Commentary on Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles John Calvin (continued)
John Calvin regulates things belonging to dying men, (see verse 23,) but in accordance with what was suitable to one endued with permanent life or existence.
The argument of the whole passage seems to be as follows, --- There is no perfection in the Levitical priesthood, for another priest has been appointed. This being the case, the law respecting the priesthood must necessarily be changed; and that it is changed is proved by two things, --- by the fact that Christ did not spring from the tribe of Levi, and by the prophetic announcement that he was to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, and consequently a perpetual priest, and not like the sons of Aaron, who were priests in succession, being all subject to death.
Appendix B2
APPENDIX B 2
Chapter 7:19. But the bringing in, etc. Theophylact, Luther, Capellus, and others have rendered this noun as in the same predicament with ``disannulling'' or abrogation in the former verse, ---
18. ``There is therefore an abrogation of the preceding commandment, on account of its weakness and uselessness, (for
19. the law perfected nothing,) and an introduction of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God.''
This passage forms an inference or a conclusion from what has been said. The ``commandment'' abrogated was respecting the Levitical priesthood. Its ``weakness'' was, that it could not really atone for sin; and its uselessness, that it could not make men holy or confer life. The same thing is expressed in the words included in the parenthesis. But what has been said does not only prove that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, but also that there is brought in or introduced a better hope; which means that a better thing than the Levitical priesthood, which was an object of hope to the ancient saints, is introduced after that priesthood, and was expressly mentioned by David in the Psalms many years after the Levitical priesthood was established. This appears to be the genuine meaning of the passage.
Then the following verses come in very suitably, as the ``introduction'' is mentioned here, ---
20. ``And inasmuch as it was not without an oath, (for they 21. indeed were made priests without an oath, but he with an oath, made by him who said to him, 'The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, according
22. to the order of Melchisedec,') of a covenant so much the 23. better is Jesus the surety. They are also many who are made priests, because they are not suffered by death to continue; but he, because he abideth for ever, hath a priesthood that passeth not to another, (or more literally, hath an intransmissible priesthood.)''
What was not ``without an oath'' was ``the introduction,'' etc. There are
HEBREWS: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS
here two additional things stated as proving the superiority of Christ's priesthood: the oath proved that he was the surety of a better covenant; and his priesthood, unlike that of Aaron, which passed from one to another, was intransmissible or unsuccessive, as the word means, and not ``unchangeable,'' as in our version.
Appendix C2
APPENDIX C 2
Chapter 7:27. Who needeth not daily, etc A difficulty has been raised as to this verse. It is said that Christ did not, like the priests, offer up a daily sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, ``for this he did once when he offered up himself.'' It seems hence, it is said, that he offered a sacrifice for himself as well as for the people. In order to explain this, it has been proposed to take in the following verse; and it has been said that there is here an arrangement similar to what often occurs in the Prophets; that is, when two things are stated, the last is first referred to, and then the first. The two things here are the priest's own sins and those of the people. The Apostle is supposed to speak first of what Christ did as to the sins of the people, and then that in the following verse he shews that Christ had no sins of his own, for he became or was made ``a perfect priest,'' and that ``for ever,'' being sinless not only when he actually offered the great sacrifice, but also sinless as our intercessor in heaven.
This is the explanation of Bishop Jebb, and is adopted by Bloomfield. That arrangements of this kind are found in the New Testament, and even in this Epistle is what cannot be doubted. But the last word, ``perfected,'' will not admit of the meaning given to it, ``he is and was, and shall be everlastingly perfect and free from sin.'' Were this its meaning, there would be a complete correspondence with the former part. Perfection is twice before applied to Christ in this Epistle, (chapter 2:10; 5:9,) but not in the sense above stated. When Christ is said to be perfected or made perfect, the meaning is that he is completely fitted and qualified for his undertaking, or that he has fully completed his work of expiation. Here the meaning seems to be that he is for ever made perfect as a priest, having not only once for all made an adequate atonement for the sins of his people, but also continues a priest for ever.
As to the 27th verse, it may be thus rendered, --- 27. ``Who has no need daily to offer sacrifices, as the high priests, (first for their own sins, and then for those of the people:) for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself''
he did'' refers only to the offering of a sacrifice, and ``for their own sins,'' etc., apply only to the high priests. Thus we avoid the difficulty alluded to.
From an idea that the high priest offered sacrifices only once a year, i.e., on the day of expiation, Macknight renders {καθ} {ἡμέραν} ``from time to
John Calvin time,'' etc. He considers it as equivalent to {κατ} {ἐναυτὸν} ``from year to year,'' in chapter 10:1, and refers to Exodus 13:10, where ``from year to year'' is in Hebrew from ``days to days,'' and the same in the Sept., {ἀφ᾿} {ἡμερῶν} {εἰς} {ἡμέρας}. Whether the high priest offered sacrifices daily, is what cannot be ascertained from Scripture, though Stuart refers to Leviticus 6:19-22, and Numbers 28:3, 4, where nothing satisfactory is found. He quotes indeed some words from Philo, who says that this was the case. Scott considered that what was done daily by the priests is here attributed to the high priest, they being his coadjutors. But Macknight's explanation is the most satisfactory, especially as the comparison throughout is between Christ and the high priest.
The 28th verse may be thus rendered,--- ``For the law made men high priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, the Son, perfected for ever.''
or completely qualified, that is, as a priest. The word, perfected, depends as to its specific meaning on the context. The subject here is the perpetuity of the priest. The high priests under the Law did not continue because of death, (verse 23,) and this is the ``infirmity'' mentioned here, though in another place, (chapter 5:2,) it means sinfulness. Then the perfection of the Son is the perpetuity of his life, referred to in verses 16 and 24. The high priests died, and hence were not fitted for their work; but Christ lives, and therefore continues for ever fully qualified for his office. See verse 26.
Appendix D2
APPENDIX D 2
Chapter 8:1. This is the sum, etc Many think that the word {κεφάλαιον} does not mean here a sum in the sense of a summary, but a principal thing. So Chrysostom understood it. Macknight's version is, ``Now of the things spoken the chief is;'' Stuart's is substantially the same. But the idea seems to be somewhat different: the literal rendering is, ``Now the head as to the things said is,'' etc.; that is, the sum total, the whole amount.
Parkhurst quotes a passage from Menander which is very similar to the first part of this verse, {Τὸ} {δὲ} {κεφάλιιον} {τῶν} {λόγων} {῎Ανθρωπος} {εἶ}--- ``But the sum of my discourse is, Thou art a man,'' etc. The word means here the substance or the sum total. The word {,{ראשread, in Hebrew, has a like meaning, the total number of the people, Exodus 30:12; Numbers 4:2
Appendix E2
APPENDIX E 2
Chapter 8:9. And I regarded them not, etc The Apostle here follows the Sept., though in some other parts of this quotation he follows more closely the Hebrew. Our version in Jeremiah 31:32, is, ``although I was a husband to them,'' which is not countenanced by any of the earlier versions. The phrase is
HEBREWS: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS
peculiar, not found anywhere else except in Jeremiah 4:17; which is rendered by Kimchi, ``I have abhorred them.''
The verb means to have, to possess, to rule, to exercise dominion, to marry; and Pocock and some others think, that it means to loathe, to disdain, to abhor, when followed as here by the preposition {{בand it is said that its cognate in Arabic has this meaning. The Vulg. here is, ``and I have ruled over them;'' and the Syr., ``and I have despised them.'' The expression is softened by the Sept., ``and I have disregarded (or cared not) for them.'' The same is done as to the preceding clause, ``because they continued not in my covenant,'' which is in Hebrew, though not as rendered in our version, ``because they broke my covenant.'' So {{אשרrendered by the Syr. and the Targ. ``Which my covenant'' has been derived from the Vulg., and is a construction which the original will not bear.
Still the most probable and the easiest solution is, to suppose a typographical mistake in Jeremiah 31:32, the word {:{בעלתיbeing used instead of {:{בחלתי there being only one letter different. The reasons for this supposition are these: --- All the versions are different here from what they are in Jeremiah 4:17, where the same phrase is supposed to occur, --- and this latter verb is found in Zechariah 11:8, followed by: as here, and means to ``abhor,'' or according to some, to ``reject.''
There is also another word, {{נעלתיwhich has been mentioned, and has but one letter different; and as it is used by Jeremiah himself in chapter 14:19, and with {,{בin the sense of abhorring or loathing, it may justly be deemed as the most probable word.
But Newcome suggests another thing, a typographical mistake in the Greek. There is another reading in some copies of the Sept., and that is, {εμελησα}, ``I have cared for them;'' and this would in substance agree with ``I was a husband to them.'' This conjecture is less probable; for it involves a mistake both in the Sept. and in this Epistle. But either of these suppositions would reconcile the passages; and it is singular that in both cases the change required is only in one letter!
Appendix F2
APPENDIX F 2
Chapter 9:2 The first, etc. Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart, connect ``the first'' with ``tabernacle,'' but improperly. The rendering ought to be no doubt as in our version, or as follows, ``For a tabernacle was made; the first, in which were the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread, which is called holy.'' We find in verse 3, that ``the Holy of holies'' is also called a tabernacle, which was as it were the second tabernacle, or the second part of it, see verse 7. The word ``holy,'' followed by ``of holies,'' is an adjective agreeing in gender with tabernacle; and ``of holies'' seem to mean holy things; so that it might be rendered, ``The holy tabernacle of holy things.'' The accents are of no authority.