« Prev VII. Next »


VII. ¹Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ

1 (συναντ.) C*: ὅς (*συναντ.) אABD₂ (appy. a primitive error).

III. @The characteristics of Christ as absolute High-priest shadowed forth by Melchizedek@ (c. vii.).

The last words of the sixth chapter offered a twofold thought, which the writer of the Epistle now works out in detail, going back, after the solemn digression of c. vi., to the subject announced in c. v. 10. The priestly office of Christ is after the order of Melchizedek (1); and after this order He is High-priest for ever (2).

The main object of the section is to shew that there were in the Ο. T. from the first indications of a higher order of Divine Service than that which was established by the Mosaic Law; and that these found a perfect realisation in Christ, a Son, perfected for evermore.

(1) The office of Christ after the order of Melchizedek (vii. 1—25).

In these verses no mention is made of the High-priesthood. The writer deals with the general conception of priesthood as exhibited in Scripture. He marks (a) the characteristics of Melchizedek (1—3); and then (b) determines the relation of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood (4—10); and lastly (c) compares the Levitical priesthood with that of Christ (11—25).

(a) Characteristics of Melchizedek (1-3).

The Apostle (α) notices the positive facts related of Melchizedek; the description of his person; of his meeting with Abraham; of Abraham's offering (1, 2a); and then (β) indicates the significance of his character from the interpretation of his titles, King of Righteousness, King of Peace, and from the features in his portraiture which can be deduced from the silence of Scripture (2b, 3).

¹For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, ²to whom also Abraham divided a tithe of all—being first by interpretation king of Righteousness and then also king of Salem, which is king of Peace, ³without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like to the Son of God,—abideth a priest perpetually.

(1), (2a). The historical facts as to Melchizedek.

(1). οὗτος γάρ] The particle is explanatory and not strictly argumentative The writer purposes to lay open how much is included in the phrase κατὰ τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, to which he has again returned.

The connexion is obvious if the sentence is at once completed: oὗτοςs (c. vi. 20) γὰρ Μ......μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. Christ is spoken of as High-priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, for Melchizedek offers a figure of such an abiding office, inasmuch as he abides a priest without successor. The antitype however goes beyond the type (ἀρχιερεύς, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, as compared with ἱερεύς, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές). See Additional Note.

βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ] שלם, like שלום, is properly an adj. sound, at peace, but is used (as שלום) here as a subst., peace. (So Philo Leg. Alleg. iii. 25; i. p. 102 M.)

The locality of the place does not in any way enter into the writer's argument. The Jewish tradition of the Apostolic age appears to have identified it with Jerusalem (Jos. Antt. i. 10, 2; B. J. vi. 10; and so Targ. Onk.; comp. Ps. lxxvi. 2).

In the time of Jerome Salem was identified with Salem, near Scythopolis, where the remains of Melchizedek's palace were shewn. 171 τοῦ ὑψίστου, †ὁ† συνανρήσας Ἀβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶη Βασιλέων καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν, ²ῷ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν Ἀβραάμ, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος Βασιλεὺς

1, 2 αὐτόν...Ἀβραάμ: D₂* αὐτὸν καὶ Ἀβραὰμ εὐλογηθεὶς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ὁ (sic) καὶ δεκ. πάντων ἐμ. [αὐτω?].

2 ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν: ἐμέρισεν ἀπὸ πάντων א. πάντων: παντός Β. Ἀβρ.: + πατριάρχης syr hl.

(ἱερεὺς) τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου] Gen. xiv. 18 (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן), identified with Jehovah v. 22. The epithet does not mark a relation to inferior deities, but the absolute elevation of the Lord. It occurs again Num. xxiv. 16 (Balaam); Deut. xxxii. 8 (Song of Moses); and in the Psalms. It is found also in Phoenician inscriptions, and (with the corresponding fem.) in the Pænulus of Plantus (v. I. 1 Alonim valunoth). The title occurs elsewhere in the Ν. T. Mk. v. 7 (|| Lk. viii. 28); Acts xvi. 17. Comp. Lk. i. 32, 35; Acts vii. 48.

It is to be remarked that there are elsewhere traces of a primitive (monotheistic) worship of El in Phoenicia side by side with that of Baal, the centre of Phoenician polytheism. Comp. Œhler, Theol. of Ο. T. i. 90 f. (Eng. Tr.).

ὁ συναντήσας...ὑποστρέφοντι] ...who met...as he was returning, Latt. qui obviavit...regresso (Gen. xίν. 17, lxx. μετὰ τὸ ὑποστρέψαι as in Hebr.). The time was that of the fulness of Abraham's disinterested victory. Probably the pres. part. is chosen to mark this thought, which is less clear in the original phrase. Compare Philo, θεασάμενος ἐπανιόντα καὶ τροπαιοφοροῦντα (de Abr. § 40).

In Gen. xiv. 17 f. it is said 'The king of Sodom went out to meet him...and Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine....' Since the latter detail is omitted here, the former, which is included in it, is tightly applied to Melchizedek. For συναντᾷν see Lk. ix. 37; xxii. 10; Acts x. 25.

ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς] Gen. xiv. 17; Deut. xxviii. 25; Josh. x. 20. Koπή (not elsewhere in Ν. T.) and the original phrase (מֵהַכּוֹת) may mean only 'the smiting,' 'the defeat.'

εὐλογήσας] By the act of blessing, Melchizedek at once assumed the position of a superior. And Abraham on his part freely acknowledged Melchizedek's implied claim to superiority, and divided to him a tithe from all the spoil which he had taken (v. 4).

(2b), (3). The historical details as to Melchizedek having been given, the writer of the Epistle goes on to interpret the Scriptural narrative so far as it affects the view of Melchizedek's character and person absolutely. He points out its bearing on his position in relation to Abraham and the Levitical priests in the next section.

Melchizedek's typical character is shewn to be indicated positively by what is said of him, and negatively by what is not said.

Thus three distinct features are noted in which Melchizedek points to Christ. (1) His name and title: King of Righteousness and King of Peace. (2) His isolation from all priestly descent, as holding his priesthood himself alone. (3) The absence of all record of his birth and death.

In other words the record of Melchizedek points to Christ in character, in office, in person (nature).

The clauses are not simply in apposition with the subject but are predicative: 'Melchizedek...as being, first by interpretation...as being presented to us...remaineth.'

(2b). πρῶτον μέν...ἔπειτα δέ] being 172 Δικαιοσύνης ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ Bασιλεύς Σαλήμ, ὅ ἐστιν Βασιλεὺς Εἰρήνης, ³ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε

δὲ καί: om. καί me.

first by the interpretation of his name King of Righteousness, and then also (by his dominion) King of Salem, which is, King of Peace. His personal name and the name of his city are taken to correspond with the actual traits of his character.

ἑρμηνευόμενος] The simple form (commonly μεθερμην.) occurs elsewhere in Ν. T. John i. 44 (43) (ὁ ἑρμην.); ix. 7.

βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης] Jos. B. J. vi. 10 Mελχ. ὁ τῇ πατρίᾳ γλώσσῃ κληθεὶς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος.

δικαιοσύνης...εἰρήνης] The order in which the words occur is significant. Righteousness must come first. Compare Rom. v. 1; xiv. 17; Ps. lxxii. 3 (Hebr.); lxxxv. 10; Is. xxxii. 17; James iii. 18; c. xii. 11. Both are characteristic of the Messianic times (Is. ix. 1- 7). The one aspect is given in Ps. xiv. 4 ff.: Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 15 f.; Dan. ix. 24; Mal. iv. 2; and the other in 1 Chron. xxii. 8 ff.; Mic. v. 5. Theodoret (and others) notice how both graces perfectly meet in Christ for the blessing of humanity: αὐτὸς γὰρ [ὁ χριστός] ἐστι κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμπων (Eph. ii. 14), αὐτὸς κέκληται κατὰ τὸν προφήτην δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν (Jer. xxiii. 6).

Compare Bernard, Serm. de div. xix. 4, Tu, homo, noli prius rapere quod tuum est, et justitiam quam Deo et pacem quam proximo debes contemnere (the reference is to Rom. xiv. 17).

The genitive in each case (βασ. δικ., βασ. εἰρ.) expresses the characteristic of the sovereign: he is a 'righteousness-king,' a 'peace-king,' one in whom and through whom righteousness and peace are realised. Compare Jer. xxxiii. 15; Is. ix. 6.

ἔπειτα δέ...] The personal character of the priest-king leads to the notice (ἔπειτα δὲ καί) of the kingdom which he administered: being righteous in himself he kept peace under his sway.

ὅ ἐστιν] Mk. vii. 34; and with μηνευόμενον Mk. v. 41; xv. 22, 34. Comp. Lk. xii. 1; Gal. iv. 24 f.

There is no exact parallel in Scripture to this kind of use of names, which is common in Philo (comp. Siegfried, ss. 190 ff.). The nearest approach to it is perhaps in John ix. 7 Σιλωάμ (ὁ ἐρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος). But the importance attached to names in the 0. T. sufficiently explains it. Comp. Is. viii. 1, 18; ix. 6. Œhler, O. T. Theology, § 88.

(3). The delineation of Melchizedek is expressive also negatively. The silence of Scripture, the characteristic form, that is, in which the narrative is presented, is treated as having a prophetic force. Melchizedek stands unique and isolated both in his person and in his history. He is not connected with any known line: his life has no recorded beginning or close.

Philo not unfrequently draws arguments from omissions in the Biblical narrative. Examples are given by Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, 179: e.g. Quod det. pot. insid. § 48 (i. 224 M.).

ἀπ. ἀμ. ἁγεν.] Vulg. sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia. The Pesh. renders these words by a paraphrase: 'whose father and mother are not written in genealogies.'

The words (ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ) were used constantly in Greek mythology (e.g. of Athene and Hephæstus); and so passed into the loftier conceptions of the Deity, as in that of Trismegistus quoted by Lactantius (iv. 13): ipse 173 ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ

enim pater Deus et orige et principium rerum quoniam parentibus caret ἀπάτωρ atque ἀμήτωρ a Trismegisto verissime nominatur, quod ex nullo sit procreatus. This familiar usage was suited to suggest to the readers of the Epistle the nature of the divine priest shadowed out in the type. The word ἀμήτωρ is used by Philo of Sarah, De ebrist. § 14 (i. 365 M.); and in Euripides Ion speaks of himself as ἀμήτωρ ἀπάτωρ τε γεγώς (Ion 109).

Philo in a striking passage (De Prof. § 20; i. 562 M.) describes the Levites as being in some sense 'exiles who to do God's pleasure had left parents and children and brethren and all their mortal kindred': ὁ γοῦν ἀρχηγέτης τοῦ θιάσου τούτου, he continues, λέγων εἰσάγεται τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῇ μητρί Οὐχ ἑώρακα ὑμᾶς καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς οὐ γινώσκω καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς ἀπογινώσκω ὑπὲρ τοῦ δίχα μεθολκῆς θεραπεύειν τὸ ὄν. The words throw light on Lk. xiv. 26.

In the case of the Jewish priests a Levitical (Aaronic, Num. xvi. xvii.) descent was required on the father's side, an Israelitish, on the mother's. (Comp. Ezra ii. 61 f.)

ἀγενεαλόγητος] without genealogy, without any recorded line of ancestors. He did not trace back his claims to the priesthood to any forefather (comp. v. 6). Perhaps the word (which is not found elsewhere) suggests, though it does not express, the thought that he had no known descendants, and was not the author of a priestly line.

Compare: Subito introducitur sicut et Elias (Primas.).

μήτε ἀρχ. ἡμ. μήτε ζ. τ. ἔχων] Scripture records nothing of his birth or of his death, of the beginning of a life of manifold activity (ἀρ. ἡμερῶν, comp. v. 7), nor of the close of his earthly existence. Nothing in the phrase indicates a miraculous translation or the like. The silence may perhaps seem to be more significant, since the death of Aaron is described in detail: Num. xx. 22 ff.

ἀφωμοιωμένος τ. υἱ. τ. θ.] Non dicitur Filius Dei assimilatus Melchisedeko, sed contra, nam Filius Dei est antiquior et archetypus (Bengel). So Theodoret: ἐκεῖνος τούτου τύπος, οὖτος τοῦ τύπου ἡ ἀλήθεια. The truth is of general application. The physical, the historical, is the limited representation of the spiritual, the eternal.

The choice of the participle in place of ὅμοιος shews that the resemblance lies in the Biblical representation and not primarily in Melchizedek himself. The comparison is not between Christ and Melchizedek, but between Christ and the isolated portraiture of Melchizedek; and that in regard to the divine Nature of the Incarnate Son (τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ), and not to His human Nature in which He both was born and died, nor even to His official dignity (τῷ χριστῷ). It is not however implied that the record in Genesis was purposely designed to convey the meaning which is found in it, but that the history sketched by prophetic power has the meaning.

Perhaps the remarkable variation in the language, which cannot be mere rhetorical ornament (μήτε ἀρχ. ἡμ. μήτε ζωῆς τέλος, not μήτε ἀρχὴν μήτε τέλος ζωῆς), may point to the fact that the Son of God was (in His Divine Nature) beyond time, while the human life which He assumed was to be without end. Compare Theophlct: ὁ χριστὸς...ἅτε θεὸς...ἄναρχος κατὰ τοῦ χρόνου ἀρχὴν εἰ καὶ τὸν παρέρα ἀρχὴν καὶ αἰτιον.

ἀφωμ.] Latt. assimilatus (similatus) made like to. The word, which is found in the best authors, does not occur elsewhere in N. T. Ep. Jerem. 4, 62, 70.

On the likeness Primasius remarks (following Chrysostom): In hoc est similitude quod nec illius (Melch.) nec istius (Christi) initium legitur vel 174 τῷ θἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. ⁴Θεωρεῖτε

finis: illius quia non est scriptum; istius autem quia omnino non est.

τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ] The choice of this name here emphasises that aspect of the Lord's person which was typified by the absence of all notice of the birth or death of Melchizedek. See iv. 14; vi. 6; x. 29.

μένει Ιερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές] remaineth a priest perpetually, Latt. manet sacerdos in perpetuum. The use of the phrase εἰς τὸ διην. for εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα marks his priesthood as continued to the end in his person without break. He had no successors (so Theodoret rightly explains the words: ἐπειδήπερ τὴν ἱερωσύνην οὐ παρέπεμψεν εἰς παῖδας), and no provision for a successor to him is recorded in Scripture. He therefore abides a priest 'perpetually,' 'for ever,' not literally but in the Scriptural portraiture. This is one of the points in which 'he was made like to the Son of God.'

The idea that the perpetuity of his priesthood lay in the fact that it was continued in Christ (manet...non in se sed in Christo. Primas.) destroys the parallel; and the structure of the whole paragraph absolutely forbids the application of this clause to any other than the Melchizedek of the record in Genesis.

εἰς τὸ διην.] See c. x. 1 note. The phrase does not describe absolute perpetuity, duration without end, but duration continued under the conditions implied or expressed in the particular case. Thus it is said App. B. C. i. § 4, δικτάτωρ εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ᾑρέθη. Cf. Pun. viii. § 136. Heliodor. Æth. i. § 14 φυγῇ εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐζημίωσαν. Here no limit is marked negatively or positively, and the phrase simply excludes interruption in Melchizedek's tenure of his office. No one takes it from him (comp. v. 8). Such a condition is equally satisfied by his actual continuance for ever, a supposition excluded by the circumstances; or by the typical interpretation of the silence of the record.

(b) The relation of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood (4—10).

Having discussed the historical notice of Melchizedek in itself, the writer goes on to consider his priesthood in relation to that of the Law. In doing this he first notices

(α) the general position of Melchizedek (4); and then gives in detail his points of superiority

(β) in respect of Abraham, whom he both tithed (5, 6a), and blessed (6b, 7); and

(γ) in respect of the Levitical priests, who exercised their functions as dying men (8), and in Levi their head implicitly paid tithes to Melchizedek (9, 10).

Now consider how great this man was to whom Abraham gave a tithe taken out of the chief spoils, Abraham the patriarch. ⁵And while those (the priests) sprung from the sons of Levi, on receiving the priest's office, have commandment to take tithes from the people according to the Law, that is from their brethren, though they have come out of the loins of Abraham, ⁶he whose genealogy is not counted from them tithed Abraham, and blessed him that hath the promises. ⁷But without any gainsaying the less is blessed by the greater. ⁸And while here dying men receive tithes, there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. ⁹And, so to say, through Abraham, Levi also who receiveth tithes is tithed; ¹⁰for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

(4). The general superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham, the great father of Israel, is stated summarily. The artificial order of the words emphasises the idea which they convey, the last phrases taking up in a more striking form what has been said 175 δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος ὧ δεκάτην Ἀβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων ὁ πατριάρχης. ⁵καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευεὶ

4 καὶ

4 πηλ. οὗτος: ἡλίκος D₂*. δεκάτην BD₂* syr vg me: + καὶ' δεκ. SאΑC vg syr hl. Ἀβρ. ἔδ.: ἔδ. Ἀβρ. Α. syr hl.

before (δεκάτην Ἀβραάμ...ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων, ὁ πατριάρχης).

It is assumed throughout that the receiver of tithe is greater than the giver of tithe: in the case of the lees familiar blessing this superiority is affirmed (v. 7).

θεωρεῖτε δέ] Now consider...Vulg. intuemini (O.L. videtis, videte) autem. The structure of the whole passage shows that the verb is an imperative and not an indicative. The word itself, which expresses the regard of attentive contemplation, is frequent in the historical books of the N.T. but is not found elsewhere in the Epistles except 1 John iii. 17. The particle δέ marks a fresh beginning. The general picture claims detailed study. Comp. viii. 1; xi. 1.

δεκάτην...ἔδωκεν] The offering appears as the spontaneous recognition of the dignity of Melchizedek.

ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθ.] Vulg. de præcipuis. O. L. de primitivis (primitiis)..., Syr. the tithes and firstfruits. The tithe was of the whole (ἀπὸ πάντων v. 2), and it was taken from the choicest of the spoil. The ἀκροθίνια were specially the part of the spoil which was offered as a thank-offering to the gods: Herod, viii. 121 f.

πηλίκος] Latt. quantus (Aug. qualis). The word is used properly of magnitude in dimension: Gal. vi. 11; Zech. ii. 2 (6) (lxx.). Comp. 4 Macc. xv. 21 πηλίκαις καὶ πόσαις βασάνοις.

'Consider how great was this priest-king, to whom...' The οὗτος looks back to vv. 1—4; and the greatness of Melchizedek is not first inferred from Abraham's gift.

ὁ πατριάρχης] Abraham...Abraham the patriarch. The title of honour stands emphatically at the end of the sentence. It is used again Acts ii. 29 (of David) and Acts vii. 8 f. (of the sons of Jacob) and several times in the Books of Chronicles of 'the chiefs of the fathers' (1 Chron. ix. 9 Compl.; xxiv. 31, &c.) and 'captains' (2 Chron. xxiii. 20), but not elsewhere in lxx. The first thought is of Abraham as the father of Israel; but beyond this he is the father of the whole family of faith: Rom. iv. 11 f.

Quasi diceret, Quem vos excellentiorem omnibus hominibus æstimatis, hic decimas obtulit Melchisedech qui in figura Christi præecessit (Primas.).

(5), (6a). This is the first of the special marks of superiority by which the priesthood of Melchizedek was distinguished. The Levitical priests tithed their brethren: Melchizedek, a priest of another race, tithed Abraham their common father. His priesthood was absolute and not a priority in the same family.

(5). καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκ τ. υἱ. Λ....λαμβ.] 'And to come to particulars (vv. 8, 9), while the descendants of Levi on receiving (or, as receiving) the priesthood...' The phrase is capable of several interpretations. The whole may form a compound subject, 'they ἐκ τῶν υἱ. Λ. that receive the priest's office'; or the second part may be predicative, 'they ἐκ τῶν υἱ Λ., as (on) receiving the priest's office.' And again, the preposition ἐκ may be derivative ('those who traced their descent from'), or partitive ('those from among'). The parallel clause ὁ μὴ αὐτῶν γεν. appears to be decisive in favour of the 'derivative' sense of ἐκ, and to favour the predicative interpretations of ἱερατ. λαμβ.

At the same time the description of the priests as descended 'from the 176 τὴν ἱερατίαν λαμβάνοντες ἐντολὴν ἔχουσιν ἀποδεκατοῖν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τοῦτ' ἔστιν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἐξεληλυθότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος Ἀβραάμ.

5 ἀποδεκατοῖν BD₂*: -τοῦν SאΑC. ὁσφρύος D₂*.

sons of Levi' and not 'from Levi' or 'from Aaron' is remarkable. By the use of this phrase the writer probably wishes to carry back the thought of the Mosaic priesthood to its fundamental idea. Levi and his descendants represented the dedication of Israel to God with all the consequent duties and privileges which were afterwards concentrated in priests and High-priest. Thus the phrase will mean 'those who tracing their descent from a dedicated tribe witnessed to the original destiny of Israel.'

The same thought appears to underlie the titles characteristic of Deuteronomy 'the priests, the Levites' (xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9), 'the priests, the sons of Levi' (xxi. 5; xxxi. 9). Comp. Josh. iii. 3; viii. 33.

τὴν ἱερ. λαμβ.] Vulg. sacerdotium accipientes. This phrase (as distinct from ἱερατεύοντες) brings out the thought that the office was specifically committed to them. It was of appointment and not by nature. Comp. Ecclus. xlv. 7.

Ἱσρατία (-εία) occurs in Ν .T. only here and in Luke i. 9. In relation to ἱερωσύνη (c. vii. 11 n., 12, 24) it expresses the actual service of the priest and not the office of priesthood. The tithes were given to the 'children of Levi' 'for their service,' Num. xviii. 21. Comp. Ecclus. xlv. 7, 20: ἱερατεύειν, Luke i. 8 ('to perform the priest's office'), ἱεράτευμα 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9 ('a body of ministering priests').

ἐντ. ἔχουσιν] In this case the claim to the tithe rested on a specific ordinance (κατὰ τὸν νόμον). Abraham spontaneously recognised Melchizedek's claim.

ἀποδεκατοῖν τὸν λ.] The Levites tithed the people (Num. xviii. 21 ff.) and paid a tithe of this tithe to the priests (id. vv. 26 ff.). The priests can thus be said to tithe the people as claiming the tithe of the whole offering (comp. Tob. i. 7 ff.). They represented the right in its highest form, just as they represented in its highest form the conception of a body consecrated to the divine service.

The word ἀποδεκατόω (δεκατόω), which seems to be confined to Biblical and ecclesiastical writers, is used both of

(1) The person claiming the tithe from another (ἀποδεκ. τινα). 1 Sam. viii. 15, 17; Neh. x. 37; and of

(2) The person paying the tithe (ἀποδ. τι). (Gen. xxviii. 22; Deut. xiv. 21; xxvi. 12; Matt. xxiii. 23; Luke xi.42.

Ἀποδεκατεύω is found Lk. xviii. 12, Δεκατεύω is a classical word.

The peculiar form ἀποδεκατοῖν, which is given by BD₂*, is supported by κατασκηνοῖν Matt. xiii. 32; Mk. iv. 32; φιμοῖν 1 Pet. ii. 15; and similar forms which occur in inscriptions e.g. στεφανοῖν, ζηλοῖν.

This form, it may be observed, goes to confirm the writing ι subscr. in the contracted infinitives ἀγαπᾷν &c. ζῇν.

κατὰ τὸν νόμον] The right which the Levitical priests exercised was in virtue of a special injunction. They had no claim beyond that which the Law gave them.

τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς...καίπερ ἐξεληλυθότας...] The priesthood gave a real preeminence, but still it did not alter the essential relationship of all Abraham's descendants. Nor did its claims extend beyond them. We might have expected naturally that the right of tithing (like the privilege of blessing) would have been exercised only by one 177ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν δεδεκάτωκεν Ἀβραάμ, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας εὐλόγηκεν. ⁷χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος βι/λογεῖται. ⁸καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι

6 Ἀβρ. אBCD₂*: + τὸν' 'Αβρ. SΑ. εὐλόγηκεν אB, ηύλόγηκεν D₂*: εὐλόγησεν C, ηὀλόγησεν A.

superior by birth. Here however the office itself established a difference among brethren. Thus the two clauses taken together indicate the dignity of the Levitical priesthood, and at the same time the narrow limits within which the exercise of its power was confined. This priesthood rested upon a definite and limited institution.

For ἐκ τῆς 'σφύος see Gen. xxxv. 11 (lxx.).

(6). ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλ. ἐξ αὐ.] he whose genealogy is not counted from them, i.e. the sons of Levi (v. 5). Vulg. cujus autem generatio non adnumeratur in eis; O.L. qui autem non enumeratur de his. The claim of Melchizedek to the priesthood rested on no descent but on his inherent personal title.

Ἠρμήνευσε δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀγενεαλόγητος. ἐξ αὐτῶν γὰρ εἶπε τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ μὴ γενεαλογεῖσθαι. δῆλον τίνυν ὡς ἐκεῖνος oὐκ ἀληθῶς ἀγενεαλόγητος ἀλλὰ κατὰ τύπον (Thdt.).

δεδεκάτωκεν...εὐλόγηκεν] v. 9, δεδεκάτωται. The fact is regarded as permanent in its abiding consequences. It stands written in Scripture as having a present force.

The use of the perfect in the Epistle is worthy of careful study. In every case its full force can be felt.

i. 4 κεκληρονόμηκεν.

— 13 εἴρηκεν, iv. 4.

ii. 14 κεκοινώνηκεν...μετέσχεν.

iii. 3 ἡξίωται.

— 14 γεγόναμεν.

iv. 2 ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι.

— 14, 15 διεληλυθότα...πεπειρασμἐνον.

vii. 3 ἀφωμοιωμένος.

— 13 μετέσχηκεν.

vii. 14 ἀνατέταλκεν.

viii. 5 κεχρημάτισται.

— 6 τέτυχεν.


ix. 18 ἐνκεκαίνισται.

— 26 πεφανέρωται.

x. 14 τετελείωκεν.

xi. 5 μεμαρτύρηται.

— 17 προσενήνοχεν, note.

— 28 πεποίηκεν.

xii. 2 κεκάθικεν.

— 3 ὑπομεμενηκότα, note.

καὶ...εὐλόγηκεν...] Melchizedek received tithes: he gave a blessing. This exercise of the privilege of a superior is a second mark of preeminence; and he exercised it towards one who as having the promises might have seemed to be raised above the acceptance of any human blessing.

(7). χωρὶς δὲ π. ἀντ....] But without any gainsaying...Vulg. Sine ulla autem contradictione (O. L. controversia).

τὸ ἔλ....τοῦ κρ....] The abstract form offers the principle in its widest application. Comp. xii. 13.

8—10. Melchizedek was superior to Abraham: he was superior also to the Levitical priests generally. This is shewn both by the nature of the priests themselves (v. 8), and by the position which the common ancestor occupied towards Abraham (9, 10).

(8). καὶ ὧδε μέν...ἐκεῖ δέ...] And, further, while here, in this system which we see,...there, in that remote and solitary example...

The ὧδε refers to that Levitical priesthood which was nearer to the writer's experience than Melchizedek, though the latter is the immediately 178 λαμβάνουσιν, ἐκεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῃ. ⁹καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, δι' Ἀβραάμ καὶ Λευεὶς ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων δεδεκάτωται, ¹⁰ἔτι φὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύῖ τοῦ πατρὸς ἧν ὅτε

9 εἰπεῖν: εἰπεν C* D₂*. Λευείς א* ΒC*, Λευίς A: Λευεί א* D₂*, Λευί S.

preceding subject. So oὗτος is used: e.g. Acts iv. 11.

Under the Mosaic Law dying men (ἀποθμήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι), men who were not only liable to death, mortal, but men who were actually seen to die from generation to generation enjoyed the rights of priests. For such an order there is not only the contingency but the fact of succession. While Melchizedek was one to whom witness is borne that he liveth.(Euth. Zig. μαρτυρούμενος δὲ διὰ τοῦ σεσιγῆσθαι τὴν τελευτὴν αὐτοῦ.) The writer recurring to the exact form of the record in Genesis, on which he has dwelt before (v. 3), emphasises the fact that Melchizedek appears there simply in the power of life. So far he does not die; the witness of Scripture is to his living. What he does is in virtue of what he is.

With μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι (Latt. ibi autem contestatur quia...Aug. qui testificatur se vivere) compare c. xi. 4 (ἐμαρτ. εἶναι δίκ.); id. 5 (μεμαρτ. εὐαρεστηκέναι). Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. § 81 (i. 132 Μ.), Μωυσῆς ἄρχει μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ἐστὶ πιστὸς ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ.

δεκάτας] The plural is used here and v. 9, as distinguished from the singular in vv. 2, 4, to express the repeated and manifold tithings under the Mosaic system; or perhaps the many objects which were tithed. The former interpretation is the more likely because in vv. 2, 4, the reference is to one special act.

(9), (10). It might be said by a Jewish opponent: But Abraham was not a priest: the priesthood, with its peculiar prerogatives, was not instituted in his time. τί πρὸς τοὺς ἱερέας ἡμῶν εἰ Ἀβραὰμ δεκάτην ἔδωκεν; (Chrys.). The answer is that Abraham included in himself, as the depositary of the divine promise and the divine blessing, all the forms, as yet undifferentiated, in which they were to be embodied.

(9). καὶ...δι' Ἀβραάμ...δεδεκάτωται] And through Abraham, as the representative of the whole Jewish people, Levi also... is tithed. Vulg. Et...per (August. propter) Abraham et Levi...decimatus est. The descendants of Abraham were included in him, not only as he was their forefather physically, but also because he was the recipient of the divine promises in which the fulness of the race in its manifold developments was included. Aud Levi includes his descendants in his own person just as he was himself included in Abraham.

It must be observed that Levi is not represented as sharing in the act (δεκάτην ἔδωκεν), but in the consequences of the act passively (δεδεκάτωται, Latt. decimatus est). The act of his father determined his relation to Melchizedek, just as if Abraham had made himself Melchizedek's vassal.

ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν] Vulg. ut ita dictum sit. V. L. quemadmodum dicam (Aug. sicut oportet dicere).

This classical phrase does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. or in lxx., but is found in Philo (e.g. De plant. Noæ i. 353 M.). It serves to introduce a statement which may startle a reader, and which requires to be guarded from misinterpretation.

(10) ἔτι γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύῖ...] Comp. v. 5 ἐξελ. ἐκ τῆς ὀσφ. The repetition of the phrase, which occurs again in the N.T. only in Acts ii. 30, emphasises 179 the idea of the real unity of Abraham's race in the conditions of their earthly existence. By this teaching a mystery is indicated to us into which we can see but a little way, a final antithesis in our being; we feel at every turn that we are dependent on the past, and that the future will depend in a large degree upon ourselves. This is one aspect of life, and it is not overlooked in Scripture. At the same time it does not give a complete view of our position. On the one side our outward life is conditioned by our ancestry: on the other side we stand in virtue of our 'spirit' in immediate, personal connexion with God (c. xii. 9). Each man is at once an individual of a race and a new power in the evolution of the race. He is born (Traducianism), and also he is created (Creationism). Comp. Martensen Dogm. § 74. Additional Note on iv. 12.

του πατρός] The context in the absence of further definition, requires the sense 'his father' (not 'our father'). Abraham, who was the father of all Israel (Luke i. 73; John viii. 53, 56; Acts vii. 2; James ii. 21; Rom. iv. 1, 12, ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν), can be spoken of also as the father of Levi in particular, through Isaac and Jacob.

(c) The Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Christ (11—25).

Having interpreted the type of an absolute priesthood, independent of descent and uninterrupted by death (v. 3) offered in the record of Melchizedek, and having pointed out the thoughts to which that history might guide a student of the O.T., in respect of the later priesthood of the Law, the writer goes on to consider in detail the characteristics of the Levitical priesthood and of the Law which it essentially represented in relation to the Priesthood of Christ. The Levitical priesthood (generally) was incapable of effecting that at which a priesthood aims, the 'perfecting' of the worshipper; an end which the Priesthood of Christ is fitted to secure. This is established by the fact that the Levitical priesthood was,

(a) Transitory: a new Priesthood was promised (11—14); and

(β) Temporal, as contrasted with that which is eternal, universal (15—19).

While on the other hand the new Priesthood is

(a) Immutable: confirmed by an oath (20—22); and

(β) Uninterrupted: embodied for ever in the One Priest (23—25).

Briefly, if we regard the argument in its bearing on the Gospel, the notes of Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek are that it is: (1) New, (2) effective, (3) sure, (4) one.

The argument turns mainly upon the nature of the Levitical priesthood, but the Law is involved in the Priesthood. The abrogation of the one carries with it the abrogation of the other. If the Hebrews came to feel that Christ had superseded the priests of the Old Covenant, they would soon learn that the whole Law had passed away.

Throughout it is implied that if Melchizedek was greater than Levi, then a fortiori Christ was, of Whom Melchizedek was a partial type.

¹¹Now if there had been a bringing to perfection through the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people hath received the Law, what further need would there have been that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek and be styled not after the order of Aaron? ¹²For when the priesthood is changed, there is made also of necessity a change of law. ¹³For He of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. ¹⁴For it is evident that our Lord hath risen out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing of priests. ¹⁵And what we say is yet more abundantly evident if after the likeness of Melchizedek 180 συνήντησεν αὐτῷ Μελχισεδέκ. ¹¹Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις

10 Μελχ. אBC* D₂*: + ὁ' Μελχ. SΑ. 11 εἰ: C.

there ariseth another priest, ¹⁶who hath been made not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an indissoluble life; ¹⁷for it is witnessed of Him,

Thou art a priest for ever,

After the order of Melchizedek.

¹⁸For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness—¹⁹for the Law made nothing perfect—and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God. ²⁰And inasmuch as He hath not received His office without the taking of an oath—²¹for while they (the Levitical priests) have been made priests without any taking of an oath, He was made with taking of an oath, through Him that saith to Him,

The Lord sware and will not repent Himself,

Thou art a priest for ever—

²²by so much also hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant. ²³And while they have been made priests many in number, because they are hindered by death from abiding with men, ²⁴He, because He abideth for ever, hath His priesthood inviolable. ²⁵Whence also He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

11—14. The Levitical priesthood and the Law, which it represented, were alike transitional and transitory.

It is assumed that the object of the Law was to bring or to prepare for bringing the people to 'perfection': divine legislation can have no other end. The priesthood, on which the Law rested, embodied its ruling idea. And conversely in the Law as a complete system we can see the aim of the priesthood. The priesthood therefore was designed to assist in bringing about this 'perfection.'

If then there had been a bringing to perfection through the Levitical priesthood—if in other words there had been a bringing to perfection through the Law—there would have been no need of another priesthood. If on the other hand the whole Law failed to accomplish that to which it pointed, then so far also the priesthood failed. Such a failure, not a failure but the fulfilment of the divine purpose, was indicated by the promise of another priesthood in a new line.

(11). εἰ μὲν οὖν...ἧν...τίς ἔτι χρεία...λέγεσθαι;] Now if there had been a bringing to perfection...what further need would there have been...? Vulg. Si ergo consummatio...erat...quid adhuc necessarium...? The argument starts from the line of thought just laid down. Before the Levitical priesthood was organised another type of priesthood had been foreshewn. But if the utmost object of a priesthood—of a divine provision for man's progress to his true goal—had been capable of attainment under the Mosaic order, what need would there have been that another priest should arise and that this new priest should be styled after a different order? Experience however proved its necessity. The Levitical priesthood was, and was proved to be, only provisional. It could not effect that to which it pointed. This conviction was expressed by the Psalmist when he recalled the earlier type.

The conditional form (εἰ...ἧν...τίς ἔτι χρεία...;) may be rendered either 'if there had been (which was not the case) what further need would there have been (as in fact there was)?' or 'if there were (as is not the case) what further need would there be (as there 181 διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἧν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ' αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τἰς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι; ¹²μετατιθεμένης γὰρ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐξ ἀνάγκης

om. ἧν B. ἐπ' αὐτῆς אABCD₂*: ἐπ' αὐτῇ S. νενομοθέτηται: -τητο S. τίς + γάρ D₂*.

is)?' The former suits the context best. Comp. c. iv. 8 Additional Note.

For the use of μὲν οὖν without any δέ afterwards, see c. viii. 4; Acts i. 6; ii. 41; xiii. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 4, 7; Phil. iii. 8.

διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερ.] The word Λευειτικός appears to have been formed by the writer. It is not found in the lxx., nor is it quoted from Josephus, Philo or the Apostolic fathers. The use of this title (as distinguished from 'Aaronic': κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών) illustrates the desire of the writer to regard the priesthood as the concentration (so to speak) of the hallowing of the tribe (v. 5 note).

The word ἱερωσύνη occurs in the N.T. only in this chapter (re. 12, 24 [14 ἱερέων]). It is rare in the lxx. and found there only in the later books. As distinguished from ἱερατία (-εία) (v. 5 note) it expresses the abstract notion of the priestly office, as distinguished from the priestly service. The words are not distinguished in the Versions.

ὁ λαὸς γάρ...νενομοθ.] Vulg. populus enim sub ipso...legem accepit. The efficacy of the Law may justly be represented by the efficacy of the priesthood, for the people, called to be the people of God (v. 5), hath received the Law, resting on it (the priesthood) as its foundation. For this use of ἐπί with gen. see Luke iv. 29. The general sense is expressed more naturally in English by 'under it' as the forming, shaping power. The temporal sense (Matt. i. 11) has no force here.

For ὁ λαὸς comp. c. ii. 17 note.

This use of the passive (νενομοθέτηται comp. viii. 6) corresponds directly with the active form νομοθετεῖν τινα (Ps. xxiv. (xxv.) 8; cxviii. (cxix.) 33)5 as it is found also in Plato, answering to νομ. τινι. The Law is regarded as still in force (x. 1; ix. 6).

τίς ἔτι χρεία...λέγεσθαι;] The explicit words of the Psalmist at once separate the new priest from the former line. He was styled 'not after the order of Aaron.' The ἔτι marks that the want was felt after the Levitical priesthood had been established. The change was found by experience to be required, and it was described long before it came to pass by one who lived under the Law and enjoyed its privileges.

The negative (οὐ) belongs to the descriptive clause and not to λέγεσθαι.

For ἀνίστασθαι see Acts iii. 22; vii. 37. By the use of ἕτερον (not ἄλλον) the two priesthoods are directly compared to the exclusion of all others. Contrast iv. 8 (περὶ ἄλλης ἡμ.).

(12). μετατιθ. γάρ...γίνεται] For when the priesthood is changed...The γάρ may refer to the main thought of v. 11 or to the parenthesis (ὁ λαὸς γάρ...). The former connexion appears to be the more natural. The change of priesthood involves the change of Law. Such a change must have been called for by an overwhelming necessity.

The change of the priesthood is presented as the transference, the removal, of the priesthood from one order, one line, to another: translatum est sacerdotium de tribu in tribum, de sacerdotali videlicet ad regalem 182 καὶ νόμου μετάθεσις γίνεται. ¹³ἐφ' ὅν γὰρ λέγεται ταῦτα φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν, ἀφ' ἧς οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκεν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ. ¹⁴πρόδηλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξ Ἰούδα

12 om. καὶ νόμου Β. 13 λέγεται: λέγες D₂*. προσέσχηκεν אBD₂: προσέσχεν AC.

(Primasius). The 'removal' of the Law is more complete: c. xii. 27. This change is considered in the abstract (νόμου μετάθεσις); and the use of the pres. partic. (μετατιθεμένης) makes the two processes absolutely coincident (this thought is lost in the Vulg. translato enim).

(13). ἐφ' ὅν γὰρ λ. τ.] Latt. in quo enim...This clause goes back to v. 11, the intervening verse 12 being treated as parenthetical. The necessity there spoken of has been recognised and met. The promise in the Psalm, with all its consequences, has been fulfilled; for He to whom these divine words are directed... For ἐφ' ὅν comp. Mark ix. 12 f.: εἰς ἥν v. 14 note.

μετέσχηκεν] Latt. (de alia tribu) est. The choice of this word points to the voluntary assumption of humanity by the Lord. It is not said simply that He was born of another tribe: He was of His own will so born. Compare ii. 14 (μετέσχεν); and for the perfect v. 6 note.

The use of ἑτέρας appears to place the royal and priestly tribes in significant connexion and contrast.

The Glossa Ordin. (following Chrysostom) draws a parallel between the tribe of Judah and the Lord. Intuere mysterium: primum fuit regalis [tribus Iudæ], postea facta est sacerdotalis. Sic Christus rex erat semper; sacerdos autem factus est quando carnem suscepit, quando sacrificium obtulit.

It was not unnatural that some endeavoured to claim for the Lord a double descent from Levi as well as from Judah. Comp. Lightfoot on Clem. 1 Cor. 32.

προσέσχηκεν τῷ θυσιαστ.] hath given attendance at...Latt. (alt.) præsto fuit. For προσέχειν compare c. ii. 1 note. From the sense of 'giving attention to,' that of practical 'devotion' to an object follows naturally: 1 Tim. iv. 13; iii. 8 (τῷ οἵνῳ). The statement applies only to the regular legitimate service of the altar and does not take account of any exceptional acts, as of the royal sacrifices of David and Solomon.

(14). πρόδηλον γάρ...] For it is openly, obviously, evident to all...Comp. 1 Tim. v. 24 f. The word πρόδηλος occurs several times in Clem. 1 Cor. cc. 11, 12, 40, 51.

ἐξ Ἰούδα] out of the tribe of Judah. Compare Apoc. v. 5 ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα.

These are the only two passages in the N.T. in which the Lord is definitely connected with Judah except in the record of the Nativity (Matt. ii. 6 || Micah v. 2). The privilege of the tribe is elsewhere concentrated in its representative, David (2 Sam. vii. 12; Jer. xxiii. 5; Ps. cxxxii. 11; Luke i. 32; Rom. i. 3). Comp. Gen. xlix. 8 ff.

Here the contrast with Levi makes the mention of the tribe necessary. The Lord traced His descent from the royal and not from the priestly tribe. There is no direct mention in this Epistle of the relation of the Lord to David.

It is important to observe that the writer affirms here most plainly the true manhood of the Lord (comp. v. 7 ff.). Like St John he combines the most striking testimonies to His divine and Human natures.

There is nothing to show in what exact form he held that the Lord's descent from Judah through David was reckoned: whether as the legal representative of Joseph, or as the Son of Mary, who was herself known 183 ἀνατέτλκεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς ἥν φυλὴν περὶ ἱερέων oὐδὲv Μωυσῆς ἐλάλησεν. ¹⁵Kαὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται

14 περὶ ἱερ. οὐδέν (א)ABC* D₂*: οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης S syrr. οὐδ. M.: M. oὐδ. א*

15 om. τὴν Β.

to be of Davidic descent. The genealogies aro in favour of the former view. Compare Clem. R. xxxii. and Lightf.

ἀνατέταλκεν] hath risen, sprung. Latt. ortus est. The image may be taken from the rising of the sun or of a star, or from the rising of a plant from its hidden germ. For the former image comp. Luke i. 78; 2 Pet. i. 19; Num. xxiv. 17; Mal. iv. 2. For the latter, Is. lxi. 11; Jer. xxiii. 5; Zech. iii. 8; vi. 12. The usage of the N.T. is in favour of the former interpretation; and Thoophylact, referring to Num. xxiv. and Mal. iv., says well: δι' ὧν δηλοῦται τὸ εἰς φωτισμὸν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου γενέσθαι.

ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν] Compare c. xiii. 20 ὁ κύριος ἡ. Ἰησοῦς.

The title without any addition is very rare and occurs (only): 1 Tim. i. 14; 2 Tim. i. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 15.

Comp. ὁ κύριος ii. 3 note.

In Apoc. xi. 15 the title is applied to the Father; ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ χριστὸς αὐτοῦ.

εἰς ἧν φ.] Latt. in qua tribu.

Comp. ἐφ ὅν v. 13; Luke xxii. 65; Eph. v. 32; Acts ii. 25; and also 1 Pet. i. 11.

15—19. The Levitical priesthood was transitory, and during its continuance it was stamped with the conditions of limitation.

The incapacity of the Levitical priesthood to bring to perfection was shewn, as has been seen, by the fact that the promise of another priesthood was made while it was still in full activity (11— 14). The conclusion is established still more obviously from the consideration that this promised priesthood was after a wholly different type, not legal but spiritual, not sacerdotal only, but royal, not transitory but eternal.

(15). καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδ...] And what we say is yet more abundantly evident...Vulg. Et amplius adhuc manifestum est...Doubt has been felt as to the exact reference of this statement. Is it the abrogation of the Law which is more abundantly proved by the language of the Psalm? or the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood? Both conclusions follow from the special description of the new priesthood. But the thought of the abrogation of the Law is really secondary. This is involved in the inefficacy of the priesthood which is the dominant thought in connexion with Christ's work. Hence the new proof is directed to the former main argument.

This is the view given in the main by patristic commentators: τί ἐστιν κατάδηλον; τὸ μέσον τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἑκατέρας, τὸ διάφορον, ὅσον κρείττων ὅς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονε (Chrys.).

ἥ ὅτι τὸ ἐναλλαγήσεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην καὶ τὴν διαθήκην (Theophlct.).

amplius manifestum est...subaudi destructum esse sacerdotium legis (Primas.).

κατάδηλον] The word occurs here only in the Ν. T. and it is not found in lxx. (Hdt. Xen. Jos.). Compare for the force of κατὰ, κατείδωλος (Acts xvii. 16), καταφιλεῖν.

εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιό. Μ.] if, as may be most certainly laid down on the authority of Scripture, it is after the likeness of Melchizedek another priest ariseth, if this is to be the pattern of the new priesthood. Rom. viii. 31 &c. 'John vii. 23 &c.

The idea of 'order' is specialised 184 ἱερεύς ἕτερος, ¹⁶ὅς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης γέγονεν

16 σαρκίνης: σαρκικῆς S.

into that of likeness. Melchizedek furnishes, so to speak, the personal as well as the official type of the new High-priest. This 'likeness' brings out more clearly than before the difference between the new and the old priesthood.

For the use of εἰ, where the truth of the supposition is assumed, see Rom. viii. 31; John vii. 23 &c.

Ὁμοιότης occurs again in c. iv. 15. The word is classical and is found in Gen. i. 11 f.; Wisd. xiv. 19.

ἀνίσταται] v. 11. The present describes the certain fulfilment of the divine purpose, which has indeed become a fact (v. 16, γέγονεν). Comp. Matt. ii. 4; xxvi. 2.

ἱερεὺς ἕτερος] v. 11, i.e. Christ fulfilling the promise of the Psalm. Thoodoret remarks (on v. 3) that while Melchizedek was only a type of Christ's Person and Nature, the Priesthood of Christ was after the fashion of Melchizedek. For the office of priest is the office of a man.

(16). ὅς...γέγονεν...ἀκαταλύτου] who hath become priest not after a law expressed in a commandment of flesh, but after the power of an indissoluble life. There is a double contrast between 'law' and 'power,' and between the 'commandment of flesh' and the 'indissoluble life.' The 'law' is an outward restraint: the 'power' is an inward force. The' Commandment of flesh' carries with it of necessity the issue of change and succession: the 'indissoluble life' is above all change except a change of form.

A priesthood fashioned after the former type was essentially subject to the influence of death: a priesthood fashioned after the latter type must be eternal

Each part also in the expression of the second contrast is contrasted, 'commandment' with 'life,' that which is of external injunction with that which is of spontaneous energy: and 'flesh' with 'indissoluble,' that which carries with it the necessity of corruption with that which knows no change.

οὐ κατὰ νόμ. ἐντ. σαρκ.] Vulg. non secundum legem mandati carnalis. In the phrase κατὰ νόμον the writer necessarily thinks of the Jewish Law, but this is not directly referred to in its concrete form as 'the Law,' but indicated in its character as 'a law,' so that the words express a perfectly general idea: 'not according to a law of carnal commandment.' The gen. expresses that in which the law finds expression. Comp. John v. 29. See also v. 2 note.

In characterising the commandment (ἐντ. σαρκ.) the strong form which expresses the substance (σάρκινος) and not simply the character of flesh (σαρκικός) is used to mark the element with which the commandment dealt, in which it found its embodiment. It was not only fashioned after the nature of flesh: it had its expression in flesh (comp. ix. 10 δικαιώματα σαρκός). All the requirements, for example, to be satisfied by a Levitical priest were literally 'of flesh,' outward descent, outward perfectness, outward purity. No moral qualification was imposed.

The distinction between σάρκινος (carneus, of flesh, fleshy) and σαρκικός (carnalis, flesh-like, fleshly) is obvious. The former describes that of which the object is made (comp. λίθινος John ii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 3; ξύλινος 2 Tim. ii. 20). The latter, which is a very rare and late word in non-Biblical Greek, and found only once as a false v. l. for σάρκινος in lxx. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8, is moulded on the type of πηευματικός, and expresses that of which the object bears the character.

There is considerable confusion in 185 ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, ¹⁷μαρτυρεῖται γὰρ

17 μαρτυρείται K(-τε)ABD₂* syrr me the: μαρτυρεῖ S C.

authorities as to the form used in some passages of the Ν. T. The following appears to be the true distribution of the words:

(1). σάρκινος.

Rom. vii. 14 ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι opposed to ὁ νόμος πνευματικός.

1 Cor. iii. 1 ὥς σαρκίνοις opposed to ὥς πνευματικοῖς.

2 Cor. iii. 3 πλάκες σάρκιναι opposed to πλάκες λίθιναι.

(2). σαρκικός.

Rom. xv. 27 τὰ σαρκικά opposed to τὰ πνευματικά.

1 Cor. iii. 3 (bis) σαρκικοί ἐστε (in iii. 4 read ἄνθρωποι).

1 Cor. ix. 11 τὰ σαρκικά opposed to τὰ πνευματικά.

2 Cor. i. 12 ἐv σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ.

— x. 4 τὰ ἅπλα...οὐ σαρκικὰ ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ.

1 Pet. ii. 11 αἱ σαρκικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι.

The crucial passage for the use of the words is 1 Cor. iii. 1 ff. Here there can be no doubt as to the readings. In v. 1 we must read σαρκίνοις, in v. 3 (bis) σαρκικοί and in v. 4 ἄνθρωποι. The juxtaposition of the forms (though the difference is lost in the Latt.) seems to be conclusive as to the fact that there is a difference in their meaning.

The true reading in v. 4 throws light upon the other two. In v. 1 St Paul says that he was forced to address his readers as though they were merely 'men of flesh,' without the πνεῦμα. In v. 3, seeking to soften his judgment, he speaks of them as shewing traits which belong to the σἀρξ. In r. 4 it seems to him enough to suggest, what was beyond all question, that they were swayed by simply human feelings.

In the present verse Chrysostom, following the later reading σαρκικῆς gives part of the sense well: πάντα ὅσα διωρίζετο σαρκικὰ ἧν. τὸ γὰρ λέγειν περίτεμε τὴν σάρκα, Χρῖσον τὴν σάρκα, λοῦσον τὴν σάρκα, περίκειρον τὴν σάρκα...ταῦτα, εἰπέ μοι, οὐχί σαρκικά; εἰ δὲ θέλεις μαθεῖν καὶ τίνα ἅ ἐπηγγέλετο ἀγαθά, ἄκουε. Πολλὴ ζωή, φησί, τῇ σαρκί, γάλα καὶ μέλι τῇ σαρκί, εἰρήνη τῇ σαρκί, τρυφὴ τῇ σαρκί.

ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζ. ἀκατ.] Latt. sed secundum virtutem vitæ insolubilis (infatigabilis).

The life of Christ was not endless or eternal only. It was essentially 'indissoluble' (ἀκατάλυτος). Although the form of its manifestation was changed and in the earthly sense He died, yet His life endured unchanged even through earthly dissolution. He died and yet He offered Himself as living in death by the eternal Spirit (c. ix. 14). Comp. John xi. 26; xix. 34 note.

This life found its complete expression after the Ascension, but it does not date from that consummation of glory (comp. vii. 3).

It must be further noticed that the possession of this indissoluble life is not only the characteristic of Christ's exercise of His priestly office: it is the ground on which He entered upon it. Other priests were made priests in virtue of a special ordinance: He was made priest in virtue of His inherent nature. He could be, as none other, victim at once and priest

Yet again, the permanence of the personal life of the new Priest distinguishes Him essentially from the legal priests. To Phinehas 'the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron, and to his seed' was given 'the covenant of an everlasting priesthood' (Num. xxv. 13; Ex. xl. 15); but this was subject to the conditions of succession, and therefore to the possibility of change. A priesthood founded upon a covenant involves conditions on two sides: a priesthood founded on an oath to a 186 ὅτι Σύ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. ¹⁸ἀθέτησις μὲν γὰρ γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθεωὲς

σύ: σύ + εἶ vg syrr me the (and v. 21). 18 προσαγούσης D₂*.

person for himself is absolute. Comp. Gal. iii. 19 ff.

(17). μαρτυρεῖται γὰρ ὅτι Σύ...] for it is witnessed of him, Thou art...Vulg. contestatur enim quoniam Tu.....Comp. v. 8. The quotation establishes both the eternity and the character of the new priesthood (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, κατὰ τὴν τ. Μ.).

The ὅτι here is recitative (x. 8; xi. 18); and μαρτυρεῖται is used absolutely (xi. 39).

The direct personal reference in the Psalm (Σὺ ἱερεύς...) has not been given since the first quotation: v. 6. It occurs again in v. 21.

(18), (19). ἀθέτησις μὲν γάρ...ἐπεισαγωγὴ) δέ...] For there is a disannulling...and a bringing in thereupon...Vulg. Reprobatio quidem fit...introductio vero... The γάρ goes back to v. 15. The conclusion there pointed to is confirmed by the decisive fact that the promised priesthood is not only distinct from the Levitical but also irreconcileable with it, exclusive of it; so far, that is, that the Levitical priesthood has no longer any ground for continuance when this has been established.

The whole sentence is divided by μέν and δέ into two corresponding parts. Γίνεται goes with both; and οὐδὲν...νόμος is parenthetical. This construction appears to be established decisively by the correspondence of ἀθέτησις...ἀπεισαγωγή, and of the general scope of the two clauses. The 'commandment' stands over against the 'hope,' the 'weakness and unprofitableness' of the one over against the power of the other, whereby 'we draw nigh to God.' Παύεται, φησίν, ὁ νόμος ἀπεισάγεται δὲ ἡ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐλπίς (Thdt.).

(18). ἀθέτησις...προαγ. ἐντ...] The word ἀθέτησις occurs again c. ix. 26; the verb ἀθετεῖν is found c. x. 28; Gal. ii. 21; iii. 15; 1 Tim. v. 12; and is common in the lxx.; but it is generally used there of unfaithful, rebellious action: Ex. xxi. 8; Jer. iii. 20 (ἀθεσία, ἀθέτημα).

This open, direct disannulling of the previous system, which is, as it were, set at nought, 'cometh to pass' (γίνεται) in the fulfilment of the divine order, as indicated by the mention of an eternal priesthood on a new type.

The indefinite form of the phrase προαγούσης ἐντολῆς serves to express the general thought of the character of the foundation on which the Levitical priesthood rested as a 'preceding,' a 'foregoing,' and so a preparatory commandment.

The word προάγουσα (1 Tim. i. 18; v. 24) expresses not only priority (an earlier commandment) but connexion (a foregoing commandment). The divine commandment (ἐντολή), pointing to an earthly institution, stands in contrast with the hope, rising above earth.

The use of ἐντολή fixes the reference to the ordinance of the priesthood particularly (v. 16) in which, as has been seen, the Law (οὐδὲν ἐτελ. ὁ νόμος) was summed up, so far as it is compared with the Gospel.

διὰ τὸ αὐτ. ἀσθ. καὶ ἀνωφ.] because of its weakness and unprofitableness...Vulg. propter infirmitatem ejus et inutilitatem. A command, a law, is essentially powerless to help. It cannot inspire with strength: it cannot bring aid to the wounded conscience. And the ritual priesthood was affected by both these faults. It was external, and it was formal. It did not deal with the soul or with things eternal.

Infirmitatem habebat lex, quia operantes se non valebat juvare: 187 καὶ ἀνωφελές, ¹⁹oὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, ἐπεισαγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δι' ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ θεῷ.

19 ἐπεισαγωγῆς D₂*. ἐγγίζωμεν A.

inutilitatem vero, quia nomini regnum cælerum valebat aperire (Primas.).

οὐδὲν οὖν ὠφέλησεν ὁ νόμος; ὠφέλησε μὲν καὶ σφόδρα ὠφέλησεν ἀλλὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι τελείους οὐκ ὠφέλησεν (Chrys.).

The use of the abstract forms ἀσθ., τὸ ἀνωφ., marks the principle and not only the fact. Comp. vi. 17. For τὸ ἀσθενές comp. 1 Cor. i. 27; Gal. iv. 9; Rom. viii. 3 (ἠσθένες).

ἐνταύθα ἡμῖν ἐπιφύονται οἱ αἱρετικαί. ἀλλ' ἄκουε ἀκριβῶς. οὐκ εἶπε διὰ τὸ πονηρόν, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ μοχθηρόν, αλλὰ διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές (Chrys.)

(19). οὐδὲν γάρ...] The Law, of which the institution of the Levitical priesthood (the special commandment just noticed) was a part or indeed the foundation (v. 11), brought nothing to perfection. In every application (οὐδέν) it was provisional and preparatory (comp. ix. 21 ff.; Lev. xvi. 16). This decisive parenthesis is explanatory of 'the weakness and unprofitableness' of the commandment (for the Law...). Man must strife towards the perfection, the accomplishment, of his destiny on earth. The Law failed him in the effort. He outgrew it. The very scope of the Law indeed was to define the requirements of life, and to shew that man himself could not satisfy them. Comp. Gal. ii. 15 f.; iii. 19; Rom. iii. 19 f.; vii. 7 ff.

ἐτελείωσεν] v. 11 note. The tense indicates the final view of the Law. Contrast x. 14 τετελείωκεν.

ἐπεισαγωγὴ δὲ κρ. ἐλπ.] There was on the one side the disannulling of a preparatory commandment, and there was on the other side the introduction of a new (ἐπί) and better hope to occupy the place which was held by the commandment before.

This hope is described as better than the commandment, and not simply as better than the hope conveyed by the commandment. The comparison is between the commandment characteristic of the Law and the hope characteristic of the Gospel; and not between the temporal hope of the Law and the spiritual hope of the Gospel. Though the Law had (cf. viii. 6) a hope, the thought of it seems to be out of place here.

For ἐπεισαγωγή compare ἐπεισέρχομαι Luke xxi. 35; and for ἐλπίς c. iii. 6; vi. 19 notes.

δι' ἧς ἐγγ. τῷ θεῷ] through which hope we draw nigh to God...Vulg. per quam proximamus ad Deum. The commandment was directed to the fulfilment of ordinances on earth: hope enters within the veil and carries believers with it (c. vi. 19).

The phrase ἐγγίζειν τῷ θεῷ is used, though rarely, in lxx. of the priests: Ex. xix. 22 (נגש); Lev. x. 3 (קרב); Ezek, xlii. 13; xliii. 19.

But also more widely; Is. xxix. 13: comp. Ex. xxiv. 2: Hos. xii. 6 (ἐγγ. πρὸς τ. θ.).

It occurs again in the N.T., James iv. 8.

All believers are, in virtue of their Christian faith, priests: 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Apoc. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6. That which was before (in a figure) the privilege of a class has become (in reality) the privilege of all; and thus man is enabled to gain through fellowship with God the attainment of bis destiny (τελείωσις). Comp. c. x. 19.

20—25. The Apostle goes on to shew the superiority of Christ's Priesthood over the Levitical priesthood from its essential characteristics. Christ's Priesthood is immutable in its foundation (20—22); and it is uninterrupted in its personal tenure (23-25).

20—23. The And corresponds to 188 ²⁰Καὶ καθ' ὅσον oὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, (οἱ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, ²¹ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν Ὤμοσεν Kύριος, καὶ οὐ

20 εἰ μὲν γὰρ χ. ὁρκ.: om. D₂* syr hl.

the And in vv. 15, 23, and introduces a new moment in the argument.

The additional solemnity of the oath gives an additional dignity to the covenant which is introduced by it (compare vi. 13 ff.). And yet further, by this oath the purpose of God is declared absolutely. Man 's weakness no longer enters as an element into the prospect of its fulfilment. The permanence of a covenant which rests upon an oath is assured.

The introduction of the idea of a 'covenant' is sudden and unprepared. It was probably suggested by the words recorded in Matt. xxvi. 28. The thought of Christ's Priesthood is necessarily connected with the history of His Passion.

(20) (22). καθ' ὅσον...κατὰ τοσοῦτο καὶ...] And inasmuch...by so much also... Latt. Quantum...in tantum...

The sovereign validity of the divine oath is the measure of the exceeding authority of the dispensation which rests upon it.

For the form of comparison see c. i. 4 κρείττων...ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον. iii. 3 πλείονος...καθ' ὅσον. ix. 27 καθ' ὅσον...οὕτως...; and for the introduction of the parenthesis (oἱ μὲν γάρ...εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) compare c. xii. 18—24.

(20). oὐ χωρὶς ὁρκ.] not without the taking of an oath hath He received His office. This addition is suggested by v. 22, and by μετὰ ὁρκ. which follows. The words however may be taken generally: 'the whole transaction doth not take place without the taking of an oath'...

The word ἀρκωμοσία, which occurs again in v. 28; Ezek. xvii. 18 f.; 1 Esdr. viii. 90, expresses the whole action, and not simply the oath.

oἱ μὲν γάρ...ὁ δέ...εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] for while they...He...Vulg. alii quidem...hic autem...This elaborate parenthesis is inserted to explain fully the contrast implied in χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας.

'For while the one class of priests (the Levitical priests) have become priests without any taking of an oath, He was made priest with it' (τάt comp. Matt. xiv. 7). The stress laid upon the oath suggests the contrast between 'the promise' and 'the Law' on which St Paul dwells (e.g. Gal. iii. 15 ff.). The Law is an expression of the sovereign power of God Who requires specific obedience: the oath implies a purpose of love not to be disturbed by man's unworthiness.

εἰσὶν ἱερεὶς γεγον.] The periphrasis marks the possession as well as the impartment of the office: they have been made priests and they act as priests.

Comp. v. 27; iv. 2; x. 10 (ii. 13). The construction is not uncommon throughout the N.T., and is never without force. Compare Moulton-Winer, p. 438.

(21). διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος] through Him that saith (Latt. per eum qui dixit), i.e. God through the mouth of the Psalmist. The divine voice is not regarded as an isolated utterance (διὰ του εἰπόντος c. x. 30; 2 Cor. iv. 6; James ii. 11), but as one which is still present and effective. Comp. xii. 25 (ὁ λαλῶν); i. 6 note.

Though the words (ὥμοσεν...οὐ μεταμελ.) are not directly spoken by the Lord, they are His by implication. The oath is His.

πρὸς αὐτόν] The words have a double meaning in relation to the two parts of the verse quoted. The first part has Christ for its object ('in 189 μεταμεληθήσεται, Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,) ²²κατὰ τοσοῦτο καὶ κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς. ²³Καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείονές εἰσιν γεγονότες ἱερεῖς διὰ τὸ θανάτῳ

21 om. εἰς τὸν αἱ. א*. εἰς τὸν αἰ. BC vg the: + κατὰ τὴν τάξιν M. א* AD₂ syrr me. 22 τος. καὶ א* BC*: om. καί א* AD₂ vg me. τοσοῦτον Sא* -τω D₂*. 23 γεγ. ἱερ. אB vg syrr me: ἱερ. γεγ. ACD₂.

regard to Him': comp. i. 7): In the second part He is directly addressed.

For ὤμοσεν compare Luke i. 73; Acts ii. 30; and for οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, Rom. xi. 29; Num. xxiii. 19; 1 Sam. xv. 29. The necessities of human thought require that sometimes, through man's failure or change, God, who is unchangeable, should be said to repent. The temporary interruption of the accomplishment of His counsel of love must appear in this light under the conditions of time to those 'who see but part': Gen. vi. 6: 1 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 16; Jer. xviii. 8.

(22). κρείττονος...Ἰησοῦς] Jesus hath become surety of a better covenant (Vulg. melioris testamenti sponsor factus est Jesus) in that He has shewn in His own Person the fact of the establishment of a New Covenant between God and man. This He has done by His Incarnation, issuing in His Life, His Death, His Resurrection, His eternal Priesthood. But inasmuch as the immediate subject here is Christ's Priesthood, the reference is especially to this, the consummation of the Incarnation. Jesus—the Son of man—having entered into the Presence of God for men is the sure pledge of the validity of the New Covenant.

In later passages of the Epistle (viii. 6 note) Christ is spoken of as the Mediator of the New Covenant. He Himself brought about the Covenant; and He is the adequate surety of its endurance.

Ἰησοῦς] The human name of the Lord stands emphatically at the end. (Comp. vi. 20; ii. 9 note.) Jesus, the Son of man, has been exalted to the right hand of God, where He is seated as King and Priest. In His divine humanity He assures us that God has potentially accomplished the purpose of Creation, and will accomplish it.

The word ἔγγυος does not occur elsewhere in N.T. See Ecclus. xxix. 15 f.; 2 Macc. x. 28 ἔγγυον εὐημερίας καὶ νίκης.

A surety for the most part pledges himself that something will be: but here the Ascended Christ witnesses that something is: the assurance is not simply of the future but of that which is present though unseen.

It must be noticed that Christ is not said here to be a surety for man to God, but a surety of a covenant of God with man.

Theodoret interprets the phrase too narrowly: διὰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀναστάσεως ἐβεβαίωσε τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀναστάσεως τὴν ἐλπίδα.

For διαθήκη see Additional Note on ix. 16.

23—25. A second fact establishes the pre-eminence of Christ's Priesthood. It is held uninterruptedly by One Ever-living Priest

(23). καὶ οἱ μὲν πλ. εἰ γεγ....ὁ δέ...] And while they—the one class, the Levitical priests—have been made priests many in number...He...hath His priesthood inviolable. Vulg. Et alii quidem plures facti sunt sacerdotes...hic autem....The Levitical priests held the priesthood In succession, one after another. They were made priests many in number, not simultaneously but successively. The thought is of the line which 190 κωλύεσθαι παραμένειν. ²⁴ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην. ²⁵ὅθεν καὶ σώζειν

24 ἱερατίαν D₂*.

represents the office. The covenant of an everlasting priesthood was not with Aaron personally, but with Aaron and his sons 'throughout their generations' (Ex. xi. 15; comp. Num. xxv. 13). At the same time it is a true thought that the perfect continuity of the office could only be secured by the existence of many priests at once (comp. Ex. xxix.); but that is not the point here.

The order in the words γεγονότες ἱερεῖς as compared with v. 20 ἱερεῖς γεγονότες is worthy of notice. In the former passage ἱερεῖς was accentuated; here the thought is of the number who are 'made' priests.

διὰ τὸ θ. κωλ. παραμένειν] The multitude of the Levitical priests is a necessity, because they are hindered by death from abiding as priests among men. The statement is made generally and not of the past only. The use of the rare word παραμένειν (Phil. i. 25, not 1 Cor. xvi. 6) implies the idea of fellowship, service on the part of the priests during their abiding {i.e. παραμένειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, not τῇ ἱερατείᾳ. Hdt. i. 30 τέκνα...παραμείναντα). It would be pointless to say that 'death hindered them from living'; it hindered them from discharging the function which was necessary for man's well-being.

(24). ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν...τὴν ἱερωσ.] He, because He abideth for ever, hath His priesthood inviolable. Vulg. Hic autem eo quod maneat in æternum sempiternum habet sacerdotium. In both respects Christ offers a contrast with the Levitical priests. He 'abides for ever,' though in this sense it is not said that He abides with us (παραμένειν), while they were hindered by death from so abiding. In this respect Christ's eternal abiding as Son (John viii. 35; xii. 34; comp. v. 28) is contrasted with the transitory continuance of mortal men on earth. And again the fact that He 'abides for ever' in virtue of His Nature involves the further fact that He will fulfil His priestly office for ever.

Jesus quia immortalis est sempiternum habet sacerdotium; nec ullum habere poterit subsequentem, eo quod ipse maneat in æternum (Primas.).

ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερ.] Literally hath His priesthood inviolable, unimpaired, and so unchangeable. The word ἀπαράβατος has caused difficulty from early times (Ambr. imprœvaricabile, Aug. intransgressible: Theophlct. τουτέστιν ἀδιάκοπον, ἀδιάδοχον). There appears to be no independent authority for the sense 'untransmitted,' 'that does not pass to another.' According to the analogy of ἅβατος, ἐπίβατος, the form παράβατος expresses that which is or may be transgressed, invaded. Ἀπαράβατος is therefore that which cannot be (or in fact is not) overstepped, transgressed, violated, that which is 'absolute.' Thus Galen speaks of 'observing an absolute law' (νόμον ἀπαράβατον φυλάττειν). Compare Epict. Ench. 50, 2 (νόμος ἀπαράβατος); Pseudo-Just. Quæst. ad Orthod. § 27; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 41 (τί εὐσεβείας ἀπαραβάτου (inviolate) κάλλιον; but in Antt. xviii. 9 (10), 2 he uses it of men ἀπαράβατοι μεμενηκότες in connexion with the phrase οὐδ' ἅν αὐτοὶ παραβαίημεν). So the word is used in connexion with θεωρία, τάξις, εἱμαρμένη (comp. Wetst. ad loc.). Christ's Priesthood is His alone, open to no rival claim, liable to no invasion of its functions.

(25). ὅθεν καί] whence (c. ii. 17 note) also, because His priesthood is absolute and final, He is able to fulfil completely the ideal office of the priest. 191 εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι' αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.

If Christ's priesthood had failed in any respect then provision would have been made for some other. But, as it is, the salvation wrought by Christ reaches to the last element of man's nature and man's life. In relation to man fallen and sinful σώζειν expresses the same idea as τελειοῦν applied to man as he was made by God (comp. ii. 10), and it finds its fulfilment in the whole course of his existence. The thought here is not of 'the world' (John iii. 17) but of believers: not of salvation in its broadest sense, but of the working out of salvation to the uttermost in those who have received the Gospel.

Thus the present (σώζειν) as distinguished from the aorist (σῶσαι) has its full force. The support comes at each moment of trial.

The present occurs again 1 Cor. xv. 2; Jude 23; c. v. 7 (Acts xxvii. 20, contrasted with 31). For the aorist, see Rom. viii. 24; Tit. iii. 5; 1 Tim. i. 15.

εἰς τὸ παντελές] completely, wholly, to the uttermost. Comp. Lk. xiii. 11 (with neg.). The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The old commentators strangely explain it as if it were εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (so Latt. in perpetuum).

τοὺς προσερχ. δι' αὐτοῦ τῷ θ.] Compare John xiv. 6; x. 9; vi. 37. Something is required of men answering to the gift of Christ. They use the way of God, which He has opened and which He is.

The word προσέρχεσθαι (comp. ἐγγίζειν v. 19 note), is not used in this sense by St Paul nor elsewhere in N.T. except 1 Pet. ii. 4 (προσερχ. πρός). Comp. c. iv. 16 note; x. 1, 22; xi. 6; xii. 18, 22. Theophylact expresses the thought very neatly: αὐτή ἐστι ἡ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁδός, καὶ ὁ ταύτης δραξάμενος ἐκεῖ καταλύει.

A remarkable reading, accedens (for accedentes), which is not quoted from any existing MS., is noticed by Primasius (so also Sedul.): Quod vero quidam codices habent Accedens per semetipsum ad Deum, quidam vero plurali numero Accedentes, utrumque recipi potest.

πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντ.] seeing He ever liveth to make intercession, Vulg. semper vivens ad interpellandum (O. L. exorandum). The final clause εἰς τό... in connexion with ζῶν can only express the purpose (aimed at or attained). Comp. ii. 17 note. The very end of Christ's Life in heaven, as it is here presented, is that He may fulfil the object of the Incarnation, the perfecting of humanity.

The word πάντοτε belongs to later Greek and is said by the grammarians to represent the ἑκάστοτε of the classical writers. In the N.T. it has almost supplanted ἀεί (which occurs very rarely), yet so that the thought of each separate occasion on which the continual power is manifested is generally present (e.g. John vi. 34; Phil. i. 4). As often (speaking humanly) as Christ's help is needed He is ready to give it.

ἐντυγχάνειν] The word is of rare occurrence in the N.T. and is not found in the lxx. translation of the books of the Hebrew Canon; though it is not unfrequent in late Greek in the sense of 'meeting with' ('lighting upon') a person or thing. It is found in this sense 2 Macc. vi. 12 (τῇ βίβλῳ). Comp. 2 Macc. ii. 25; xv. 39.

From this sense comes the secondary sense of 'meeting with a person with a special object.' This purpose is sometimes definitely expressed: Wisd. viii. 21 ἐνέτυχον τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐδεήθην αὐτοῦ. 3 Macc. vi. 37 ἐνέτυχον τῷ βασιλεῖ...αἰτούμενος. Sometimes it is only implied: Wisd. xvi. 28; 2 Macc. iv. 36 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀπεκτάνθαι).


The purpose may be the invocation of action against another: 1 Macc. viii. 32 (ἐντ. κατά τινος); x. 61 ff.; xi. 25.

This sense is implied in Acts xxv. 24 (ἐντυγχ. τινὶ περί τινος); and the exact phrase recurs, Rom. xi. 2 (ἐντυγχ. τινὶ κατά τινος).

Or again the invocation may be on behalf of another: Rom. viii. 27, 34 (ἐντυγχ. ὑπέρ), 26 (ὑπερεντ. ὑπέρ).

Compare ἔντευξις, 1 Tim. ii. 1; iv. 5.

The object of supplication in this latter case may be either help or forgiveness. In the present passage (as in Rom. viii. 26 ff.) the idea is left in the most general form. Neither the Person who is approached nor the purpose of approaching Him is defined. Whatever man may need, as man or as sinful man, in each circumstance of effort and conflict, his want finds interpretation (if we may so speak) by the Spirit and effective advocacy by Christ our (High) Priest. In the glorified humanity of the Son of man every true human wish finds perfect and prevailing expression. He pleads our cause with the Father (1 John ii. 1 παράκλητος), and makes the prayers heard which we know not how to shape. In John xvii. we can find the substance of our own highest wants and of Christ's intercession.

ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν] The advocacy of Christ is both social and personal: for the Church and for each believer, for one because for the other. Comp. Rom. viii. 34; 1 John ii. 1, and Philo de vit. Mos. iii. § 24 (ii. 155 Μ.) αναγκαίο ἧν τὸν ἱερώμενον τῷ κόσμου παρτὶ παρακλήτῳ χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν υἱῷ, πρός τε ἀμνηστείαν ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ χορηγίαν ἀφθονεστάτων ἀγαθων.

The Fathers call attention to the contrasts which the verse includes between Christ's human and divine natures; and how His very presence before God in His humanity is in itself a prevailing intercession.

lnterpellat autem pro nobis per hoc quod humanam naturam assumpsit pro nobis quam assidue ostendit vultui Dei pro nobis, et miseretur secundum utramque substantiam (Primas.).

Kαὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο τὸ σάρκα φοροῦντα τὸν υἱὸν συγκαθῆσθαι τῷ πατρὶ ἔντευξίς ἐστιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. ὡσανεὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δυσωπούσης τὸν πατέρα, ὡς δι' αὐτο τοῦτο προσληφθείσης πάντως, διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν (Theophlct). Αὐτὴ ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις αὐτοῦ παρακαλεῖ τὸν πατέρα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (Euth. Zig.).

In the Levitical ritual the truth was foreshadowed in the direction that 'Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart when he goeth in unto the holy place...' (Ex. xxviii. 29).

(2) Christ is High-priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, that is the absolute High-priest (26—28).

Up to this point the writer has developed the ideas lying in the phrase 'after the order of Melchizedek': he now shortly characterises Christ as High-priest after this order (vi. 20), before drawing out in detail the contrast between Christ and the Aaronic High-priest. Nothing is said in Scripture of tho High-priesthood of Melchizedek, or of any sacrifices which he offered. In these respects the Aaronic High-priest (not Melchizedek) was the type Of Christ.

The subject is laid open in a simple and natural order. First the personal traits of Christ are characterised (v. 26); and then His High-priestly work (v. 27); and lastly the contrast which He offers to the Levitical High-priests in regard to His appointment, nature and position (v. 28).

²⁶For such a High-priest [in truth] became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens; ²⁷Who hath no need daily, as the high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins, then for the sins of the people, for this He did once for all in that He offered up Himself. ²⁸For the Law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the


²⁶Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν [καὶ] ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, ὅσιος,

26 ἠμῖν καί ABD₂ syrr: om καί אC vg me.

word of the oath-taking appointeth a Son perfected for ever.

(26). The preceding verse furnishes a transition to the doctrine of Christ's High-priesthood. It is seen that something more is required for men than Melchizedek as priest could directly typify. He showed the form of priesthood which Christ realised in its ideal perfection as High-priest.

τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν] From the characteristics of Christ's priesthood foreshadowed in Melchizedek the writer deduces the general nature of His High-priesthood. The separation of τοιοῦτος from ἀρχιερεύς helps to lay stress upon the character which it summarises (comp. viii. 1). This the Vulgate translation talis enim decebat ut nobis esset pontifex endeavours to express, almost as if the translation were: 'Such an one became us as High-priest.'

τοιοῦτος] Such a High-priest, that is, one who is absolute in power (εἰς τὸ παντελές) and eternal in being (πάντοτε ζῶν). The word (τοιοῦτος) looks backwards, yet not exclusively. From the parallel (viii. 1; comp. 1 Cor. v. 1; Phlm. 9) it is seen that it looks forward also to ὅς οὐκ ἔχει (v. 27), which gives the most decisive feature of Christ's High-priesthood.

ἡμῖν [καὶ] ἔπρεπεν] Even our human sense of fitness is able to recognise the complete correspondence between the characteristics of Christ as High-priest and the believer's wants. Comp. c. ii. 10 note. And we shall observe that sympathy with temptation does not require the experience of sin. On the contrary his sympathy will be fullest who has known the extremest power of temptation because he has conquered. He who yields to temptation has not known its uttermost force. Comp. Hinton, Life and Letters p. 179.

The καί before ἔπρεπειν emphasises this thought. 'Such a High-priest has been given us and also in very deed answers to our condition.' Comp. c. vi. 7 note; and for ἔπρεπεν see c. ii. 10 note.

Primasius adds a thought beautiful in itself which may perhaps lie in the word (ἔπρεπεν): Judæi velut servi timore legis Deo servientes legales pontifices habuerunt, sibi conservos mortalesque ac peccatores...nos autem, quibus dictum est Jam non dice vos servos sed amicos meos, quia filii Dei sumus serviendo illi amore filiationis, decet ut habeamus pontificem immortalem, segregatum a peccatoribus.

ἡμῖν] 'us Christians,' not generally 'us men.' The pronoun is apparently always used with this limitation in the Epistle.

The dominant thought is of the struggles of the Christian life, which are ever calling for divine succour. Christians have gained a view of the possibilities of life, of its divine meaning and issues, which gives an infinite solemnity to all its trials.

ὅσιος...] This detailed description characterises the fitness of the High-Priest for the fulfilment of His work for man. Even in the highest exaltation He retains the perfection of His human nature. He is truly man and yet infinitely more than man. The three epithets (ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος) describe absolute personal characteristics: the two descriptive clauses which follow express the issues of actual life. Christ is personally in Himself holy, in relation to men guileless, in spite of contact with a sinful world undefiled. By the issue of His life He has been separated from sinners in regard to the visible order, and, in regard to the invisible world, He has risen above the heavens.

ὅσιος] V. L. justus, Vulg. sanctus. 194 ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν,

ἄκακος + καί Α.

The word is of rare occurrence in the Ν. T. It is used of Christ (as quoted from Ps. xvi.) Acts ii. 27; xiii. 35: and again of 'the Lord' Apoc. xv. 4; xvi. 5; comp. Ps. cxlv. (cxliv.) 17; (Jer. iii. 12 Hebr.). It is used also of the 'bishop' Tit. i. 8; and of hands in prayer 1 Tim. ii. 8.

The word is found not very unfrequently in the lxx. and occurs especially in the Psalms (more than twenty times) as the regular equivalent of HebrewTpn. Thus the people of God are characteristically described as oἱ ὅσιοι [τοῦ κυρίου] (oἱ ὅσιοι Ps. cxlix. 1, 5). The phrase oἱ ἅγιοι (קְדוֹשִׁים) is much rarer: Ps. xvi. (xv.) 2; xxxiv. (xxxiii.) 10; lxxxix. (lxxxviii.) 5, 7.

To speak broadly, ὅσιος refers to character and ἅγιος to destination. The former is used in Biblical Greek predominantly of persons (yet see Is. lv. 3 || Acts xiii. 34; Deut. xxix. 19; Wisd. vi. l0; 1 Tim. ii. 8), the latter equally of persons and things.

As applied to God ἅγιος expresses that which He is absolutely; ὅσιος that which He shews Himself to be in a special relation to men.

Taken with regard to men in their relation to God ἅγιος describes their dedication to His service: ὅσιος their participation in His character, especially as shewn in His love towards them (חסד). Comp. Hupfold, Ps. iv. 4 note.

As applied to men in themselves ἅγιος marks consecration, devotion: ὅσιος marks a particular moral position.

Perhaps it is possible to see in this difference the cause of the remarkable difference of usage by which the people of God in the Ο. T. are oἱ ὅσιοι, and in tho Ν. T. oἱ ἅγιοι. The outward relation of the people to God under the O. T., which was embodied in an outward system, included, or might be taken to include, the corresponding character. Under the N.T. the relation of the believer to Christ emphasises an obligation.

The general opposite to ἅγιος is 'profane' (βέβηλος): the general opposite to ὅσιος is 'impious': the standard being the divine nature manifested under human conditions in the dealings of God with men. In this connexion ὅσιος is the complement of δίκαιος (Plat. Gorg. 507 B; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Tit. i. 8; Luke i. 75; Eph. iv. 24) on the one side, and of ἱερός on the other (Thuc. ii. 52).

ἄκακος] Latt. innocens (sine malitia), guileless. Comp. Rom. xvi. 18: 1 Pet. ii. 22.

Ἄκακος τί ἐστίν; ἀπόνηρος, οὐχ ὕπουλος. καὶ ὅτι τοιοῦτος ἄκουε τοῦ προφήτου. Is. liii. 9. (Chrys.)

Ἅκακος and ἀκακία occur several times in the lxx., the former most often for Hebrewflf, the latter for HebrewDh.

He who is ἄκακος embodies Christian love (1 Cor. xiii. 6 f.).

ἀμίαντος] V. L. immaculatus (incontaminatus), Vulg. impollutus, undefiled. 1 Pet. i. 4; James i. 27; (c. xiii. 4); Wisd. viii. 20.

No impurity ever hindered the fulfilment of His priestly office (Lev. xvi. 4).

Primasius tersely marks the application of the three words: Sanctus in interiore homine. Innocens manibus. Impolluto corpore.

Philo speaks of divine reason (ὁ ἱερώτατος λόγος) in man as ὁ ἀμίαντος ἀρχιερεύς (de prof. § 21; i. 563 M.), ἀμέτοχος γὰρ καὶ ἀπαράδεκτος παντὸς εἶναι πίφυκεν ἁμαρτήματος. Comp. de vict. § 10 (ii. 246 Μ.).

κεχωρισμένος...γενόμενος...] Latt. Sec gregatus a peccatoribus...excelsior factus.

The change of tense in the two participles (comp. i. 4) marks the 195 καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. ²⁷ὅς οὐκ ἔχει καθ' ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὕπὲρ

27 ὁ ἀρχιερεύς D₂*.

permanent issue of Christ's Life in His exaltation, and the single fact (to human apprehension) by which it was realised. Contrast iv. 14 διεληλυθότα.

κεχωρ. ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμ.] The complete separation of the Lord from sinners (τῶν ἁμ.) which was realised through His Life (John xiv. 30) was openly established by His victory over death at the resurrection (Acts ii. 24); and that victory is the foundation of His present work. (Syr vg from sins.)

This internal, moral, separation corresponded to the idea symbolised by the legal parity of the Levitical priests; and especially to the symbolic separation of the High Priest who, according to the later ritual, seven days before the great Day of Atonement removed from his own house to a chamber in the sanctuary (Oehler, Ο. T. Theol. § 140).

ὑψηλ. τῶν οὐρ. γεν.] having became (v. 9 note)... Both in His Person and in the place of His ministry Christ fulfilled in fact what the Jewish priests presented in type.

Under different aspects Christ may be said (1) to have been taken, or to have entered, 'into heaven,' Mark xvi. 19; Luke xxiv. 51; Acts i. 10 f.; iii. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22; c. ix. 24; and to be 'in heaven,' Eph. vi. 9; and also (2) 'to have passed beyond the heavens' (Eph. iv. 10; c. iv. 14 note).

The former phrase expresses His reception to the immediate, presence of God; the latter His elevation above the limitations of sense.

(27). ὅς οὐκ ἔχει καθ' ἡμέραν...] The comparison which is instituted here is beset at first sight with a serious difficulty. It seems to be stated that the High-priests are under the daily necessity of offering sacrifice for their own sins and for the sins of the people.

This double sacrifice is elsewhere in the Epistle (c. ix. 7) connected with the great Day of Atonement and the 'yearly' work of the High-priest (ix. 25); nor is it obvious how the language can be properly used of any daily function of the High-priest.

There can be no question that καθ' ἡμέραν (Latt. quotidie) means only 'day by day,' 'daily' (c. x. 11). And further 'to have necessity of sacrificing' cannot without violence be limited to the meaning of 'feeling daily the necessity of sacrificing' from consciousness of sin, though the sacrifice is made only once a year.

Some interpretations therefore which have found favour may be at once set aside.

(1). 'Who hath not necessity, as the High Priests have on each Day of Atonement (or 'on recurring days,' 'one day after another'), to offer sacrifices...'

This interpretation is ingeniously represented by Biesenthal's conjecture that the (assumed) Aramaic original had יומא ,יומא which the Greek translator misunderstood.

(2). 'Who hath not necessity, as the High Priests daily feel the necessity, to offer...'

At the same time the order of the words must be observed. The writer says ὅς οὐκ ἔχει καθ' ἡμ. ἀνάγκην...θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, and not ὅς οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην καθ' ἡμ. θ. ἀναφ. That is, the necessity is connected with something which is assumed to be done daily.

This peculiarity seems to suggest the true solution of the difficulty. The characteristic High-priestly office of the Lord is fulfilled 'daily,' 'for ever,' and not only, as that of the Levitical High-priest, on one day In the year. The continuity of His office marks its superiority. But in 196 τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ. (τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας.)

27 προσενέγκας

θυσίαν D₂. ἀνενέγκας SBD₂: προσενέγκας אΑ.

this daily intercession He requires no daily sacrifice, as those High-priests require a sacrifice on each occasion of their appearance before God in the Holy of Holies.

Thus the καθ' ἡμέραν belongs only to the description of the Lord's work, and nothing more than ἀνάγκην ἔχουσιν is to be supplied with oἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, the sense being: 'He hath not daily necessity [in the daily fulfilment of His intercessory work] as the High-priests [have necessity on each occasion when they fulfil them], to offer sacrifices...'

This interpretation however does not completely explain the use of καθ' ἡμέραν. It might have seemed more natural to say πολλάκις (x. 11). But here a new thought comes in. The daily work of the Priests was summed up and interpreted by the special High-priestly work of the Day of Atonement. The two parts of the daily sacrifice, the priestly (High-priestly) Minchah (meal-offering) and the lamb (the burnt-offering), were referred to the needs of the priests and of the people respectively. See Philo, Quis rer. div. hær. § 36 (i. p. 497 M.): τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾶς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν oἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμιδάλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν οὔς ἀναφέρειν διείρηται.

And as the High-priests took part in the daily sacrifices on special occasions, Jos. B. J. v. 5, 7, or at their pleasure (Mishna, Tamid 7. 3), they were said both by Philo (de spec. legg. § 23, ii. 321 M.) and by the Jewish Rabbis to offer daily: Delitzsch, Ztschr. f. d. luther. Theol. 1860 ff. 593 f. The passage of Philo is of considerable interest. He is dwelling upon the representative character of the High-priest. In this respect, he says: τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους ςυγγενὴς καὶ ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι...εὐχάς...καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ' ἐκαστην ἡμέραν καὶ γονέςν καὶ τέκνων...

Comp. Eccles. xlv. 14 θυσίαι αὐτοῦ (Ἀαρών) ὁλοκαρπωθήσονται καθ' ἡμέραν ἑνδελεχῶς δίς. v. 16. Ex. xxx. 7; Lev. vi. 20 ff.; Jos. Antt. iii. 10, 7.

Under this aspect the daily sacrifices were a significant memorial of the conditions of the High-priestly intercession on the one Day of Atonement. It may be added that in this connexion the variant ἁρχιερεύς in x. 11 is of considerable interest.

ὅς οὐκ ἔχει...] This, which is the chief characteristic of the new High-priest, is not given in a participial clause, but as a substantive statement (τοιοῦτος...ὅς οὐκ ἔχει).

ἔχ. ἀν....ἀναφέρειν] Lk. xiv. 18; (xxiii. 17). The phrase is not in the lxx.

oἱ ἀρχ.] the High-priests who belong to the system under discussion.

(πρότερον).....ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ] Latt. deinde pro populi. This was the order on the great Day of Atonement: Lev. xvi. 6 ff.

ἀναφέρειν] The Hellenistic use of this verb for the offering of sacrifices occurs in Ν. T. in c. xiii. 15; James ii. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 5. Comp. c. ix. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24.

The full construction of the word is ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (James ii. 21).

In the lxx. ἀναφέρειν is the habitual rendering of Hebrewnf% in connexion with the Hebrewnjty (ὁλοκαύτωμα); and of HebrewvpfJO in connexion with HebrewP0 in the Pentateuch. 197 ²⁸ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας

28 κα0. ἱερεῖς ἀντθ. D₂.

It occurs very rarely in this sense for HebrewW?ft (2 Chron. xxix. 31 f.).

On the other hand προσφέρειν is the habitual rendering of HebrewΚ'?Π and of Hebrewanp?j.

It is not used in the Pentateuch as a rendering of Hebrewϊγ#η, though it does so occur in the later books: Jer. xiv. 12; and for Hebrewvppn 2 K. xvi. 15.

The full construction is προσφέρειν τῷ θεῷ (κυρίῳ).

From these usages it appears that in ἀναφέρειν (to offer up) we have mainly the notion of an offering made to God and placed upon His altar, in προσφέρειν (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.

Ἀναφέρειν therefore properly describes the ministerial action of the priest, and προσφέρειν the action of the offerer (Lev. ii. 14, 16; vi. 33, 35); but the distinction is not observed universally; thus ἀναφέρειν is used of the people (Lev. xvii. 5), and προσφέρειν of the priests (Lev. xxi. 21).

τοῦτο γάρ...] 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.

ἐφάπαξ] c. ix. 12; x. 10. Comp. ἅπαξ vi. 4 note.

Contrary to the general usage of the Epistle ἐφάπαξ follows the word with which it is connected instead of preceding it.

ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας] in that He offered up Himself, Latt. se (seipsum) offerendo. Here first Christ is presented as at once the Priest and the victim. Comp. ix. 12, 14 (διὰ πν. αἰων.), 25 f. x. 10, 12; Eph. v. 2 (παρίδωκεν). Oὗτος δὲ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ προσενήνοχε σῶμα, αὐτὸσ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἱερεῖον γενόμενος, καὶ ὡς θεὸς μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τὸ δῶρον δεχόμενος (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 ille 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. vi. 20 note.

On tho completeness of Christ's priestly work Chrysostom has a striking sentence: μὴ τοίνυν αὐτὸν ἱερέα άκονσαί ἀεὶ ἱερᾶσθαι νόμιζε. ἅπαξ γὰρ Ιιρόσατο καὶ λοιπὸν ἐκάθισεν. Comp. Euth. Zig. ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ ἱεράτευσεν.

(28). ὁ νόμος...ὁ λόγος τῆς ὁρκωμ...] 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.

ἀνθρώπους] in contrast with υἱόν: 198 ἀσθένειαν, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας γῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον υἱόν, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.

many men (v. 23) are contrasted with the One Son. The plural also suggests the notion of death in contrast with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

ἔχοντας ἀσθ.] cf. c. v. 2. For the force of ἔχων ἀσθένειαν as distinguished from ἀσθενής see 1 John i. 8 note. Compare v. 12; vii. 27; ix. 8; x. 36; xi. 25. This 'weakness' includes both the actual limitations of humanity as it is, and the personal imperfections and sins of the particular priest. The use of the sing. (ἀσθένεια) and the plur. (ἀσθένειαι) is always instructive.

For sing. in the Epistles see Rom. vi. 19; viii. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 3; xv. 43; 2 Cor. xi. 30.

For plur. c. iv. 15; 2 Cor. xii. 5, 10.

The sing, and plur. occur together, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Compare Matt. viii. 17.

ὁ λ. τῆς ὁρκωμ. τῆς μ. τ. v.] the word of the oath, spoken in Psalm cx. 4, which was taken after the Law...The 'oath-taking' and not the 'word' is the emphatic element (ὁρκ. τῆς μετὰ τ. v. not ὁ μετὰ τ. ν.). The oath came after the Law, and must therefore have had respect to it, and so prospectively annulled it. In this respect the 'oath' takes up the 'promise.' Comp. Gal. iii. 17.

υἱόν, εἰς τ. αἰ. τετελ.] The idea of Son (i. 1 ff.; iii. 6; iv. 14 τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) is now combined with that of High-priest. Our High-priest is not only a Son, but a Son who having become man has been raised above all the limitations of humanity. The complete idea of the Person of the High-priest of the new Dispensation is thus gained before His work is unfolded in detail.

Compare Theodoret: οὐ μὴν ἄλλον υἱὸν νοητέον παρὰ τὸν φύσει υἱὸν ἀλλὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ φύσει ὄντα υἱὸν ὡς θεὸν καὶ πάλιν δεχόμενον τὴν αὐτὴν προσηγορίαν ὡς ἄνθρωπον.

And Primasius: Ponit hic Apostolus Filii nomen ad distinctionem servorum qui fuerunt in lege; quia servi infirmi fuerunt sive quia peccatores sive quia mortales erant: Filium vero perfectum ostendit, quia semper vivit et sine poccato est.

τετελειωμένον] For the idea of τελείωσις see ii. 10 note. Hitherto the idea of Christ's consummation has been regarded in its historic realisation (ii. 10 τελειῶσαι, v. 9 τελειωθείς). Now it is regarded in its abiding issues. Comp. ii. 18 πέπονθεν note.

The participle, as contrasted with the adjective τέλειος, forms a complete antithesis to ἔχων ἀσθένειαν. The perfection is gained through the experience of a true human life (c. v. 7—9).

The realisation of the Priesthood of Christ necessarily carries with it the abrogation of the typical priesthood of the Law. The presence of 'weakness' in the Levitical priests was realised in the consequences of imperfection and death. Such a priesthood could not bring τελείωσις, and it was of necessity interrupted. On the other hand Christ took upon Himself human nature (iv. 15) subject to temptation and death, that so He might taste death for all but as High-priest in His glory He is raised wholly above all infirmity and death, though still able to sympathise with those who are subject to them (cf. ν. 1 f.). Compare Additional Note.


*Additional Note on* vii. 1. *The significance of Melchizedek*.

The appearance of Melchizedek in the narrative of the Pentateuch is of deep interest, both (1) from the position which he occupies in the course of Revelation; and (2) from the manner in which the record of his appearance is treated in the Epistle.

(1). Melchizedek appears at a crisis in the religious history of the world as the representative of primitive revelation, or of the primitive relation of God and man still preserved pure in some isolated tribe. If, as on the whole seems to be most likely, he was an Amorite, the fact that he had preserved a true faith becomes more impressive. On this point however Scripture is wholly silent. The lessons of his appearance lie in the appearance itself. Abraham marks a new departure, the beginning of a new discipline, in the divine history of mankind starting from a personal call.

The normal development of the divine life has been interrupted. But before the fresh order is established we have a vision of the old in its superior majesty; and this, on the eve of disappearance, gives its blessing to the new. So the past and the future meet: the one bearing witness to an original communion of God and men which had been practically lost, the other pointing forward to a future fellowship to be established permanently. At the same time the names of the God of the former revelation and of the God of the later revelation are set side by side and identified (Gen. xiv. 22; comp. Deut. xxxii. 8 f.).

(2). The writer of the Epistle interprets the Scriptural picture of Melchizedek, and does not attempt to realise the historical person of Melchizedek. He starts from the phrase in the Psalm after the order of Melchizedek (κατὰ τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ), and determines the ideas which such a description was fitted to convey from a study, not of the life of the king-priest, which was unknown, but of the single record of him which had been preserved. By the choice of the phrase the Psalmist had already broadly distinguished the priesthood of the divine king from the Levitical priesthood. It remained to work out the distinction. Therefore the writer of the Epistle insists upon the silence of Scripture. He draws lessons from the fact that in the narrative of the Ο. T. no mention is made of the parentage or genealogy of Melchizedek or of the commencement or close of his priestly office11   Philo uses the silence of Scripture in a similar way: e.g. the absence of. He seeks to set vividly before his readers the impression conveyed by the remarkable phenomena of his unique appearance in patriarchal life, and the thoughts which they might suggest

any geographical details in the mention of the Euphrates (Gen. ii. 14), Leg. Alleg. i. 17 (i. 60 M.); the absence of the title 'son' in the record of the birth of Cain (Gen. iv. 1; contrast iv. 25), de Cher. §§ 16 f. (i. 149 M.); the absence of the personal name of the man who met Joseph, Quod det. pot. insid. § 8 (i. 195—6). Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. 179 f.


At the same time this mode of treatment leaves the actual human personality and history of Melchizedek quite untouched. The writer does not imply that that was true of him literally as a living man which is suggested in the ideal interpretation of his single appearance in the Bible. He does not answer the question Who and what was Melchizedek? but What is the characteristic conception which can be gained from Scripture of the Priesthood of Melchizedek?

The treatment of the history of Melchizedek is typical and not allegorical. The Epistle in fact contains no allegorical interpretation. The difference between the two modes is clear and decisive. Between the type and the antitype there is a historical, a real, correspondence in the main idea of each event or institution. Between the allegory and the application the correspondence lies in special points arbitrarily taken to represent facts or thoughts of a different kind. A history, for example, is taken to illustrate the relation of abstract ideas (comp. Gal. iv.). The understanding of the type lies in the application of a rule of proportion. The law by which it is regulated lies in the record, which is taken to represent the life. The understanding of the allegory depends on the fancy of the composer. He determines which of many possible applications shall be given to the subject with which he deals.

A type presupposes a purpose in history wrought out from age to age. An allegory rests finally in the imagination, though the thoughts which it expresses may be justified by the harmonies which connect the many elements of life.

This consideration tends further to explain why the writer of the Epistle takes the Biblical record of Melchizedek, that is Melchizedek so far as he enters into the divine history, and not Melchizedek himself, as a type of Christ The history of the Bible is the record of the divine life of humanity, of humanity as it was disciplined for the Christ. The importance of this limitation of the treatment of the subject is recognised by patristic writers; e.g. λέγει τὰ κατ' ἐκεῖνον οὐ τὴν φύσιν ἐξηγούμενος ἀλλὰ τὴν κατ' αὐτὸν διήγησιν ἀπὸ τῆς θείας τιθεὶς γραφῆς καὶ ἀπ' ἐκείνης ἐμφαίνων τὸ ὅμοιον (Theodore ap. Cram. Cat. vii. p. 203).

One omission in the Epistle cannot but strike the student The writer takes no notice of the gifts of Melchizedek, who 'brought forth bread and wine' (Gen. xiv. 18) when he came to meet Abraham. This is the more remarkable as the incident is dwelt upon in the Midrash. The 'bread and wine' are regarded there as symbols of the shewbread and the drink offering, or of the Torah itself (Beresh. R. xliii. 18) [Prov. ix. 5]; Wünsche p. 199). And stress was naturally laid upon this detail in later times. The Fathers from Clement of Alexandria (see below) and Cyprian (Ep. ad Cæcil. 63, 4) downwards not unfrequently regard the bread and wine as the materials of a sacrifice offered by Melchizedek; and Jerome distinctly states that they were offered for Abraham (ad Matt. xxii. 41 ff.; comp. ad Matt. xxvi. 26 ff.)11   Bellarmine (Controv. de Missa i. c. 6) dwells at considerable length on this aspect of the incident, and gives a long array of quotations in support. A still further collection is given by Petavius de Incarn. xii. 11. The true view is preserved by Josephus Antt. i. 10, 2;.

Philo (see below); Tertullian adv. Jud.


All this makes the silence of the Apostle the more significant. He presents, and we cannot but believe that he purposely presents, Melchizedek as priest, not in sacrificing but in blessing, that is, in communicating the fruits of an efficacious sacrifice already made. He only can bless who is in fellowship with God and speaks as His representative. And it is under this aspect that the writer of the Epistle brings before us characteristically the present work of Christ.

A similar lesson lies in the positive fact which stands out most significantly in the words of the Epistle. Melchizedek is priest at once and king. The combination of offices which meets us in the simplest forms of society is seen to be realised also when humanity has attained its end. Philo in an interesting passage points out the difficulty of combining the priesthood with kingly power (de carit. § 1; ii. p. 384 M.), and yet such a combination must exist in the ideal state. He who unites with the Unseen must direct action. He who commands the use of every endowment and faculty must be able to consecrate them. He who represents man to God with the efficacy of perfect sympathy must also represent God to man with the authority of absolute power.

It is remarkable that Melchizedek is not dwelt upon in early Jewish commentators. It does not appear that he was ever regarded as a type of Messiah (Schoettgen ad loc.). The only example of this interpretation is quoted by Heinsius from Moses Hadarshan, whose person and writings are involved in great obscurity, but who seems to have lived in the 11th century (Heinsius, Exercit. Sacrae, p. 517; and from him Deyling, Exercit. Sacrae, ii. 73).

The writer of the Epistle, as we have seen, regards Melchizedek as a living type of a living and eternal King-priest. The old history, true in its literal reality, was, according to him, perfectly, ideally fulfilled in the facts of Christian history. Philo also deals with Melchizedek, but with characteristic differences. For Philo the history is a philosophic allegory and not a typical foreshadowing of a true human life. Melchizedek represents the power of rational persuasion which offers to the soul food of gladness and joy, and so in some sense answers to the priestly Logos: Leg. Alleg. iii. §§ 25 f. (i. p. 103 Μ.): καλείσθω oὖv ὁ μὲν τύραννος ἄρχων πολίμου ὁ δὲ βασιλεῦς "νγεμὼν εἰρήνης, Σαλήμ. καῖ προσφερέτω τῇ ψυχῇ τροφὰς εὐφροσύνης καὶ χαρᾶς πλήρεις• ἄρτους γὰρ καὶ οἶνον προσφίρει... Thus he recognises his position as a 'natural' priest, but his priesthood is a symbol of the action of 'right reason,' which brings to man righteousness and joy through thoughts of absolute truth. Compare de congr. erud. grat. § 18 (i. p. 533 M.) ὁ τὴv αὐτομαθῆ καὶ αὐτοδίδακτον λαχὼν ἰερωσύνην; de Abrahamo § 40 (ii. 34 Μ.) ὁ μέγας ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ μεγίστου θεοῦ.

Clement of Alexandria dwells on the combination of righteousness and

3; Epiph. Haer. lv. § 8, p. 475, nor can there be any doubt that the original narrative describes refreshment offered to Abraham and his company and not a sacrifice made on their behalf. Compare, in answer to Bellarmine, Whitaker Disputation, pp. 167 f. (Park. Soc.); Jackson On the Creed, ix. 10; Waterland App. to the Christian Sacrifice explained, pp. 461 ff. (ed. 1868). Heidegger Hist. Patr. ii. Dissert. 2 § 21. 202 peace in Melchizedek and Christ, and sees in the offerings of bread and wine a figure of the Eucharist (εἰς τύπον εὐχαριστίας Strom. iv. 25 § 163, p. 637 P.; comp. Strom. ii. 5 § 21, p. 439 P.).

Jerome gives in one of his letters (Ep. lxxiii. ad Evangelum; comp. Vallarsius ad loc.) a summary of early opinions as to the person of Melchizedek in answer to a correspondent who had sent him an essay written with a view to shew that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Origen and Didymus, he says, regarded him as an Angel (compare Nagel Stud. u. Krit. 1849, ss. 332 ff.). Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Apollinaris, and Eustathius of Antioch, as a man, a Canaanite prince, who exercised priestly functions, like 'Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job.'

The Jews, he adds (and so Primasius: 'tradunt Hebraei'), identified him with Shem, an opinion which finds expression in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem: Melchizedek king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the son of Noah [Jerus. the High-priest (Κ2Ί jro) of the Most High].

This last opinion has found much favour; but it is supported by direct evidence (comp. Heidegger Hist. Patriarch, ii. Diss. 2). Epiphanius attributes it to the Samaritans (Haer. lv. 6; p. 471).

Two other strange opinions may be noticed. Some orthodox Christians supposed that Melchizedek was an Incarnation of the Son of God or perhaps simply a Christophany. How then, Epiphanius asks, could he be said to be made like to himself? (Haer. lv. 7; p. 474). Hierax (c. 280) in order to avoid this difficulty held, according to the view noticed by Jerome, that be was an incarnation, or more probably an appearance, of the Holy Spirit (Epiph. Haer. lxvii. 7; p. 715). This opinion finds a very bold expression in the anonymous Quaest. ex V. et N. Testamento appended to the works of Augustine (Vol. iii. Ed. Bened.): Similis Dei filio non potest esse nisi sit ejusdem naturae. Et quid incredibile si Melchisedech ut homo apparuit cum intelligatur tertia esse persona? Si enim Christus qui secunda persona est frequenter visus est in habitu hominis, quid ambigitur de lis quas dicta sunt? Summus sacerdos Christus est, Melchisedech Secundus...Christus vicarius Patris est et autistes, ac per hoc dicitur et sacerdos. Similiter et Spiritus sanctus, quasi autistes, sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt...(Aug. iii. App. § cix. Migne P. L. 35, p. 2329; comp. Hier. Ep. lxxiii. ad Evang. § 1).

The sect of the 'Melchizedechians' described by Epiphanius (Haer. lv.) offers some points of interest. As an offshoot of the 'Theodotians' (Epiph. l. c. i.; p. 468) they started from humanitarian views of Christ, and naturally looked for some higher Mediator. Melchizedek, they argued, was higher than Christ, because Christ was appointed after his order. Christ was ordained by God to turn men from idols and shew them the way to the true knowledge of this eternal High-priest. They therefore 'made their offerings to the name of Melchizedek' (§ 8 *εἰς ὅνομα τούτου τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἡ...αἵρεσις καὶ τὰς προσφορὰς ἀναφέρει), in order that 'through him offerings might be made (προσενεχθῇ) for them and they might find life 203 through him.' He was in their judgment the priest 'who brought men to God' (εῖσαγωγεὺς πρὸς τὸν θεόν)11   The sect is noticed very briefly by Philastrius, Haer. 52; and by augustine, De haer. 34. The writer whose fragment is attached to Tertull. de praescr. ( 53) and Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. 6) assign its origin to another Theodotus, later than Theodotus of Byzantiim. The former writer appears to have had some independent souce of information. He grounds the superiority of Melchizedek on the fact "so quod agat Christus pro hominibus, deprecator eorum et advocatus festus, Melchizedek facere pro caelestibos angelis atque virtutibus'...(l.c.)..

The tradition, or fiction, as to Melchizedek in 'the Book of Adam' is singularly picturesque. To him and Shem, it is said, the charge was given to bear the body of Adam to Calvary, and place it there where in aftertime the Incarnate Word should suffer, so that the blood of the Saviour might fall on the skull of the Protoplast. In the fulfilment of this mission Melchizedek built an altar of twelve stones, typical of the twelve apostles, by the spot where Adam was laid, and offered upon it, by the direction of an angel, bread and wine 'as a symbol of the sacrifice which Christ should make' in due time. When the mission was accomplished Shem returned to his old home, but Melchizedek, divinely appointed to this priesthood, continued to serve God with prayer and fasting at the holy place, arrayed in a robe of fire. So afterwards when Abraham came to the neighbourhood he communicated to him also 'the holy mysteries,' the symbolical Eucharist (Dillmann, Das Christl. Adambuch d. Morgenl. ss. 111 ff., 1853.)

*Additional Note on* vii. 1. *The Biblical Idea of Blessing*.

The idea of 'blessing' in its simplest form, the solemn expression, that is, of goodwill towards another by one who occupies in this respect a position of superiority towards him, is a natural recognition of the spiritual influence of man upon man. The idea often becomes degraded, materialised, perverted: it gives rise to the opposite conception of 'cursing'; but in Scripture it assumes a characteristic form which throws light upon the Biblical teaching as to man's relation to God.

The two words which are used in the Old and New Testaments for Biblical blessing ιρί OP?) and εὐλογεῖν appear to convey two fundamental thoughts which are included in the act. The first (TO), from a root which describes 'kneeling,' 'prostration,' seems to express the feeling of reverent adoration which arises from the recognition of a spiritual presence by him who blesses22   The construction of Hebrew word is normally with the simple accusative whether the object be God or man. In the later language it is construed with Le: 1 Chron. xxix. 20; Neh. xi. 2; and Dan. ii. 19; iv. 31 (Chald.).; and the second (εὐλογεῖν) marks the utterance of the good which is supposed to be prophetically seen or ideally anticipated and realised33   Εὐλογεῖν in the lxx. generally takes an accusative of the object. In the later books it is rarely construed with the dative: Dan. iv. 31 (not ii. 19); Ecclus. l. 22; li. 12; 2 Macc. x. 38. Comp. Jer. iv. 2.. 204 Thus the two words when taken together describe the conception of blessing in its loftiest sense as involving a true perception of what God is and what His will is, both generally and towards the person over whom it is pronounced, according as the blessing is addressed to God Himself or to man.

The patriarchal blessings bring out this idea of blessing distinctly. This appears in the first exercise of the father's prophetic power (Gen. ix. 25 ff.) The curse and the blessing of Noah pronounced upon his sons is the unrolling of their future. The blessing of Shem lies in the recognition of the majesty of the Lord (Gen. ix. 26 Blessed be (is) the Lord, the God of Shem). The truth becomes plainer afterwards. The patriarch becomes the interpreter of the divine counsel to him through whom it is to be fulfilled. His own natural purpose is subordinated to the expression of the spiritual message which he delivers. The will of God found so clear a revelation in His direct dealings with Abraham and Isaac that no human voice was needed to enforce it. A new departure began with Jacob. Here a choice was made by God contrary to the wish of Isaac, but when once Isaac perceived what had been done he acknowledged that the will of God was his will also (Gen. xxvii. 33). Jacob himself in his turn, consciously set aside the privilege of birth (Gen. xlviii. 14 ff.) and gave precedence to Ephraim the younger son in his blessing of Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 19). And so completely is the thought of the declaration of the divine counsel identified with the blessing of him to whom it is announced that in the prophetic outline of tho fortunes of the twelve tribes (Gen. xlix.) even the outward disasters which were announced to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi are reckoned among blessings (Gen. xlix. 28) by him who saw beyond the human aspect of things (comp. Deut. xxxiii.).

Such an idea of blessing as the simple announcement of the counsel of God, which must in its essence be welcomed as a counsel of righteousness and love, is a fruit of revelation. It corresponds with the view of creation as destined to fulfil the purpose of the Creator in spite of the self-assertion of the creature. It embodies an absolute faith in human progress.

In sharp contrast with this divine idea of blessing is that which is expressed by Balak. For him blessings and curses are dispensed by the arbitrary will of one who is possessed of an exceptional power (Num. xxii. 6; comp. xxiv. 1). But the utter frustration of his hopes leaves in the record of Scripture the fullest possible affirmation of the fact that the prophet cannot do more than give utterance to that which is the mind of God (Num. xxii. 38; xxiii. 26; xxiv. 13. Comp. Josh. vi. 26; 2 K. ii. 24).

The prophetic blessing is necessarily exceptional, but the solemn declaration of God's purpose belongs to ail time. Thus in the organisation of worship and life blessing is the voice of the authoritative minister of God, the priest or the head of the household, who acknowledges the love and power of God and prays that they may be effective for those on whose behalf they are invoked (comp. 2 Sam. vi. 18; 1 K. viii. 5 f., 55; 1 Chron. xvi. 2; 1 Sam. ii. 20; 2 Chron. xxx. 27). Blessings formed an important part of the public and of the private service of the Jews. When Aaron was solemnly invested with the priesthood 'he lifted up his hands towards 205 the people and blessed them' (Lev. ix. 22), and at this point of transition in the religious history of Israel Moses joined with him in repeating the action, 'and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people' (Lev. ix. 23). The first treatise in the Mlshnah is on 'Blessings' (Berachoth); and the series of 'the Eighteen' Blessings is the most striking feature In the daily service of the Synagogue.

The form of sacerdotal blessing prescribed to 'Aaron and his sons' (Num. vi. 22 ff.) brings into a clear light the character and the foundation of the divine blessing:

The Lord bless thee and keep thee:

The Lord make His face to thine upon thee and be gracious unto thee:

The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace (comp. Ps. iv. 6; lxvii. 1).

So, it is added, shall they put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them. The blessing, that is, consists in the true fellowship of the people with God as He had made Himself known to them. Hence the act of blessing itself is said to be 'in the Name of the Lord' (1 Chron. xxiii. 13; Ecclus. xlv. 15). He who fulfils it does so in virtue of his own connexion with God (comp. John xiv. 13 note).

It appears from what has been already said that the idea of a true Blessing lies in the vision and realisation of the divine will. This thought is applied in many different ways. Man 'blesses' God: God 'blesses' man: man 'blesses' man: and, much more rarely, both God and man 'bless' objects which are not personal. When man 'blesses' God he devoutly acknowledges some special feature in His nature or purpose or action which he regards as a ground of grateful praise: Deut. viii. 10; Jud. v. 2, 9; 1 K. x. 9; Neh. ix. 5.

If God 'blesses' man, He makes known to him something as to His counsel which the man is able to appropriate for his spiritual good: Gen. i. 28; ix. 1; xii. 2 f. &c.; xvii. 16; xxv. 11; (Num. vi. 24).

If man 'blesses' man, he speaks as the representative of the Divine Voice declaring its message in the form of prayer or of Interpretation: Gen. xxvii. 4 ff.; xlvii. 7; xlix. 28; Lev. ix. 23; Num. vi. 23; Deut x. 8; xxi. 5.

When God blesses an impersonal object, He reveals His purpose to make known through it something of Himself: Gen. i. 22; ii. 3; Ex. xxiii. 25; Job i. 10; Ps. lxv. 10; cxxxii. 15; Prov. iii. 33.

When man 'blesses' an impersonal object he recognises in it the working of God: 1 Sam. ix. 13 (a unique example in the 0. T.).

The last form of expression is specially liable to misunderstanding. In such a blessing there is nothing of the idea of a charm or of any magical working. The full phrase is 'to bless God for the thing'; and the early forms of blessing pronounced over various articles of food express the thought without any ambiguity. Mishna, Berachoth, vi. 1 'How do we bless for fruit? For fruit of a tree say "[Blessed art Thou, Lord our God], who createst the fruit of the wood"... For fruits of the earth say "Who createst the fruit of the ground," excepting the bread. For the bread say "Who bringest forth bread from the earth "...' Compare De Sola's Form of Prayers, &c., Philadelphia, 5638 [1878], i. pp. 270* ff.


The Jewish idea of 'blessing' which passes from the thought of adoration to the thoughts of petition and thanksgiving, all lying in the central thought of God's revealed nature, finds a characteristic and most noble expression in the 'Eighteen' Benedictions which have formed a part of the Synagogue Service from the earliest times. The text has no doubt been revised; additions have been made to it: differences exist between the forms adopted in the congregations of the Spanish and German Jews: but substantially these 'Benedictions' seem to have been in use in the Apostolic age. The first three and the last three are probably some centuries older. The whole collection forms the most precious liturgical writing of the prae-Christian period, and it has exercised considerable influence upon Christian services. As the embodiment of Jewish devotion which the Apostles and the Lord Himself may have used it claims careful study. The Benedictions are given in the following form in the Spanish (Sephardic) recension:

(1). Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Ex. iii. 15), the great God, the mighty, and the terrible (Deut. x. 17), God most High (Gen. xiv. 18), that bestowest gracious benefits (D?to D'9P), that possessest the universe, and rememberest the good deeds of the fathers (Πϋ{? ΊφΠ), even He that bringeth a Redeemer unto their sons' sons for His Name's sake in love.

Ο King, Helper, and Saviour, and Shield, blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham.

(2). Thou art mighty for ever, Ο Lord. Thou causest the dead to live, plenteous to save, sustaining the living in Thy goodness, quickening the dead in Thy plenteous compassion, supporting the fallen, and healing the sick, and loosing them that are in bonds, and fulfilling Thy truth to them that sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Ο Lord of mighty deeds; and who can be compared unto Thee, Ο King, that bringest to death, and bringest to life, and causest salvation to spring forth? Yes, Thou art faithful to bring the dead to life.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that bringest the dead to life.

(3). Thou art holy and Thy Name is holy. And the holy ones praise Thee every day. Selah.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, the holy God.

(4). Thou graciously givest to man (0*J^) knowledge, and teachest mortal man (Β^(&) understanding. So graciously give unto us knowledge and understanding and wisdom.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that graciously givest knowledge.

(5). Turn us again, our Father, to Thy law; and make us draw near, our King, to Thy service; and bring us back with a perfect repentance to Thy presence.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that hast pleasure in repentance.

(6). Pardon us, our Father, for we have sinned. Forgive us, our King, 207 for we have transgressod. For Thou, God, art good and ready to forgive.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, most gracious, that dost abundantly pardon (Is. lv. 7).

(7). Look, we beseech Thee, on our affliction; and plead our cause; and hasten to redeem us with a perfect redemption for Thy Name's sake. For Thou, God, art a strong Redeemer (Jer. l. 34).

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, the Redeemer of Israel.

(8). Heal us, Ο Lord, and we shall be healed. Save us and we shall be saved (Jer. xvii. 14). For Thou art our praise. Yea, cure and heal all our diseases and all our pains and all our wounds. For Thou, God, art a compassionate and faithful Healer.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord; even He that healeth the diseases of His people Israel.

(9). Bless us, our Father, in all the works of our hands; and bless our year with the dews of (Thy) favour, blessing and beneficence; and may its close be life and plenty and peace, as the good years that were for a blessing. For Thou, God, art good, and doest good, and blessest the years.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that blessest the years11   Two forms of this Benediction are given for use in Summer (given in the translation) and Winter respectively..

(10). Sound the great trumpet for our freedom; and lift up a banner to gather our captives; and gather us together speedily from the four corners of the earth (land) to our own land (Deut. xxx. 4; Is. xxvii. 13).

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord; even He that gathereth the outcasts of His people Israel.

(11). Restore us our judges as at the first; and our counsellors as at the beginning (Is. i. 26); and turn from us sorrow and sighing; and reign over us speedily, Thou, Ο Lord, alone, in compassion, in righteousness and in judgment.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, a king that lovest righteousness and judgment (Ps. xxxiii. 5).

(12). To slanderers (traitors)22   For the history of this Section, which has been commonly applied to Christians, that is, Christian converts from Judaism, see Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud ii. s. v. Schemone-Esre; or Dr Ginsburg in Kitto-Alexander, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literature, s. v. Synagogue. let there be no hope; and let all heretics (Ο'^φΓΟφ) and all proud men perish in a moment. And let all thy enemies and all that hate Thee be speedily cut off. And let every one that doeth wickedness be speedily rooted up and broken in pieces and consumed. And bow them down speedily in our days.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that breakest the enemies in pieces, and bowest down the proud.

(13). Upon the righteous, and upon the pious (D^TPtJB), and upon the remnant of Thy people, the house of Israel, and upon the residue of the house of their scribes, and upon the proselytes of righteousness, and upon

Both texts differ considerably from that in the German service. 208 us let Thy compassions, we pray Thee, be moved, Ο Lord, our God, and give a good reward to all that trust in Thy Name in truth, and set our portion with them. And let us not be put to shame for ever, for in Thee do we trust, and upon Thy great mercy are we stayed in truth.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that art a stay and confidence to the righteous.

(14) a. Dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, Thy city, as Thou hast said; and establish in the midst of her speedily the throne of David; and build her an eternal building speedily in our days.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that buildest Jerusalem.

(14) b. Cause the Shoot (npjf) of David Thy servant speedily to spring forth; and let his house be exalted in Thy Salvation; for we wait for Thy salvation day by day.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that causest the horn of salvation to spring forth.

(15). Hear our voice, Ο Lord, our Qod, merciful Father. Have mercy and compassion upon us; and receive in compassion and favour our prayer. For Thou, God, nearest prayers and supplications. And send us not away, our King, empty from Thy presence. Be gracious unto us, and answer us, and hear our prayer; for Thou hearest the prayer of every mouth.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord, that hearest prayer.

(16). Look, Ο Lord our God, with favour on Thy people Israel; and have regard to their prayer: and restore the service to the oracle ("?] ?) of Thy house. And mayest Thou receive with favour speedily the burnt offerings of Israel and their prayer in love. And may the service of Israel be pleasing to Thee perpetually. And do Thou in Thy plenteous compassion look kindly upon us and be favourable to us; and may our eyes behold when Thou returnest with compassion to Zion.

Blessed art thou, Ο Lord, even He that restoreth His Shekinah to Zion.

(17). We confess unto Thee that Thou art He, the Lord our God, and the God of our Fathers, for ever and over: our Rock, the Rock of our life, and the Shield of our salvation. Thou art He. From generation to generation we give thanks to Thee and declare Thy praise....

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord; goodness is Thy Name, and to Thee it is meet to give thanks.

(18). Grant peace, goodness, and blessing, life, grace and mercy, righteousness and compassion unto us and unto all Israel Thy people; and bless us, our Father, all of us together, in the light of Thy countenance (Num. vi. 26). For in the light of Thy countenance Thou hast given to us, Ο Lord our God, the Law and life, love and mercy, righteousness and compassion, blessing and peace. And may it be good In Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israel with abundant strength and peace.

Blessed art Thou, Ο Lord; even He that blesseth His people with peace.

Each section rests upon the Confession of some feature in the revealed character of God. Prayer is only the application of that which He has 209 made known of Himself to the circumstances of the worshipper. Even in judgment there is a manifestation of His righteousness which the believer welcomes with grateful reverence (compare Hamburger and Ginsburg in the articles quoted above).

When we pass from the Old Testament to the New we find that the use of εὐλογία (εὐλογία, εὐλογητός, εὐλογημένος) in the Ν. T. closely corresponds with the use in the lxx. Εὐλογεῖν is used

(1). Absolutely without any expressed object, but with the clear thought of Him to whom praise is due for every good: Mk. vi. 41 || Matt. xiv. 19; Mk. xiv. 22 || Matt. xxvi. 26 (all. εὐχαριστήσας); Lk. xxiv. 30. In these cases indeed it is possible to take τοὺς ἄρτους, τὸν ἄρτον, as the object from the context (see § 3), but the Jewish custom points very plainly in the other direction; and this construction is decisively supported by the parallel use of εὐχαριστεῖν Mk. xiv. 23 || Matt. xxvi. 27; Mk. viii. 6; Lk. xxii. 17, 19; John vi. 11. Both words describe the devout acknowledgment of God's power and love; but while εὐλογεῖν regards those in relation to God as attributes of His glorious Majesty, εὐχαριστεῖν regards them in relation to man as the occasion of grateful thanksgiving.

In other connexions εὐλογεῖν is used absolutely in 1 Pet iii. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 12; xiv. 16; (Rom. xii. 14).

In Mk. x. 16 αὐτά is probably to be supplied to κατευλόγει.

(2). With a personal object; either

(a) God: Lk. i. 64; ii. 28; xxiv. 53; James iii. 9; or

(b) Man: Lk. ii. 34; vi. 28; xxiv. 50 f.; Acts iii. 26; Rom. xii. 14; Eph. i. 3; Hebr. vi. 14 (lxx.); vii. 1, 6, 7; xi. 20 f. (in these examples both man and God are the subjects).

(3). With a material object: Mk. viii. 7; Lk. ix. 16; 1 Cor. x. 16.

In these cases 'blessing the bread' must be understood as 'blessing God the giver of the bread.' The formulas in use [at the Paschal meal] are given by Lightfoot on Matt. xxvi. 26. Compare p. 205.

Tho usage of εὐλογία answers to that of εὐλογεῖν. Εὐλογία is attributed (a) to Divine Beings ('the Lamb,' 'He that sitteth on the throne,' God) in Apoc. v. 12 f.; vii. 12; (b) to men, whether it be given (α) by God (Christ): Gal. iii. 14; Rom. xv. 29; Eph. i. 3 (comp. 1 Cor. x. 16; 1 Peter iii. 9); or (β) by man: Heb. xii. 17; and (c) to an impersonal object: Hebr. vi. 7. And 'the blessing' includes both the implied promise and that which is the substance of the promise, since from the divine side promise and fulfilment are one.

The word occurs also in a wider sense of that generosity which realises the divine purpose of wealth: 2 Cor. ix. 5 f.; Rom. xvi. 18 (comp. lxx. Gen. xxxiii. 11; Jos. xv. 19; Jud. i. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 27); and again quite generally, James iii. 10.

Εὐλογητός is used (seven times) of God only, and ὁ εὐλογητός in Mk. xiv. 61 as the title of God (comp. Ign. Eph. 1; Mart. Pol. 14)11   This is the general but not the exclusive use in the lxx. See Gen. xxiv. 31; Deut. vii. 14; 1 Sam. xxv. 33.. By this limitation it is distinguished from εὐλογημένος which is used of 'Him that 210 cometh' (Ps. cxviii. [cxvii.] 26; Matt. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39 and parallels [in John xii. 13 D reads εὐλογητός]), of the Mother of the Lord and her Son (Luke i. 42); of 'the nations on the King's right hand' (Matt. xxv. 34); and of 'the kingdom of David' (Mk. xi. 10).

In classical writers εὐλογεῖν, which is rare in early prose, is simply 'to speak well of,' 'to praise,' without any of the deeper thoughts which spring from the Jewish conception of the divine order and essence of things. Even in Philo and Josephus the full religious sense is comparatively rare; and Loesner remarks (on Eph. i. 3) that when the lxx. uses εὐλογία, Philo often introduces εὐχή or ἕπαινος.

In the Christian Church the use of 'Benedictions' obtained a very wide extension, but these lie outside our present scope (see the article Benedictions in D. C. A. by Rev. R. Sinker). One detail in liturgical practice may be named. In the Eastern services the response to the call for a blessing is not unfrequently and characteristically an ascription of blessing to God, where in the Western it is a direct invocation of blessing on men (Sinker l.c. p. 197).

*Additional Note on* vii. 28. *The superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ to the Levitical High-priesthood*.

It is worth while to enumerate distinctly the points in which the writer of the Epistle marks the superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron. He has already shewn that Christ possesses the qualifications of High-priesthood in ideal perfection, sympathy (ii. 17 f.; iv. 15; v. 8; vii. 26), and divine appointment (v. 5). And more than this he places His preeminence in a clear light by a detailed comparison as to

(a) the form of His appointment (vii. 21), by an oath (promise) and not as dependent on the fulfilment of a covenant;

(b) the rule of His priesthood (vii. 16), 'the power of an indissoluble life' and not 'a law of carnal commandment';

(c) its duration (vii. 23 f.), unchangeable without succession;

(d) its nature (vii. 28) as of a son made perfect, and not of a weak man:

(e) the scene of His service (viii. 2; ix. 11), heaven not earth; and

(f) the character (ix. 12) and

(g) completeness (vii. 27; x. 5 ff.) of His offering, consummated alike in life and death.

« Prev VII. Next »

| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |