Hebrews 5
LenskiCHAPTER V
The Deep Humiliation of Jesus Shows Him to Be Our Great High Priest, v. 1–10.
Hebrews 5:1
1 The γάρ introduces this entire explanation (v. 1–10) which is an elucidation of 4:14–16, the essential point of which is found in 4:16: as our great High Priest Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, having been tried and tempted in every way in like manner as we are tried. We are now told that every Jewish high priest was a man who was taken from among men so as to be able to feel for them, he himself being beset with weakness. We are also told that this is not an office that anyone should take for his own glory. Since he was placed into this office by God, we see how deeply Christ was humiliated and by all that he suffered was made complete as our High Priest, one after the order of Melchizedek, no less than the cause of our salvation.
Once more, as in 2:9–18, but now from a new and a different angle the lowliness of Christ is presented in its true light for the Jewish Christian readers. Instead of being repelled by this lowliness it ought to be the very feature that should attract them. Instead of going back to the old Judaism with its high priests this Great High Priest should hold them. Although he was the very Son of God (4:14), the High Priest after the exalted order of Melchizedek, beyond all other high priests, he was yet brought down to the deepest suffering and a dependence on God in the days of his flesh, was drawn down completely to us in our weakness, was infinitely more than our brother and yet completely our brother (2:11, etc.), and was in every way the cause of our salvation (v. 9). Once more the Jewish objection to the lowly Jesus is not only removed, but the lowliness is again shown to be his High-priestly qualification, the one that brings him so exceedingly near to us in our weakness.
For every high priest, taken from among men for the benefit of men, is appointed with reference to the things pertaining to God to offer both gifts and sacrifices in behalf of sins, as able to be moderate with the ignorant and erring since also he himself is encompassed with weakness and for this reason is obliged, as for the people, so also for himself, to make offering for sins.
This is true with regard to every ordinary high priest among the Jews as the readers, who were formerly Jews, know full well. We read the whole section as a unit. The emphasis is on the participial clause used in v. 2: “as able to be moderate with the ignorant and erring.” This is not the same as the ability of Jesus “to sympathize with our weakness” (4:15) but, while it is less, it is of the same order. There is here as throughout only likeness and not sameness. We note that every one of these high priests has sins like the people and must bring an offering for himself as well as for them; our High Priest is like us in every particular but one, he is “without sin” (4:15). His whole high-priestly function and his sacrifice are therefore vastly higher. Those high priests were only the type, Jesus is the antitype; yet the type does reflect the antitype.
The typical feature mentioned here is one that is frequently not noted: as every high priest was human and was related to those for whom he officiated in what pertained to God, so also Jesus stood in the same relation, as has already been developed in 2:9–18. Resting on this is the further and main point: as every high priest, because of his relation to the people, is able to have a feeling of moderation for them, so Jesus, because of his relation to us, is able to have even more, namely a feeling of fullest sympathy with us. Who, knowing and understanding this, could ever think of turning away from him?
The whole statement is worded perfectly, each brief item is expressed in just the proper terms, and each is found in just the proper place. Nothing is detracted from the Jewish high priests in order to magnify Jesus; yet by according them all that is theirs Jesus is magnified the more, and in a feature that is seldom noted, one that should win and hold every heart that has any knowledge of the Jewish high priesthood, and any feeling of need for sympathy in his weaknesses, and any longing for sympathetic genuine help (4:16). The present tenses are general as is customary in broad statements. Many a Jewish high priest, like Caiaphas and others of this last period of Judaism, was wicked and vicious and not at all like those mentioned. The writer makes no use of this widely known fact. Those of his readers who thought of it—and most of them surely did—were the more impressed. They are here told only about God’s arrangement of giving his people of the old covenant high priests who were able to act with moderation for the ignorant and erring on the great Day of Atonement.
Unlike our versions, we construe: every high priest “taken from among men for the benefit of men”; the two phrases that have ἄνθρωποι are to be construed with the participle: God took every high priest from men to function for men. Each one was human and was to act for those who were human; each was one of their number. Every one “is appointed with reference to the things regarding God” (τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν as in 2:17), an adverbial accusative and not an accusative with an intransitive verb (R. 486).
The ἵνα clause is appositional and states what things are especially referred to: “to offer both gifts and sacrifices in behalf of sins.” We have the same statement in 8:3 and in 9:9 and thus do not cancel τε and make the “sacrifices” a part of the “gifts.” It seems certain that this is a reference to the functions of the high priest on the great Day of Atonement and not to festivals and Sabbaths when the high priest also sacrificed. Leviticus 1, 2 speak only of “the priests, Aaron’s sons”; Leviticus 16 speaks of Aaron and the Day of Atonement. The “gifts” may refer to the incense mentioned in Lev. 16:12, an accompaniment of the blood rite observed in the Holy of Holies προσφέρω is not commonly used in secular Greek with reference to bringing sacrifices. Ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν = “in behalf of sins,” i. e., to remove them.
Hebrews 5:2
2 What the high priest does on the Day of Atonement is not the point, but how he does it: “as able to be moderate with the ignorant and erring,” for whose sins of ignorance and erring he makes this atonement. Flagrant sinners, open violators were cut off from Israel without atonement and were cursed of God. Only those who erred in ignorance and thus had sins resting on them were freed on the Day of Atonement, for despite all the daily sacrifices such sins still remained, and the high priest acted for the people as a whole, for any and for all such sins. Although he had to deal with sins the high priest was not to be harsh and severe and act the part of a stern judge. He was “to be moderate.” This term is carefully chosen. He was not to ignore the sins (for he was to make atonement for them as being sins), nor was he to condemn these sins to their proper punishment (for it was his part to make atonement for them).
“Since also he himself is encompassed with weakness” is the high priest’s motive and reason for moderation toward all those for whom he officiates. Here, too, the moderate word “weakness” is in place; it is a companion to “ignorant and erring” and recalls “our weaknesses” (4:15) with which Jesus sympathizes. The intransitive περίκειμαι is used as the passive of περιτίθημι and thus has the accusative with passives, R. 815.
Hebrews 5:3
3 The ἐπεί clause continues the thought: “and for this reason is obliged, as for the people, so also for himself, to make offering for sins.” Like the people, the high priest has sins so that he must make atonement in particular “for himself and for his household” (Lev. 16:17). We may have ὑπέρ or περὶἁμαρτιῶν as is the case in v. 1 and 2 of this chapter, with practically no difference in meaning. One who is thus bound together with the people in weakness and sins could, indeed, be moderate toward the ignorant and the erring; his very office involved as much and served as a constant reminder.
But this is typical of Jesus, yet it is so only as the partial and imperfect may reflect the complete and perfect. The link is the fact that Jesus, too, is one of the people and shares our weakness as a man; the thing typified is his sympathy with our weaknesses, which is imaged to a degree in the moderation of the high priest toward the weak. The type extends no farther, for the high priest has the weakness that produces sins while Jesus is wholly “without sin” (4:15). By how much more, then, ought the former Jews to be drawn to Jesus who, in this comparison, appears most truly as “the great High Priest,” not another type, not a continuation of the type, but the great Antitype in his compassionate fellow feeling and sympathy for us?
A quiet appeal and an invitation to the readers seem to be implied. Have some doubted, wavered, thought of reverting to Judaism? Then they, too, are among “the ignorant and erring.” Let them hasten to the throne of grace (4:16); their High Priest is full of sympathy for their weaknesses (4:15); they need his “timely help” (4:16). If, however, they remain obdurate, the writer has another word for them (6:4–8).
Hebrews 5:4
4 And not for himself does anyone take the honor but as called by God even also as Aaron. Thus also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest but the One who said to him:
Son of mine art thou,
I myself have begotten thee!
Even also in a different place he says:
Thou a priest for the eon
According to the order of Melchizedek!
To the first requirement of the high priesthood, the relation of the incumbent to those for whom he makes offering, there is naturally added the second, that no man can take this honor of the high priesthood for himself. Since he must function in “the things pertaining to God” and do that for all the people, it is God who must call him; God alone can say whose priestly function is acceptable to him. It was thus in the case of Aaron, the first high priest of the Israelites (Exod. 28:1).
Hebrews 5:5
5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in order to become High Priest; on the contrary (ἀλλά), he glorified him to become High Priest who spoke to him the words written in Ps. 2:7: “Son of mine art thou,” etc. In v. 4 the high priesthood of Israel is called “the honor” which is bestowed upon the incumbents of this office by God; when reference is now made to Christ (the Messiah), the greater word “glorified” is properly used. See the exposition of Ps. 2:7 in 1:5. In that connection the supreme royal office of Christ is based on the statement which the King quotes from Jahweh as also the further quotations, especially 1:8, 9, show. Yet the office of the Messiah is one and has prophetic, high-priestly, and royal functions. Here the high-priestly are in the mind of the writer.
Hebrews 5:6
6 Hence a further quotation is added, one in which both the priestly and the royal features are combined, namely Ps. 110:4: “Thou a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek” and not merely according to the order of Aaron. The writer intends to elucidate the resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek in distinction from the Aaronitic priesthood (chapter 7). We may, therefore, be brief at this point. Psalms 110 has been quoted already in 1:13, but not the lines that are now cited. Melchizedek was both king and priest, but not so Aaron. When Kittel, Die Psalmen, tones this down by saying that Jewish kings exercised also priestly functions, the flinty fact remains that during the whole history of Israel the high priesthood was never combined with the kingship.
No king ever entered into the Holy of Holies to offer the blood of atonement. In the whole Old Testament there appears only one character who is both king and priest, Melchizedek, king of Salem, whose priesthood no less a person than Abraham himself recognized. More about this in chapter 7.
Secondly, Melchizedek appears alone; no father or mother, no sons of his are mentioned in Scripture. He does not inherit his priesthood, nor does he transmit it to others. This strange figure, both priest and king, is the type of Christ who also stands alone, King and Priest in one, not by inheritance from predecessors, not transmitting his office to successors. The objection that Melchizedek is not called “high priest” is not valid, for any “priest” who is at the same time “king” is certainly the highest priest.
Thirdly, Melchizedek passed away, we hear no more of him; but he had no succession as Aaron had. In this feature he is the type of Christ whose priesthood is “for the eon,” i. e., forever, with no successor in fact and none even possible. What the uniqueness of Melchizedek typified as best it could is the completeness of Christ’s atonement: once accomplished, it stands forever. Aaron and his sons could typify some things in regard to Christ’s High Priesthood, Melchizedek others. Ps. 110:4 thus sheds much light on Ps. 2:7; we see that Ps. 2:7 is properly used here. The writer does not want his readers to stop with the thought of Aaron when he calls Christ “the great High Priest” (4:14) and speaks of his priesthood. Melchizedek shows that here there is One who is greater than Aaron.
This must have had a tremendous effect on the readers who were former Jews. While they are thinking of going back to Judaism and its Aaronitic, Levitical high priesthood because they regarded it better than that of the lowly Jesus, these readers are startled to find one who is greater than Aaron in their Old Testament, one whom Abraham himself honored as being no less than a king-priest.
We should also see the wisdom of this writer; here and in v. 10 he does no more than to use the Old Testament phrase “according to the order of Melchizedek.” God used this phrase with reference to the Messiah. Had the readers ever thought of that? Not at once and in one mass is the significance of this fact poured out upon the readers; they are to absorb its significance gradually. Thus the object of the writer will be the more completely attained. No mind will revert to Aaron; Melchizedek stands in the way. As sons of Abraham, who bowed before Melchizedek as the type of Christ (John 8:56), who never even knew the Aaronitic high priesthood, these Jewish Christian readers must surely follow Abraham.
Or do they intend to harden their hearts (2:8, etc.)? David, too, Israel’s great king who was in various ways a type of the Messiah, whose psalm is quoted, by revelation saw in Melchizedek the Royal Priest Christ and sang about him.
Hebrews 5:7
7 On the basis of the ordeal through which Christ passed the great relative clause (v. 7–10) establishes the fact that he accomplished his High-priestly work only in obedience to God and was thus designated by God what the psalm calls him: High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. What Jesus faced was that which was completely repugnant to flesh and blood, what he could undergo only by obedience and not by arrogant ambition. Some stop with this thought. But the description of the ordeal is surely to be combined with 4:15, 16 as well as with 5:2: the trial Jesus underwent in likeness to us, which caused him to be filled with sympathy for our weaknesses and gave him the moderation for the ignorant and erring that was so necessary for any high priest. The subject of v. 5, 6 is “Christ” and the pronouns “thou” in the quotations; ὅς takes up Christ, and does this in a demonstrative way: he who in the days of his flesh, having brought both petitions and supplications to him who is able to save him from death together with strong crying and tears, and having been heard for his godly fear, he, though being (the) Son, learned the obedience from what he suffered and, having been made complete, became for all those obeying him (the) cause of eternal salvation, designated by God (the) High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
“In the days of his flesh” takes us back from the glorified, heavenly state of Jesus at God’s right hand (1:8, 9, 13) to the time when he passed his days in the state of humiliation here on earth; he took our blood and flesh in order to die (2:14; compare 10:20). It is the night of Gethsemane, for there “he brought both petitions and supplications to him who is able to save him from death together with strong crying and tears.” Note the strong doubling in “petitions (beggings) and supplications,” which is intensified still more by the phrase “together with strong crying and tears.” This was the agony endured in the Garden just before Jesus voluntarily delivered himself into the hands of his mortal enemies.
Ἱκετηρία has become a noun although it was originally an adjective with ῥάβδος or ἐλαία to be supplied: “an olive branch bound round with wool, held forth by the suppliant in token of the character he bore” (Trench). It is found only here in the New Testament. The word means “humble, lowly pleading.” The Gospels say nothing about the tears of Jesus during his agony of prayer in Gethsemane, but their accounts are brief, and this item may well have been reported by the three witnesses and have been preserved orally. We certainly do not say that the writer of Hebrews merely pictured the scene to himself and added the detail of the tears. The κραυγή or loud cry is derived from the Gospels, for the three disciples were a stone’s throw away and yet heard all the words of Jesus’ prayers.
In v. 2 προσφέρω is used with reference to priestly acts, and some think that this second aorist participle is used with the same force here. When offerings are brought, the dative and not πρός is regularly used. The fact that the πρός phrase is to be construed with the participle and not with “petitions and supplications” is evident on the basis of the participle itself, for it is a compound of πρός. The thought that the prayers, crying, and tears of Jesus were offerings brought to God is out of place, and doubly so in this description of Jesus’ supreme ordeal. The great object of the writer is to describe the agony of Jesus in its full intensity. That is the depth of his humiliation.
These are not “prayers” such as we read of at other times but literal beggings as well as pitiful pleadings of the man Christ Jesus in his utter dependence on God. Here there is all the weakness of the lowly flesh, the humble human nature which he bore, which accompanied his begging and pleading with (μετά) agonized crying and unrestrained tears.
The supreme moment had come for him as a man, and it had come of his own volition; he was now prepared to step into the death which was the curse of the world’s sin in order to be made sin and a curse for us (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). His entire human being recoiled from the horror of taking this step. Jesus knew all along that it would come to this and himself foretold his suffering and his death; yet already in John 12:27, 28 we see how his soul is troubled, and how already then he prays the Gethsemane prayer. When the actual hour came, then there occurred what is stated here. Our minds may ask all sorts of questions and seek explanations, but the facts stand: Jesus quivered in the depth of agonized suffering—and obeyed.
“To the One able to save him from death” he cried. This might mean that God should not let him enter death, or that, having entered death, God should raise him up again and thus take him out of death. It cannot be the latter because Jesus never prays to God regarding his resurrection. Already in John 12:27 and also in Gethsemane he prayed that, if it be possible, God might not make him drink the cup of death. Yet in John 12:28 this prayer ends: “Father, glorify thy name!” and in Gethsemane: “Not my will, but thine be done!” Some, like the A. V. with its references, introduce Golgotha and the cries on the cross (Matt. 27:46, 50), but these were neither beggings nor pleadings, nor were they accompanied by tears. The ultimate obedience was learned in Gethsemane, after Gethsemane and on the cross the obedience was only carried out.
The second participle elucidates the first: “and having been heard for his godly fear.” Two facts are stated: that Jesus’ begging and pleading was actually heard and fully granted by God, and that this granting was due to his εὐλάβεια. Superficial readers of the Gethsemane account take it that Jesus prayed not to die, that God, nevertheless, let him die, and that God did not grant his prayer, and then draw the conclusion that God at times does not grant our prayers, nor must we expect him to grant them. Yet we are told that “he was heard,” which means that his pleadings were granted.
Some commentators start with the same opinion, namely that what Jesus really begged for was to be kept from death; they see, too, that it is here said that God granted this prayer. But in making these two statements agree they are satisfied with what is not really an agreement: they let the answer to the pleadings consist in God’s freeing Jesus from the fear of death. It should be seen that the prayer was then really not answered, was at most answered only partially. Jesus did not ask to be saved from the fear of death; neither the Gospels nor our passage say this. To receive no more than deliverance from such fear is not a real hearing of his prayer, if what he prayed for was deliverance from death.
The mistake lies in this latter assumption. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death, only with an “if”: “if it be possible” (Matt. 26:39); “if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it” (v. 42). The real burden of his prayer was: “Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36). So also Matt. 26:39, 42, “thy will be done,” and this prayer of Jesus was fully and truly granted.
Jesus’ prayer was heard and granted ἀπʼ εὐλαβείας. We cannot separate this phrase from the participle and draw it forward to the main verb: “from his reverent fear Jesus learned his obedience”; we construe: “having been heard for his reverent fear.” Ἀπό does not indicate cause (R. 580) but source or derivation; and the noun does not mean “the fear of death” but “the reverent fear of God” which shrinks from contravening God’s will; “the fear of death” is the view of those who regard its removal as the answer to the prayer.
We see this εὐλάβεια manifested in the words: “Not my will be done, but thine,” and in John 12:28: “Father, glorify thy name!” where also the same answer was given: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” “From” (ἀπό) reverent fear of deviating from God’s will as the proper answer to it came the granting of Jesus’ prayer although it accepted his death on the cross as the final and complete execution of God’s will. Both B.-D. 211 and Riggenbach are right: εἰσακούω cannot mean “to hear and free” or “by hearing to save” from the fear of death or from death. C.-K. 662 has the correct view of the noun but mars the interpretation of the whole clause by regarding the resurrection of Jesus as the answer to his reverent pleading.
Hebrews 5:8
8 By means of this ordeal of pleading and this answer on the part of God, Jesus, “though being (the) Son, learned the (full) obedience from what he suffered.” The article is absent only because υἱός is the predicate; hence the translation “a Son” in our versions is incorrect. “The obedience,” with the article, means the well-known complete obedience as distinguished from obedience in general. “Though being the Son, he learned the obedience” means that the Son, although he as such naturally obeyed the Father, “in the days of his flesh,” when all his flesh and human nature recoiled as it could not but recoil from the terrible death for the sin and guilt of the world, learned “from what he suffered” the ultimate obedience, learned it as a man learns by actually undergoing that suffering in obedience.
Paul says the same thing in Phil. 2:6, 8: though in the form of God (“though being the Son”) he lowered himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (“learned the obedience from what he suffered”), the cross involving the curse (Gal. 3:13) for the world’s sin (2 Cor. 5:21). All his begging and pleading in Gethsemane showed his willingness to obey, and the sufferings into which he then went obediently were the actual obedience he learned. He endured them all in perfect obedience until he expired on the cross.
We may distinguish between Jesus’ active and his passive obedience when we analyze; but in reality the two are ever found together as one obedience. It is imperfect thinking to separate them so as to think that the active was for himself and only the passive for us, the active in order to make the passive perfect and without blemish as a pure and holy sacrifice to God. Note that καίπερ is always used with a participle; in ἔμαθεν—ἔπαθε we have an unsought but beautiful parechesis. We may recall 3:2: “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, being faithful,” etc.
Hebrews 5:9
9 He learned the obedience “and, having (thus) been made complete, became for all those obeying him (the) cause of eternal salvation, designated by God (the) ‘High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.’” This is the same thought that was expressed in 2:10: “that God as bringing many sons to glory make the Author of their salvation complete by means of suffering.” We have the same agent, namely God; the same means, namely suffering; the same verb τελειοῦν, to bring to a τέλος or goal, “to make complete”; the same object: “the Author of their salvation”—“the cause of eternal salvation”; finally, the same beneficiaries: many sons being brought to glory—all those obeying him, and 2:10 ends with 2:17, 18, the merciful and faithful High Priest who was tried and tempted. In the interpretation of 2:10 we have given that of 5:9.
In neither passage is there an idea of God’s making Jesus morally complete. We refer the reader to what we have noted under 2:10. We reject the view that Jesus underwent a moral development and then attained completeness in his personal Lebensstand. “Made complete” means complete as “the cause of eternal salvation.” Without suffering the death which Jesus suffered he would not have been the complete Savior. To be Prophet and King would not have been enough; he had to be also High Priest and bring the blood of the all-sufficient atonement. Those who regard Jesus as being morally perfected go outside of the text in order to find the completeness referred to in τελειωθείς; but it always lies inside the text: “made complete as the cause of eternal salvation”—αἴτιος, “cause” = the personal term ὁἀρχηγός, “the Author,” the one term elucidates the other.
“Many sons” in 2:10 = “all those obeying him,” for true sons of God obey Jesus. The present participle describes their constant obedience. It is chosen in order to match the obedience of Jesus, for we are his brothers (2:11). We learn our obedience to him from him. He is our example. But it would be unwarranted to think that God made Jesus complete only as our example in obedience so that we may have him as our perfect model.
Can we be the cause of anyone’s eternal salvation? “Those who obey him” are denominated thus because they do vastly more than to copy his moral example of obedience to God. To obey him, namely Jesus, means above all to believe in him, to yield to him the obedience of faith, which then naturally results in doing his will by moral living, which is the fruit of such faith. The disobedience referred to in 3:18 is the unbelief mentioned in 3:19. We enter into God’s rest (4:3) as “the believing ones.” Note “the disobedience” in 4:11, which again means unbelief. Αἴτιος is the substantive, literally, “the One who causes,” and is more appropriate than the abstract feminine αἰτία; since it is the predicate it does not have the article; in English the article is needed.
The discussion as to when Jesus became the cause of our eternal salvation is unnecessary. It occurred when he said on the cross: “It has been finished!” and yielded up the spirit. There is no need to postpone this until the time of the ascension and the sessio ad dextram. There is a significance in the writer’s saying “the cause of eternal salvation for all those obeying him.” Are the readers among this number? They have already been warned, notably in 3:11. Were some not thinking of disobeying in unbelief?
Hebrews 5:10
10 The last aorist participle rounds out the entire statement: “greeted or designated by God ‘High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek,’” not by the writer on the basis of a deduction he has made but “by God” in the Davidic Psalms 110. This brings us to all that v. 6 has said and to the thought that Jesus certainly did not make himself High Priest. Here we have more than the antitype of Aaron, here is the type of Melchizedek, which was established already in Abraham’s day. This High Priest was the cause of eternal salvation. We date the aorist passive participle back to David’s psalm. That was prophecy, indeed, which was fulfilled when Jesus completed his High-priestly sacrifice on the cross.
A Humiliating Rebuke for the Readers, v. 11–14.
Hebrews 5:11
11 The writer is very frank with his readers. We have noted this in his admonitions, which are direct and do not mince words. He has touched upon the subject of Christ’s High Priesthood which is not prefigured in Aaron but in the remarkable king-priest Melchizedek who, more than Aaron, reflects the greatness and the endlessness of Christ’s High Priesthood. Shall the writer go on and say more on this subject even as there is much more of the highest value to be said? Something has come over his readers that makes him hesitate. They are no longer the people they once were.
Their ears have become sluggish. The writer tells them plainly what is the matter with them. Their sorry condition makes it hard for him to expound what God says in reference to Christ and Melchizedek. He intends to make the attempt in spite of this even as he has already begun to do (v. 4–10). His object in scoring his readers as he now does is to rouse them to use their ears as they formerly did; besides this he justifies himself for presenting the subject (7:1, etc.) in utmost simplicity as one feeds milk to babes. They themselves are the cause for his proceeding in ABC fashion.
This rebuke hurts. These readers were former Jews and were, therefore, thoroughly versed in the Old Testament. Now it, however, develops that they have been thinking of dropping back into the old Judaism and giving up Christ. Are they really such babes as not to know what God himself says about the supreme and eternal High Priesthood of Jesus in connection with Melchizedek to whom even Abraham bowed? Well, then the writer will put it in the form of milk for them so that as babes they may grow up anew. This rebuke is thoroughly deserved; it is at the same time administered so as to produce the fullest effect for the simple instruction that is now to follow.
The Greek phrasing is so idiomatic that a literal translation must be given up. Regarding whom there is much for us to say, and it is made difficult to expound in saying it since you have become sluggish as regards hearing. Περὶοὗ is best regarded as a masculine because 7:1 begins with οὗτος, Melchizedek: In regard to Melchizedek as showing us the Priesthood of Jesus there is much for us to say, ὁλόγος, the discourse required, is πολύς, considerable. There is much to be said about him, and all of it is most valuable. We supply ἐστί. The dative ἡμῖν with the copula is not the same as the genitive (v. 14). The latter = “belongs to”; the former = “one ought to.” Here: “we ought to say a great deal about Melchizedek.”
The plural is often regarded as an editorial plural: “I ought to say much,” and we are referred to 2:5: “concerning which we are speaking.” But the latter means “concerning which you and I are speaking”; so also our passage means “concerning whom there is much for you and me to say” in our λόγος or discussion. You will have questions to ask me, I will have answers, and both of us will discuss what God says. Although the sentence begins with a relative, this is only the Greek way of linking up; we should say: “Regarding him there is much,” etc.
So much is there for us to discuss, and so hard is it to do it because of the condition of your ears! The verbal adjective is the second predicate with πολύς after the implied copula. It is passive in meaning: “made hard to expound or to interpret,” and is modified by the infinitive “made hard to say in an expository way.” The Greek matches ὁλόγος and λέγειν, it is hard to duplicate this in English: the discourse required is considerable and is made difficult to discourse on so as to interpret since your ears have grown dull. The difficulty lies, not with what the Old Testament says about Melchizedek, not with the writer who knows what is said, but with the hearers and their sluggish ears. The sending station is in order, but the receiving radio set is out of order.
The perfect tense implies that the readers were once keen of hearing but have fallen into a dulled condition. This is now their state, and it is due to their inclination no longer to believe in Christ Jesus. Ταῖςἀκοαῖς is the dative of relation which is used in the plural with reference to the organs or sense of hearing; we may say “sluggish as regards your ears.” Unbelief closes the ears; incipient unbelief dulls them. These readers have made it difficult to interpret Melchizedek for them. By plainly telling them so the writer is trying to reopen those ears and to sharpen their hearing.
Hebrews 5:12
12 And, indeed, when, due to the length of time, you (now) ought to be teachers you again have need that someone teach you the elements of the beginning of the sayings of God and have come to have need of milk and not of solid food.
Γάρ is simply confirmatory, and καί adds this confirmation, which is really an intensification. Just look at yourselves, the writer says. Although you have been Christians for so long a time and ought to be teachers of other people you have dropped back so far that you need somebody again to teach you the very ABC of what God has said, you are like babes who need milk and have not yet advanced to solid food! This certainly hurts much more even than saying that their ears are sluggish. It is intended to hurt. Every presumption on the part of the readers must be destroyed so that they will hear.
Χρόνος is time in its length. The supposition that these were Palestinian Jews since they had been Christian for so long a time certainly makes the time long enough. But if they were Roman Jews who had been converted by Paul at the beginning of his first imprisonment they would by this time have been Christians long enough so that in view of their previous extensive knowledge of the Old Testament they should now, indeed, be teachers of others and certainly not need someone again to teach them the rudiments of the sayings Of God (τὰλόγιατοῦΘεοῦ, Rom. 3:2). Στοιχεῖα is used in the sense of “rudiments,” the ABC, and this meaning is assured by the genitive: “the rudiments of the beginning of the sayings of God,” i. e., the ones with which a beginning is made when one is learning what God has said in the Old Testament. The problem is, the writer says, as to how we are going to discuss Melchizedek and what God has said about him, which is beyond the ABC, when you readers have to have the ABC taught you again. Your condition certainly makes such a discussion hard for me.
This literal statement is enhanced by the figurative addition “and have come to have need of milk and not Of solid food.” Χρείανἔχοντες is predicative to γεγόνατε, the perfect indicating the condition into which the readers have relapsed, one in which they are able to digest only milk and not solid food. The writer’s problem is to reduce God’s sayings about Melchizedek, which are really solid food, to milk for these readers who have reverted to babyhood. Well, this will explain the simplicity with which he proceeds in chapter 7.
Hebrews 5:13
13 For everyone partaking of milk is inexperienced in right discussion, for he is a child; but solid food belongs to mature persons, to those who by reason of their condition have their senses trained for discrimination of both what is excellent and what is bad.
“For” = “as I need hardly tell you,” “as you all know.” Everyone who is so young as to be on a diet of milk is incapable of doing anything in the way of λόγοςδικαιοσύνης, he is still a child, anything that resembles proper discussion is beyond him. The genitive after the adjective is an ablative (R. 516), and δικαιοσύνης is adjectival: “right” discussion. A babe is not advanced enough in experience for such discussion; he is at best able to talk about childish things. On νήπιος compare 1 Cor. 13:11 as the best illustration of the meaning of the word. Some go too far when they think of a babe at its mother’s breast that is able only to babble. As in v. 11 λόγος = discussion, Eroerterung (C.-K. 672). Although the statement is figurative it is worded so as to indicate what the figure signifies in the present connection.
Some, among them our versions, regard “the word of righteousness” as having an objective genitive: the word that treats of righteousness, the gospel about Christ’s righteousness or about our imputed or acquired righteousness. Then, however, the article should be attached. The expression occurring in 7:2: “king of righteousness,” is not pertinent. The context of our chapter contains no reference to righteousness.
Hebrews 5:14
14 The figure is continued: “but solid food belongs to mature persons,” the predicate genitive with “is”: “is of” = “belongs to.” And τέλειοι is explained: “to those who by reason of their condition have their senses trained (or exercised) for discrimination of both what is excellent and what is bad,” i. e., who are able to discriminate between the two. The figurative language is again so worded as to indicate the reality to which it applies. There is some uncertainty about ἕξις although it evidently refers to the maturity that is attained by the τέλειοι, thus their condition. The expression γεγυμνασμέναἐχόντων is not a periphrastic perfect, for the perfect participle simply modifies τὰαἰσθητήρια.
The reference to “both what is excellent and what is bad” does not drop the figure and now mean what is morally and spiritually excellent or, on the other hand, bad, for we read as one thought: “having their senses trained for discriminating between what is excellent and what is bad,” namely in the way of solid food, which to eat, which to shun. There is only a contrast of maturity with childhood, of ability to discriminate and inability to do so. There is no thought of some special high development; the writer would be fully satisfied if his readers were the mature people they once were, and if they had not dropped back into a childhood that is lacking discrimination.
The rebuke is ended, and the writer counts on its effect, namely that his readers will shake off their sluggishness in hearing, will not compel him to begin their instruction over again but will rise to sufficient maturity to profit by what he will tell them as simply as he can regarding Melchizedek and Jesus.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.