<- Previous   First   Next ->

From these usages it appears that in ajnafevrein ( to offer up ) we have mainly the notion of an offering made to God and placed upon His altar, in prosfevrein ( to offer ) that of an offering brought to God. In the former the thought of the destination of the offering prevails: in the latter that of the offerer in his relation to God.

jAnafevrein therefore properly describes the ministerial action of the priest, and prosfevrein the action of the offerer (Lev. 2:14, 16; 6:33, 35); but the distinction is not observed universally; thus ajnafevrein is used of the people (Lev. 17:5), and prosfevrein of the priests (Lev. 21:21).
tou'to gavr ...] It is generally supposed that the reference is to be limited to the latter clause, that is, to the making an offering for the sins of the people. It is of course true that for Himself Christ had no need to offer a sacrifice in any sense. But perhaps it is better to supply the ideal sense of the High-priest's offerings, and so to leave the statement in a general form. Whatever the Aaronic High-priest did in symbol, as a sinful man, that Christ did perfectly as sinless in His humanity for men.
ejfavpax ] Heb. 9:12; 10:10. Comp. a{pax 6:4 note. Contrary to the general usage of the Epistle ejfavpax follows the word with which it is connected instead of preceding it.
eJauto;n ajnenevgka" ] in that He offered up Himself , Latt. se (seipsum) offerendo. Here first Christ is presented as at once the Priest and the victim. Comp. 9:12, 14 ( dia; pn. aijwn. ), 25 f., 10:10, 12; Eph. 5:2 ( parevdwken ). Ou|to" de; to; eJautou' prosenhvnoce sw'ma, aujto;" iJereu;" kai; iJerei'on genovmeno", kai; wJ" qeo;" meta; tou' patro;" kai; tou' pneuvmato" to; dw'ron decovmeno" (Thdt.).

Herveius calls attention to the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice: ut quoniam quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, quid offeratur, cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse unus verusque mediator per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos Deo unum cum illo maneret cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat , unus ipse esset qui offerebat et quod offerebat.

The offering of Christ upon the Cross was a High-priestly act, though Christ did not become ‘High-priest after the order of Melchizedek,’ that is, royal High-priest, till the Ascension. Comp. 6:20 note.

On the completeness of Christ's priestly work Chrysostom has a striking sentence: mh; toivnun aujto;n iJereva ajkouvsa" ajei; iJera'sqai novmize : a{pax ga;r iJeravsato kai; loipo;n ejkavqisen . Comp. Euth. Zig. oJ Cristo;" a{pax iJeravteusen .

Heb. 7:28. oJ novmo" ... oJ lovgo" th'" oJrkwm. ...] The freedom of Christ from
the necessity by which the Aaronic High-priests are bound follows from His nature,
for the Law ... The truth which has been laid open in the two preceding verses is here expressed summarily by recapitulation in its final form: the Levitical High-priests are weak men, the High-priest after the order of Melchizedek a Son eternally perfected.
ajnqrwvpou" ] in contrast with uiJovn : many men (v. 23) are contrasted with the One Son. The plural also suggests the notion of death in contrast with eij" to;n aijw'na .
e[conta" ajsq. ] cf. Heb. 7:2. For the force of e[cwn ajsqevneian as distinguished from ajsqenhv" see 1 John 1:8 note. Compare Heb. 5:12; 7:27; 9:8; 10:36; 11:25. This ‘weakness’ includes both the actual limitations of


<- Previous   First   Next ->