The Christadelphian 1933, John Carter

“The Letter to the Hebrews” 

An Analysis and Exposition

Christ’s Fitness as High Priest (verses 26–28)

Can we imagine a company of Hebrew Christians listening to the reading of the letter thus far, following its unanswerable argument as Paul logically presses his points from the acknowledged authority of the scriptures. From childhood it had been impressed upon every member of that company that “any other form of worship than that prescribed by Moses was a novelty, any other holy place except the temple, an impossibility; and a mixed assembly of Jews and Gentiles was little short of an abomination.” Even though they “accepted Jesus as the Messiah, (they) clung to the old ritual, and retained as prejudices what they could no longer maintain as principles of religious belief.”

Did they feel that their religious world, hitherto so seemingly secure, was breaking up; that those things which had seemed so fundamental were really the reverse? Did the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah involve even the annulment of the law? It did; but, says Paul, see what you get in its place. After all the law was a burden; it did not fit our needs; it left longings unsatisfied. But the priesthood of Jesus is exactly what we require.

“For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore.”

This high priest of ours “becomes” us; suits our case, and meets our every need. He excels all who have gone before. He is holy—“saintly in character”; he is “guileless,” harmless in his disposition, no evil in his thought. He never attributes wrong to those who approach as Eli did Hannah. He is “undefiled.” While Aaron’s sons must avoid ceremonial defilement, and submit to extra precautions before the day of Atonement, Jesus is free from moral defilement, the spiritual counterpart of the ceremonial. He has been “separated” from sinners; in his life he was separate in his conduct, but now he is altogether beyond the influence or power of men, for he has ascended higher than the heavens to the Father’s presence.

The ministry of this high priest surpasses that of the high priests under the law. They offered an annual sacrifice on the day of Atonement. Christ’s ministry is daily, but he does not therefore need a daily sacrifice. His one sacrifice is sufficient for all time, emphatically once for all.

Aaron offered “for his own sins, and then for the people’s,” in his annually repeated offerings. But “this” Jesus did once. What does “this” denote? Grammatically it is a disputed point. Two opinions by equally eminent scholars might be put side by side. “‘This’ refers only to offerings for the people” (Davidson). “‘This’ implies all that follows ‘offer up’” (Nairne).

Certainly Paul did not mean that Jesus had need to offer for personal sins. He has affirmed that he was “without sin” (4:15); and in the context here he speaks of him as holy and guileless. That there was a sense in which he must offer for himself would appear from the fact that Aaron had so to do before he offered for the people; and Jesus is the antitype. If it should be said that this was a necessary preparation in Aaron’s case, it might be asked was there no necessary preparation in Christ’s case. We get a clue in the words of Peter: “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). He was there as a representative, partaking of the nature that was common to all—a nature under sentence of death because of sin. He died to declare God’s righteousness, as Paul says (Rom. 3:21–26); and this could not have been done if he could not righteously have died.

All the sacrifices of the law meet in him, including that which Aaron offered for himself as well as that which he offered for the people. But all the sacrifices are included in his one offering. All concern redemption in one phase or another; and while Jesus is the redeemer he is so because he has obtained redemption (Heb. 9:12). The facts are not affected by whichever view is taken of what Paul meant by “this.”

The differences between the priesthoods are brought to one point. Christ’s offering is “once.” There can be no repetition in the nature of the case. “For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore.” A mere man, with weakness; or a Son, perfected for evermore; here is the difference which determines their respective values. And the Son is appointed to office by “the word of the oath,” which was spoken “after” the law, and being “after” was evidently intended to supersede.

John Carter.