For every high priest taken from amongst men is established for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;
Hebrews 5 opens by defining the high priest: who he is, who appoints him, and what he does. Commentators read the words closely, because the picture is of Aaron's office, drawn to make Christ's priesthood stand out by contrast.
The first thing the verse settles is what kind of person the priest must be.
Every high priest was "taken from among men." This would be a very poor description if applied to Christ, but it is perfectly true of Aaron and his successors. They were only men, taken from among men. To speak of the Lord that way is to forget who He is. The Word became flesh. He became man, but God He was and is from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal. But in fact a high priest had to be a man, taken from among men. He was to represent man before God, and to represent God before men.
There is a reason no angel could fill the role, and a reason the man must be set apart.
An angel is no fitting priest for men, because the driving force behind active intercession is natural sympathy. Moreover, he is taken. God's choice separates him from the people he is to act for. He is God's minister. His consecration sets him apart from them. By nature they cannot deal directly with divine holiness, and that is why the God of grace ordained the consecration of priests.
The word behind "appointed" means to install someone in authority. In Scripture, God does the installing.
The word translated "ordain" is kathistemi, meaning to establish, or set up. It is also used in Heb. 5:1 and Heb. 8:3 of the high priesthood... It is the word usually used for appointment to authority... Note that every one of these passages refers to God's act.
The small word for matters. God appoints the priest on behalf of people; the people never appoint him. One writer draws a warning from this.
It tells the professing Church, in words not to be mistaken, to beware of human intrusion upon ground that belongs only to God. "For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men [not by men] in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. … And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God [not by men], just as Aaron was."
The phrase "in relation to God" marks the direction of the work.
He acts on their behalf. He was appointed in things relating to God, so when he carried out that service his face was turned toward God, not toward men. Here is a difference between ministering the Word and holding the office of priest. The minister of the Word must face people. He ministers to them. The priest turned to God. He sacrificed for the people, or interceded for them, as the case required.
The verse names two things, and they are not the same.
When Aaron was set apart, anointed and consecrated in his robes, he was there representatively to offer to God the gifts and sacrifices of the people who brought them to God. The first sacrifices were offered to set the priests apart. After that they offered the sacrifices on the altar of burnt offering, and Aaron offered the bull and the goat on the great day of atonement. People also brought gifts to God, such as the firstfruits, oil for the light, and spices for incense. The last act belonged to the priest: to offer to God what was brought. They all represented the response of the people to God.
Many read this description as a picture of Christ. One writer argues that the third verse rules that out, because the same priest must offer for his own sins.
The third verse ought to put it beyond dispute for any believer. The same high priest of the first two verses is described in the third verse too. He plainly has to offer for sins for himself — not only for others, but for his own need. Is it not obvious, then, that the priest described here is one like Aaron, or Aaron's son, and not one like Christ? Christ is compared with that description only to be contrasted with it.
Another writer allows that the opening description does fit Christ, but only up to a point.
Caring for man's interests before God, and offering gifts and sacrifices, are supremely true of Christ. But the comparison ends here. Aaron's priesthood was for earth alone, and his sacrifices had only a temporary, formal value. Christ's priesthood is eternal, and the value of His work is eternal.
- Taken — the priest is a man lifted out of the people he serves, since an angel could never represent men before God.
- Appointed — God sets the office up; no one claims it. The priest stands for men, but God installs him.
- Facing God — ministry of the Word turns toward people. Priesthood turns toward God, to sacrifice and intercede for them.
- Offering — sacrifices deal with sins. Gifts are the people's response to God. The priest presents both.
- Surpassed — the description fits Aaron, who also had to offer for his own sins. Commentators differ on how far it touches Christ. They agree the aim is to show that His priesthood is far greater.
being able to exercise forbearance towards the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is clothed with infirmity;
The chapter opens with a description of priesthood in general, and the next verse settles whose priesthood it is. A man who must sacrifice for his own sins is not Christ.
The Holy Spirit is not giving this as a description of Christ's priesthood at all, but of priesthood in contrast with His. The third verse should make this plain to any believer. Verse 3 describes the same high priest as the first two verses. He is required to offer for himself — not only for others, but for his own need. Is it not obvious, then, that this is a high priest like Aaron, or Aaron's son, and not one like Christ?
The Greek word behind the phrase appears nowhere else in the New Testament. It is milder than the warm sympathy we might read into it.
Two Greek words, sympatheo and metriopatheo, are both translated 'have compassion,' but there is a marked difference between them. Metriopatheo (from metriopathes, 'moderate in passions') occurs only once in the New Testament, in Hebrews 5:2. It refers to the priest under the law, who "exercised forbearance" — the true meaning of the word is 'bear reasonably with' — towards the ignorant and the erring, since he himself was clothed with weakness.
God could have appointed a flawless being to the office. The cost of that choice explains why He did not.
Suppose God had appointed a holy angel to act as high priest for Israel. There might have been great gain toward God, since every priestly duty would have been carried out with perfect accuracy and faithfulness. But there would have been great loss toward men, in a matter like compassion on the ignorant. Anyone who acts for people must understand people from experience.
These two words mark a limit. Only one kind of sin had a sacrifice under the law.
This raises a very important principle, one that people easily overlook. Under the law the only sins the sacrifices covered were sins of ignorance. If a man sinned deliberately, he was to die without mercy. There was no sacrifice for that. So, in the nineteenth psalm, David says, "Keep back your servant from presumptuous sins" — that is, sins done knowingly. "Who can discern his errors?" There are sins of ignorance. "Declare me innocent from hidden faults" — that is, faults I know nothing of, and yet which are certainly there.
Aaron's weakness was not simply a flaw in the man. The priesthood itself turned it into fitness for the job.
Aaron was a man subject to weakness like other men. He would have failed to meet this condition of the priesthood if he had not found in the priesthood itself what fitted him for compassion and sympathy. He was to offer sacrifices not only for the people but also for himself, and these offerings produced feelings towards others. They established his position before God, and at the same time they reminded him of his own weakness.
Law by itself has no give in it. The priest was where flexibility entered the system.
The law about vows considers the case of the poor man. He could turn from Moses to the priest, who would value him according to his ability. Now the priest was one who could "deal gently with the ignorant and wayward" (Heb. 5:2). Pure law itself admits of no flexibility: what is demanded must be paid in full. The priest represented that measure of grace that was permissible under the law system.
Christ also feels for the ignorant and straying. But His compassion has a different source.
Aaron was to sympathise with the people because his nature was the same, and his offerings were as necessary for himself as for them. The sympathy of our Lord comes instead from His all-knowing wisdom and from His lowly humbling of Himself in voluntary suffering and death — entering into our circumstances in pure grace. A wonderful contrast indeed! And His sympathy is more full and pure than that of the most tender-hearted son of Aaron could be.
- Chosen — the high priest comes from among men. Anyone who acts for people must know people from the inside. An angel would have served God perfectly and failed us.
- Gentle — the word means measured forbearance, not warm fellow-feeling. He bears with those who stumble instead of crushing them.
- Reaching — his care covers the ignorant and wayward. The law provided sacrifices for their sins. For sin done knowingly there was no sacrifice at all.
- Weak — his own weakness is what softened him. The offerings he made for himself kept reminding him that he was no better than the people he served.
- Surpassed — that same weakness ends the comparison. Christ's sympathy comes from grace and voluntary suffering, not from shared sinfulness. It is fuller and purer than Aaron's could ever be.