Hebrews 5.6
Communion Sunday
October 6th 2013
Every now and again we might get confused over the complex nature of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
As Christians, we believe He was God incarnate. Recalling the first chapter of Matthew, we remember the author quoting Isaiah 7 and saying:
(Matthew 1:23) “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The fact that Jesus was God incarnate is not always the tough part of His person for us to remember. The healings He performed, the teachings, the walking on water, His resurrection all point to the fact that none could do those things except God be with Him completely.
The difficulty for us is typically the fact that He as all Man. In every way possible, in all of his thoughts, in all of His desires, in all of His temptations, in all of His pain, Jesus was 100% Man.
It is interesting that this one-two combination model of “spirit and material” is present in everything God has done in the redemption of Man.
In the Old Testament we the holy spirit acting upon material prophets.
In the New Testament we have the Spirit of God becoming flesh.
And in this dispensation we have the Spirit of God working on those who read His material word.
With Jesus being all man He understood (and continues to understand) trials and temptation.
He understands the human will. He understands sadness, being rejected, having people betray Him, depression, and temptations of feeding and focusing on the self.
As Man, in fact, more than any other man, Jesus was faced – as we are all faced – with doing His fleshly will over the will of the Father.
Perhaps there was no time where this was more pressing upon His heart than the hours prior to Him entering His passion which marched toward Him with swords and staves as His disciples slept.
Yes, we intellectually try and conceive of the physical pain He faced. We imagine. We review images in our heads.
But we will forever fail to understand the actual and utter misery that waited Him outside those garden walls.
For every lie ever told, He bore the sinister darkness.
For every act of violence, every murder, every war – He bore the terror and destruction.
For every physical pain, every cancer, every injury, every product that is the result of the Fall – He bore it.
And then in the midst of it all – throughout the pain, the indignation, mockery, slaps, spit, lashes, three nails – He suffered separation from His Father which He had never experienced in all of eternity . . . as God, as Man . . .for us.
Ever feel like God has left you in a time when you seemed to need Him most?
Jesus experienced this too.
Prior to His passion, in an upper room, “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’”
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’”
Pray:
“So Lord, we gather unto you this day as believers in your name. And we remember you – and what you have done – for us – once and for all.
We thank you for your selfless life, your condescension, your love. And as believers, we remember YOU this day. Amen.”
Before us we have the elements Jesus told His disciples to remember Him by.
They are down here away from you, and require an act of your own volition to walk down here, to take them up, and to return to your seat to ingest them.
Nobody is saved as a group, as a couple, or as a family – your salvation is based on the relationship that exists between you and Jesus alone.
Therefore, take these elements into your person of your own free will, and when you are ready. Use this time to think about Him and your heart for Him.
We’ll take five minutes to mediate on His offering, His life, His death, and His person.
So please come down as you are so inclined.
(FIVE MINUTES HERE)
PRAYER
“We thank you Father God for your Son.
We praise Him, we praise you.”
Sooo . . . we left off last week with the last verse of Hebrews chapter four. And we were talking about Jesus being a better high priest (as compared to the Levitical High Priests for the nation of Israel.
Well now in chapter five the writer continues with the thought, saying:
Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Now as I intimated last week, the topic of High Priest has been introduced in Hebrews 2:17; 3:1 and in 4:14-16.
And because the Jews regarded the office of high priest as an essential feature of their faith it became necessary to the writer to show that this new “Christian system” was in every way equal to that of the Jews.
We talked about this at length last week.
We are going to touch on a few more comparatives as we go verse by verse through these first verses of chapter five.
So he says in verse one:
Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Now remember that in the last verses of chapter four, we read last week:
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
And now he continues in the first verse of five, saying:
Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
The Jews had one high priest who was regarded as the successor of Aaron. The word “high priest” means chief priest; that is, a priest of higher rank and office than others.
In the original regulation the Jewish high priest was to be of the family of Aaron, (Exodus 29:9) though in later times the office was frequently conferred on others.
We learn from the apocraphal book of Maccabees 2 v.7 and Josephus Antiquities xv. 3,1 that by the time the Romans were in charge the whole shebang had become venal (which means subject to bribery) and the Mosaic regulation was disregarded.
As an interesting parallel to the life of Christ the high priest back in the day had to be the son of a man who had married a virgin and was to be completely free from any physical defects. We get this information from Leviticus 21:13.
So verse one tells us these high priests were “taken from among men and ordained to do the things of God for men,” that He may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”
Gifts and sacrifices.
In the Old Testament book of Leviticus we learn what gifts the high priest was to offer – gifts of gratitude made through what were called thank-offerings, or oblations.
And there were a ton of them made by the Jews under the laws of Moses through the high priest who presented them to God.
Stay with me – its gonna be important.
In addition to gifts of gratitude the high priest also made sacrifices for sin through the bloody offerings made from slain animals.
Of course He sprinkled the blood on the mercy-seat for who? He was appointed as the mediator to offer shed blood on behalf of the people, right?
A high priest offering shed blood on behalf of the people for the temporary covering (or atonement) for sin.
From this we learn, know and can see that the proper office and duty of a priest is to present gifts to God for the people and to present shed blood as their mediator.
As a result it is TOTALLY IMPROPER to apply the name “priest” or “high priest” to anyone who is not presenting gifts and/or blood on the mercy seat before God on behalf of others because these activities are tied to the title itself.
Now think about this – in Protestant Christianity we have ministers, pastors, evangelists, apostles, prophets, teachers, elders but no priests mentioned as an office or title in the New Testament.
The term priest is only used in the gospels and in Acts and it is referring to the Jewish application and outside of the Gospels and Acts the term priest is only used in Hebrews and always refers to the High Priest.
Why?
Sacrifice for individual sin, and gifts offered to God in terms of oblation are over – completed by Christ, our Great High Priest once and for all.
No participating group in the “good news” has a purpose or need to sprinkle blood so there is no purpose for anyone anywhere being called a priest or a high priest. Ministers and pastors are appointed to “preach the word” not offer sacrifice.
And the New Testament preserves for us a complete consistency on this matter.
Not even the chosen twelve are ever called priests.
From this alone we can see the ridiculousness of the Catholic’s position of calling men priests and the LDS position of calling 18 year old boys priests and grown men high priests.
It’s a mockery.
However, the Catholics do have some consistency in their use of the word because they truly believe that their priest literally does offer up the literal blood of Jesus to their members (as per the Decrees of the Counsel of Trent).
So when their priests do what they call “elevating the host” which is they “lift up or offer the sacrifice” of the wafer and require all to bow before it and worship there is some consistency.
But this is TOTALLY lost in Biblical Christianity when we believe only one sacrifice (offered once and for all) was ever needed.
Speaking of the High Priest among the COI, verse two continues saying:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
Because the Jewish high priest was “taken from among men,” he would possess some feelings for those on whose behalf he officiates.
Aware of his own fallibility he would likely sympathize with those who fail, or as the writer of Hebrews puts it, with those who are “out of the way,”or erring and guilty.
Like we pointed out last week, such a high priest, having experienced his own infirmities, would be able to relate to those shared by men and women around them.
Obviously the writer is building a case to show why God became flesh. (verse 3)
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
In other words, because he was a fallible man, he would, like he was doing for the people, also offer up blood to cover his own sin.
The writer goes on, again, speaking or reminding us of another fact about the High Priest for the COI:
4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
No one has a right to enter on this office unless he has the qualifications which God has prescribed.
There were fixed and definite laws in regard to the succession in the office of the high priest, and to the qualifications of him who should hold the office.
Genealogy was hugely important.
Virgin mother when married to his father.
A body without imperfection.
Over 30 years of age.
And then all the laws of purity and dress applied once he was chosen.
4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
How was Aaron called?
In Exodus 28:1 God sayid to Moses:
And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.
Aaron was designated to the office of High Priest by name and it appears that any successor was to have as clear of evidence that He too was called as it were by name.
It would be that evident.
It was not passed down from one to another, nor was it given to Aaron by the laying on of hands.
It was an individual call that was offered based on qualification.
And as we’ve said the manner in which the high priest was to succeed to the office was designated in the law of Moses, but in the time of Paul these rules were not really regarded.
Nevertheless, according to the law, which the writer here is referring to, no one had any right to hold this office but he who had the qualifications which Moses prescribed, and which showed that he was called of God.
The writers object is to show that the Jewish high priest was called of God to his office in a certain way, showing that he held the appointment from God, and that therefore it was necessary that the great High Priest of the Christian profession should be called in a similar albeit better manner.
Here comes the comparison . . .
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
In other words Jesus was not ambitious.
Notice that in His life He made no attempts upon obtaining the office of High Priest.
In John 8:54 Jesus says, from his position as a man of flesh and blood:
“If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honors me; of whom ye say, that he is your God.”
I love this – that even though He created all things, knew all things, He did not surreptitiously impose Himself into places . . . He waited on the Father to do His will through Him.
So even though we know He ended up filling the office of our Great High Priest, He waited for the qualifications and call to come.
Now, here’s the twist on the matter – Jesus was NOT a decendant of Aaron but never the less He ultimately assumed the role of High Priest in an eternal and lasting fashion.
By what right?
Well at this point in the epistle the writer appeals to two Old Testament passages to give us the answer. The first passage he appeals to is recited in verse five, where he says
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he (God) that said unto him, “Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”
In other words, the writer is intimating that just as Aaron was called (by name) (by God) (through Moses) to do what He was called to do, so was Christ, God’s “only begotton Son” called by God when he said:
“Thou art my Son.”
In other words if Aaron was called by God and met the qualifications set forth to be the High Priest, how much more was God’s perfect, only begotten Son.
Now this is important but easy to miss. The Old Testament passage the writer uses to support his case is Psalm 2:7.
The passage, strictly speaking and in context has reference to the anointing of a king to his office.
The relationship is Christ (the anointed one) has been prepared by God for all things including that of a King.
In other words, and as a means to clarify, the writer is trying to prove to the Jews that there is a better high priest upon which they could forever rely and he uses two Old Testament passages here to prove his point.
But the first he pulls from (out of Psalm 2:7) while making the point that Jesus is God’s Son, thus qualifying Him automatically to ANY position, there is a neat little added insight for us – and that is the reference from Psalm 2 is contextually also taking about anointing a King.
The added value to us is we can also see that the writer is telling us Jesus was also anointed King.
Remember this.
So, appealing to another Old Testament passage to prove the qualifications of Jesus as High Priest. And this one is truly fascinating. (verse 6)
6 As he saith also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”
Now, he goes into who Melchizedek was in chapter seven, and so I am going to leave this off until then.
But here he is quoting Psalm 110:4.
Now Psalm 110:1-4 is very familiar to us and especially to a Jew at that time.
David is the author and this is what it says:
Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Most reliable biblical scholars – listen – Jew or Christian – acknowledge that this Psalm is speaking of the Messiah.
It is clear even from the writer of Hebrews use of the passage that it was plainly understood by the Jews at that time that they prophetically spoke to Him.
For our own information here are some reasons we know Psalm 110:1-4 refers to the Messiah:
(1.) It is a Psalm of David, and yet is spoken of One who was superior to him, and whom David himself calls his “Lord,” Ps 110:1. This could only be the promised Messiah.
(2.) We know that the passage is NOT just speaking of God (JEHOVAH) because verse one says:
The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
(3.) The Psalm cannot refer to any one in the time of David, for there was no one to whom he would attribute this character of superiority but to God.
(4.) For the same reason there was no one among his posterity, except the Messiah, to whom he would apply this language.
(5.) Additionally , in Matthew 22:43-44 Jesus assigns this passage to himself!
(6.) In fact, the scope of this Psalm is so pointed to the coming Messiah that I would suggest that there is NO passage in the Old Testament that is MORE universally conceded to be speaking of the Messiah than this one.
And in this Psalm David says (in reference to the coming Messiah):
“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”
Now, thus far we understand the High Priest office after Aaron.
But who is this Melchizedek?
Notice that in the Psalm that God does not say:
“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” but merely a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
For starters, nowhere in scripture is Melchizedek linked with the actual title of high priest.
Genesis 14:18 simply says in describing him:
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.”
For this reason the Lord was not going to be a high priest exactly in the same sense in which the name was given to Aaron and his successors.
There are differences.
The Lord Jesus does not go through the cleansing and purification rituals to serve as a high priest.
He is not clothed with stones on his chest and a Urim and Thummin in his pocket.
Etc., etc.
Remember, the contextual point the writer is making here is that Jesus did NOT assume the title of priest surreptitiously but that God had chosen Him to take it.
But notice a characteristic Psalms 110 assigns to Christ who would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek:
“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,”
This is an extremely important point, which again, the writer will discuss later in Hebrews 7.
We might read it as meaning that Jesus would forever be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” and this would certainly be true.
But the meaning is also that this “priesthood of the Messiah” would not be changed “from hand to hand.”
In other words, where the high priestly duties of Aaron were laid down at the death of the high priest and then transferred to another qualified individual, there would NEVER be a transfer of this priesthood – it was to remain unchangeably the same because it would be in the possession of an unchangeable being.
To suggest that this priesthood of Melchizedek is transferrable from one to another (like Aarons was) is to suggest that Jesus too has passed from His place of eternal immanence.
Then when the writer says that the Messiah would be “after the order,” all he is saying is that the Messiah would be of the same rank or station as Melchezidek was.
When we cover the comparisons in Hebrews seven it’s a mind blower.
But there is one particular area I want to cover now that points out a striking resemblance between Melchizedek which did not exist between Christ and any other high-priest from the line of Aaron – Melchisedek was both a priest and a . . . King.
Remember the first verse from the Old Testament the writer uses to show that Jesus was called as a priest by God?
Psalm 2:7 right? Remember, contextually speaking that passage was about anointing earthly kings?
Well Jesus, like Melchizedek, were both Kings. Listen closely – none of the kings of the Jews were ever priests; neither were any of the priests ever elevated to the office of a king.
But in Melchizedek these offices were united (which we will talk about later) and this is also obviously true of Jesus.
Another point to consider – just as none of us are any longer priests (in the sense of offering up bloody sacrifice) neither are any of us Kings.
The whole point that the writer has clearly made (and which I am trying to clearly make) is that Melchizedek was of a peculiar rank and order –
. . . he was not numbered with the Levitical priests and he was a king from an extremely unique background – which we’ll discuss later . . . a better background, if you will, to serve as priest and king, as is Christ.
This brings us to verses 7 and 8 which give us tremendous insight into Him who is our priest and king.
These verses make me want to fall to the ground in worship of Him.
They break my heart, and tear right into the pride and arrogance that so readily wells up in my person.
Oh, the love and humility and sacrifice of our King and Priest as this is what the writer says of Him, who left His eternal home, condescended below all things, and became man. (verse 7-8)
“Who (speaking of Jesus) in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; {in that…: or, for his piety}
Ps 22:1; Mt 26:36-37,39,42,44,53; 27:46,50; Mr 14:33,36,39; 15:34,37; Lu 22:43; Joh 12:27; 17:1
Full Compare GBN ACC Barnes FBN JFB JWN PNTC RWP SDC TSK WBN
Edit MyNotes
Albert Barnes’ NT Commentary:
Verse 7. Who. That is, the Lord Jesus–for so the connexion demands. The object of this verse and the two following is, to show that the Lord Jesus had that qualification for the office of priest to which he had referred Heb 5:2. It was one important qualification for that office, that he who sustained it should be able to show compassion, to aid those that were out of the way, and to sympathize with sufferers; in other words, they were themselves encompassed with infirmity, and thus were able to succour those who were subjected to trials. The apostle shows now that the Lord Jesus had those qualifications, as far as it was possible for one to have them who had no sin. In the days of his flesh he suffered intensely; he prayed with fervour; he placed himself in a situation where he learned subjection and obedience by his trials; and in all things he went far beyond what had been evinced by the priests under the ancient dispensation.
In the days of his flesh. When he appeared on earth as a man. Flesh is used to denote human nature, and especially human nature as susceptible of suffering. The Son of God still is united to human nature, but it is human nature glorified; for in his case, as in all others, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” 1Co 15:50. He has now a glorified body, Php 3:21, such as the redeemed will have in the future world. Comp, Re 1:13-17. The phrase “days of his flesh,” means the time when he was incarnate, or when he lived on earth in human form. The particular time here referred to, evidently, was the agony in the garden of Gethsemane.
Prayers and supplications. These words are often used to denote the same thing. If there is a difference, the former–dehseiv–means, petitions which arise from a sense of need,–from deomai– want, to need; the latter refers usually to supplication for protection, and is applicable to one who, under a sense of guilt, flees to an altar with the symbols of supplication in his hand. Suppliants in such cases often carried an olive-branch as an emblem of the peace which they sought.
A fact is mentioned by Livy respecting the Locrians that may illustrate this passage. “Ten delegates from the Locrians, squalid and covered with rags, came into the hall where the consuls were sitting, extending the badges of suppliants–olive branches–according to the custom of the Greeks; and prostrated themselves on the ground before the tribunal, with a lamentable cry,” Lib xxix. c. 16. The particular idea in the word here used ikethria is, petition for protection,help, or shelter, (Passow;) and this idea accords well with the design of the passage. The Lord Jesus prayed as one who had need, and as one who desired protection, shelter, or help. The words here, therefore, do not mean the same thing, and are not merely intensive, but they refer to distinct purposes which the Redeemer had in his prayers. He was about to die, and, as a man, he needed the Divine help; he was, probably, tempted in that dark hour, See Barnes for Joh 12:30, and he fled to God for protection.
With strong crying. This word does not mean weeping, as the word “crying” does familiarly with us. It rather means an outcry, the voice of wailing and lamentation. It is the cry for help of one who is deeply distressed, or in danger; and refers here to the earnest petition of the Saviour when in the agony of Gethsemane, or when on the cross. It is the intensity of the voice which is referred to, when it is raised by an agony of suffering. Comp. Lu 22:44: “He prayed more earnestly.” Mt 27:46: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice–My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” See also Mt 26:38; 27:60.
And tears. Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus, Joh 11:35, and over Jerusalem, Lu 19:41. It is not expressly stated by the Evangelists that he wept in the garden of Gethsemane, but there is no reason to doubt that he did. In such an intense agony as to cause a bloody sweat, there is every probability that it would be accompanied with tears. We may remark then,
(1.) that there is nothing dishonourable in tears, and that man should not be ashamed, on proper occasions, to weep. The fact that the Son of God wept is a full demonstration that it is not disgraceful to weep. God has so made us as to express sympathy for others by tears. Religion does not make the heart insensible and hard, as stoical philosophy does; it makes it tender and susceptible to impression.
(2.) It is not improper to weep. The Son of God wept–and if he poured forth tears it cannot be wrong for us. Besides, it is a great law of our nature, that in suffering we should find relief by tears. God would not have so made us if it had been wrong.
(3.) The fact that the Son of God thus wept should be allowed deeply to affect our hearts.
“He wept that we might weep;” Each sin demands a tear.”
He wept that he might redeem us; we should weep that our sins were so great as to demand such bitter woes for our salvation. That we had sinned; that our sins caused him such anguish; that he endured for us this bitter conflict, should make us weep. Tear should answer to tear, and sigh respond to sigh, and groan to groan, when we contemplate the sorrows of the Son of God in accomplishing our redemption. That man must have a hard heart who has never had an emotion when he has reflected that the Son of God wept, and bled, and died for him.
Unto him that was able. To God. He alone was able then to save. In such a conflict man could not aid; and the help of angels, ready as they were to assist him, could not sustain him. We may derive aid from man in trial; we may be comforted by sympathy and counsel; but there are sorrows where God only can uphold the sufferer. That God was able to uphold him, in his severe conflict, the Redeemer could not doubt; nor need we doubt it, in reference to ourselves, when deep sorrows come over our souls.
To save him from death. It would seem from this, that what constituted the agony of the Redeemer was the dread of death, and that he prayed that he might be saved from that. This might be, so far as the language is concerned, either the dread of death on the spot by the intensity of his sufferings and by the power of the tempter, or it might be the dread of the approaching death on the cross. As the Redeemer, however, knew that he was to die on the cross, it can hardly be supposed that he apprehended death in the garden of Gethsemane. What he prayed for was, that, if it were possible, he might be spared from a death so painful as he apprehended, Mt 26:39. Feeling that God had power to save him from that mode of dying, the burden of his petition was, that, if human redemption could be accomplished without such sufferings, it might please his Father to remove that cup from him.
And was heard. In Joh 11:42, the Saviour says, “I know that thou hearest me always.” In the garden of Gethsemane he was heard. His prayer was not disregarded, though it was not literally answered. The cup of death was not taken away; but his prayer was not disregarded. What answer was given–what assurance or support was imparted to his soul–we are not informed. The case, however, shows us,
(1.) that prayer may be heard even when the sufferings which are dreaded, and from which we prayed to be delivered, may come upon us. They may come with such assurances of Divine favour, and such supports, as will be full proof that the prayer was not disregarded.
(2.) That prayer offered in faith may not be always literally answered. No one can doubt that Jesus offered the prayer of faith; and it is as little to be doubted, if he referred in the prayer to the death on the cross, that it was not literally answered. Comp, Mt 26:39. In like manner it may occur now, that prayer shall be offered with every right feeling, and with an earnest desire for the object, which may not be literally answered. Christians, even in the highest exercise of faith, are not inspired to know what is best for them; and, as long as this is the case, it is possible that they may ask for things which it would not be best to have granted. They who maintain that the prayer of faith is always literally answered, must hold that the Christian is under such a guidance of the Spirit of God that he cannot ask anything amiss. See Barnes for 2Co 12:9.
In that he feared. Marg. For his piety. Coverdale, “Because he had God in honour.” Tindal, “Because he had God in reverence.” Prof. Stuart renders it, “And was delivered from that which he feared.” So also Doddridge. Whitby, “Was delivered from his fear.” Luther renders it, “And was heard for that he had God in reverence”–dass er Gott in Ehren hatte. Beza renders it, “His prayers being heard, he was delivered from fear.” From this variety in translating the passage, it will be seen at once that it is attended with difficulty. The Greek is, literally, “from fear or reverence” –apo thv eulabeiav. The word occurs in the New Testament only in one other place, Heb 12:28, where it is rendered “fear.” “Let us serve him with reverence and godly fear.” The word properly means, caution, circumspection; then timidity, fear; then the fear of God, reverence, piety. Where the most distinguished scholars have differed as to the meaning of a Greek phrase, it would be presumption in me to attempt to determine its sense. The most natural and obvious interpretation, however, as it seems to me, is, that it means that he was heard on account of his reverence for God; his profound veneration; his submission. Such was his piety that the prayer was heard, though it was not literally answered. A prayer may be heard, and yet not literally answered; it may be acceptable to God, though it may not consist with his arrangements to bestow the very blessing that is sought. The posture of the mind of the Redeemer, perhaps, was something like this. He knew that he was about to be put to death in a most cruel manner. His tender and sensitive nature, as a man, shrank from such a death. As a man he went, under the pressure of his great sorrows, and pleaded that the cup might be removed, and that man might be redeemed by a less fearful scene of suffering. That arrangement, however, could not be made. Yet the spirit which he evinced; the desire to do the will of God; the resignation, and the confidence in his Father which he evinced, were such as were acceptable in his sight. They showed that he had unconquerable virtue; that no power of temptation, and no prospect of the intensest woes which human nature could endure, could alienate him from piety, To show this was an object of inestimable value, and, much as it cost the Saviour, was worth it all. So now it is worth much to see what Christian piety can endure; What strong temptations it can resist; and what strength it has to bear up under accumulated woes: and even though the prayer of the pious sufferer is not directly answered, yet that prayer is acceptable to God, and the result of such a trial is worth all that it costs.
{a} “prayers” Mt 26:39-44
{b} “able” Mt 26:53
{1} “in that he feared” “for his piety”
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Php 2:8; Heb 3:6
Full Compare GBN ACC Barnes FBN JFB JWN PNTC RWP Teacher TSK WBN
Edit MyNotes
Albert Barnes’ NT Commentary:
Verse 8. Though he were a Son. Though the Son of God. Though he sustained this exalted rank, and was conscious of it, yet he was willing to learn experimentally what is meant by obedience in the midst of sufferings.
Yet learned he obedience. That is, he learned experimentally and practically. It cannot be supposed that he did not know what obedience was; or that he was indisposed to obey God before he suffered; or that he had, as we have, perversities of nature, leading to rebellion, which required to be subdued by suffering;–but that he was willing to test the power of obedience in sufferings; to become personally and practically acquainted with the nature of such obedience in the midst of protracted woes. Comp. See Barnes for Php 2:8. The object here is, to show how well fitted the Lord Jesus was to be a Saviour for man-kind; and the argument is, that he has set us an example, and has shown that the most perfect obedience may be manifested in the deepest sorrows of the body and the soul. Learn hence, that one of the objects of affliction is to lead us to obey God. In prosperity we forget it. We become self-confident and rebellious. Then God lays his hand upon us; breaks up our plans; crushes our hopes; takes away our health; and teaches us that we must be submissive to his will. Some of the most valuable lessons of obedience are learned in the furnace of affliction; and many of the most submissive children of the Almighty have been made so, as the result of protracted woes.
