lord’s table. Which is what none can do who have but common grace, or a faith short of that which is justifying and saving. It is only a living faith that capacitates men to discern the Lord’s body in the sacrament with that spiritual sensation or spiritual gust, which is suitable to the nature and design of the ordinance, and which the apostle seems principally to intend. Heb. 5:14
Hebrews 5:14
Heb. 5:14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, (even) those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.