Bible Commentaries

II

The Old Testament itself predicts the abrogation of the Levitical high-priesthood which rests on the basis of the Mosaic law, and the merging of it in the eternal priesthood of the Messiah

Hebrews 7:11-19

11If therefore [If indeed now, If to be sure now, εἰ, μὲν οὖν] perfection were by [=through, διά] the Levitical priesthood, (for under it [on the basis of it, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς]⁶ the people [have] received the law,) what further need was there [om. was there] that another [different, ἕτερον] priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed [transferred, μετατιθεμένης], there is made [becometh] of necessity a change also of the law 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of [from] which no man gave [none hath 14 given] attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang [hath sprung] out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood [priests, ἱερέων].⁷ 15And it is yet far more [is still more abundantly] evident, for that [if, εἰ] after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another [a different, ἕτερος] priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal⁸ commandment, but after the power of an endless17[indestructible] life. For he testified [is testified of, μαρτυρεῖται]⁹ Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec 18 For there is verily [there becometh indeed, γίνεται μέν] a disannulling of the [preceding] commandment going before [om. going before] for the [on account of its] weakness and unprofitableness thereof [om. thereof]; 19For the law made nothing perfect, but [(for the law perfected nothing), and] the bringing in of a better hope did [om. did], by which we draw nigh unto God.

[ Hebrews 7:11.—εἰ μὲν οὖν, if to be sure now, if, indeed, therefore, οὖν, looking back and linking the proposition in a general way with the preceding; the μέν looking forward, and implying that the writer has in his mind some alternative sentiment to that which immediately follows, and which would naturally be introduced by δέ, but which may be, as here, suppressed. The words μέν οὖν, do not affect in the slightest degree the construction or meaning of εἰ with its verb. Alford absurdly translates: “If again” as “the nearest English expression to εἰ μὲν οὖν.” It could not well be more unfortunately rendered, unless possibly by yea if, by which Alford renders the same combination at Hebrews 8:4, while the rendering of μὲν γάρ, Hebrews 7:18 of Hebrews 7, by for moreover, is equally regardless of the meaning of the particles, and the demands of the context. In the present case the author passes ( Hebrews 7:11) from a consideration of the personal greatness of Melchisedek,—a greatness guaranteeing, by implication, the greatness of the priesthood in which his should find its antitype—to the points of superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood.—ἐπ’ αὐτῆς, on the basis of it—νενομοθέτηται Perf. like δεδεκάτωται, Hebrews 7:9, have had their legislation, stand recorded as having received the law.—τίς ἔτι χρεία, what need any longer; ἔτι, logical here, not temporal.—ἓτερον ἱερέα, a different priest, not merely ἄλλον, another, numerically.

Hebrews 7:12.—μετατιθεμένης,while it is undergoing a change or transfer; not simply being changed=μετατεθείσης.

Hebrews 7:13.—ἐφ’ ὅν, upon, in relation to whom.—μετέσχηκεν, hath participated in, hath shared in (perf. not as Hebrews 2:14, μετέσχεν); Eng. ver, pertaineth to.—οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκεν, none hath given attendance.

Hebrews 7:14.—πρόδηλον γάρ, for it is conspicuously evident—ἀνατέταλκεν, hath sprung or risen, not sprang.—περὶ ἱερέων, concerning priests.

Hebrews 7:15.—περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστι, more abundantly still is it evident, κατάδηλος, intensive of δῆλος, and περισσότερον, stronger than the simple comparative of κατάδηλος.—εἰ, if=if it is the case that—and it is; Eng. ver, for that which gives the meaning.—ἀνίσταται, there ariseth.

Hebrews 7:16.—γέγονεν, hath become, viz, priest; Alford, is appointed; Eng. ver, is made.—ἀκαταλύτου, not exactly as Eng. ver, endless; but not to be dissolved, indissoluble, indestructible.

Hebrews 7:19.—Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελεί., for the law brought nothing to perfection, should be in parenthesis, and ἑπεισαγωγή, a bringing in upon, or in place of, coördinated with ἀθέτησις as subject of γίνεται, as shown clearly both by the μέν and δέ, and the much greater clearness and elegance of the construction; “there takes place an abrogation on the one hand—and an introduction thereupon ἐπί).” Ebr. follows the Eng. ver. in its erroneous construction. Alf. constructs the sentence otherwise correctly, but (misunderstanding apparently a statement of Hart. Pertikel. II:414) regards μέν as here used elliptically, and pointing to an understood contrast in the permanence of the ζωή ἀκατάλ. just mentioned. “It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence, to regard this μέν as answering to the δέ following ἐπεισαγωγή; its connection with the γάρ will not allow this. If this had been intended we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ἀθέτησις γὰρ γίνεται τῆς μὲν προαγούσης ἐντολῆς.” No criticism could be more incorrect. There is not the slightest reason why μέν cannot stand with γάρ, and yet be followed by its corresponding δέ, unless it is impossible for a sentence to stand in the relation indicated by γάρ to a previous sentence, and yet itself be susceptible of a distribution of its members by μὲν and δέ. We have in fact just such a construction at Hebrews 7:20-21, and it is among the most natural and familiar in the language. And the construction proposed by Alf. as required in case the μέν and δέ here were in contrast, is totally wrong. The order of words which he has given would imply a contrast not between the abrogation of the preceding commandment and the introduction of a better hope, but a contrast between the abrogation of the preceding commandment on the one hand, and of something else on the other. The construction, as it stands, brings out, regularly and elegantly, the required antithesis. It might indeed have stood γίνεται γὰρ ἀθέτησις μὲν προαγούσης—ἐπεισαγ. δέ, and also in one or two other modes of arrangement; but no change is needed.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Hebrews 7:11. If, indeed, now perfection were, etc.—Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν is the genuine Greek construction for a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed.¹⁰ The οὖν does not refer back to Hebrews 6:20 (De Wette, Bisping). The γάρ in the parenthetical clause refers to the obvious but unexpressed thought that one might be inclined to assume that perfection was brought about through the Levitical priesthood, inasmuch as this stood in reality in organic connection with the Mosaic law. The supposition that the sentiment merely is that the people received legal ordinances regarding the priesthood (Schlicht, Grot, Bl.), is contradicted not merely by the utter superfluousness of such a remark, but chiefly by the fact that it is only with verbs of speaking that ἐπί with the Gen. stands in such a sense (Bernhady, Synt., p248). Many, as Seb. Schmidt, Rambach and others, have even explained it barely of rites and institutions pertaining to the τελείωσις. Clauses denoting necessity are commonly followed by the Inf. with μή (Hart. Partikellehre II:125). When, however, the negation refers not to the entire sentence, but, as here, to an individual portion of it, οὐ also occurs (Madvig Gr. Synt., § 205; Kühn, § 214, Anm2). Luther makes λέγεσθαι depend on χρεία, and all that intervenes depend on λέγεσθαι. It is more easy and natural to make the two Infinitives, ἀνίστασθαι and λέγεσθαι coördinate with each other, and both dependent on χρεία. Ἕτερον emphasizes the diversity in kind.

Hebrews 7:12. For if the priesthood is undergoing a change, etc.—The γάρ refers not (as with Lün.) to the parenthetical clause, but introduces the first argument in support of the main idea of Hebrews 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest, is incompatible with the assumption of the sufficiency and efficiency of the Levitical priesthood. Νόμος is neither to be restricted to the law of the priesthood (Bez, Grot, etc.), nor to the ceremonial law (Calv, à Lapide, Carpz, etc.). For although it is true that Hebrews 7:13 merely introduces the proof of the proposition of Hebrews 7:12, that the change of the law, there asserted as inseparable from the change of the priesthood, appears historically in the fact that the Old Covenant itself predicts the Melchisedek priest as a non-Aaronic and Levitical priest, while Hebrews 7:14 attaches to this the historical proof of the fulfilment of this prediction in the person of Jesus, and thus far the law spoken of might be the mere law of the priesthood; yet inasmuch as it has been previously stated that the Israelitish people had received their νόμον in organic connection with the institution of the priesthood, of course the change of law here referred to can by no means be regarded as a partial one. [Moll then regards Hebrews 7:13 as still lingering back in the realm of prophecy, and simply asserting that the person of whom the language of the prediction is uttered, viz., “thou art a priest,” etc, appears in the very fact of the prediction as belonging to another tribe, where none gave attendance at the altar; for if he was a Melchisedek priest, he could not be an Aaronic and Levitical priest, and therefore could not be of the tribe of Levi; and he then regards Hebrews 7:14 as coming down into the actual historical life of our Lord, and confirming the inference from prophecy by the well known testimony of fact. The main scope of the paragraph, he thinks, is to illustrate the cardinal idea of Hebrews 7:11, viz., that the institution of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ is incompatible with the supposition of the competence of the Levitical priesthood to accomplish its intended work of perfection. This is shown, first, by the fact that the Old Testament itself, as shown by the prediction of Psalm 110, contemplated a transfer of the Levitical priesthood to another tribe—a transfer actually realized in the person of Jesus (12–14). Secondly, by the essential difference in the character of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ (15–17)—K.]. Ταῦτα, Hebrews 7:14, refers to the words of the Psalm 110:4. The Perfects μετέσχηκεν, προσέσχηκεν, ἀνατέταλκεν, point to the historical facts as now standing completed before the eye. Ἀφ’ ἦς denotes the springing forth from the φυλή. Προσέχειν τινι=to give one’s attention, or devote one’s activity to a thing. The reading προσέστηκε in Erasmus is a Patristic gloss. The πρό in πρόδηλον is not temporal (Pierce), but strengthens the conception of a thing as lying open or conspicuous by the facts, while κατάδηλον in like manner emphasizes the reasonings of Hebrews 7:15.

Hebrews 7:15. And it is still more abundantly evident, etc.—Ebrard entirely erroneously supposes that the thing here asserted to be evident is the fact of our Lord’s springing from Judah ( Hebrews 7:14). Bisping, following Chrys. and others, supposes it to be the greatness of the difference between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. Klee, with Primas, Just, Rambach, etc., supposes it to be the reality of the change of the priesthood. Delitzsch, with J. Cappell. and Bengel, regards it as the inefficiency of the Levitical priesthood; while Bleek, De Wette, Thol, Lün, find in it the statement that the change of the priesthood involves the change of the law. But this statement itself served merely as the first proof of the capital thought contained in Hebrews 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest was incompatible with the efficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and was itself again substantiated by the fact of the actual occurrence of the change. The author now advances to the second proof of the same point, a proof in which is involved alike the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and the greatness of the distinction between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. In the previous argument the stress was laid on the circumstance that with the change of the priesthood stood actually and as matter of fact connected a change of the Mosaic law. It is now laid on the intrinsic idea and character of a Melchisedek priest. A Melchisedek priest, as such, is the subject of the clause. Had the author had in mind Jesus personally, he would have personally designated the subject, of which the predicate would then be the priest of a different character. The greater clearness of this proof, however, lies in the fact that His birth from a different Israelitish tribe does not so much constitute the Messiah a ἕτερος ἱερεύς as his “likeness” to Melchisedek. This not merely places him in another τάξις of Priests, but gives him a priesthood forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and such a priesthood can alone work τελείωσις, comp. Hebrews 7:25.

[The passage Hebrews 7:11-16, is, as indicated by the great diversity of opinions regarding it, while easy enough to translate, among the most difficult in the Epistle to analyze so as to assure us that we have the precise scope and drift of the author. Some, as Lönemann, regard Hebrews 7:12, with its ratiocinative γάρ, as simply illustrating the parenthetical clause of Hebrews 7:11, a view which at first glance seems probable. Others, as Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, regard it as paving the way for what follows, and “laying down the ground why, not, without urgent cause, the priesthood is changed” (De Wette), admitting at the same time that the parenthetical clause of Hebrews 7:11 has an important bearing on the illustration. Moll considers the capital thought which the whole passage is designed to illustrate, to be the incompatibility of the institution of the Melchisedek priesthood, with the idea of the sufficiency and competence of the Levitical priesthood. Equally, perhaps still more diverse, are the views regarding the reference of the κατάδηλον, Hebrews 7:15. Let us follow a little the course of thought. The author passes, at Hebrews 7:11, from illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek—involving by implication, the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, and a fortiori the superiority of that of which his was but a type, to the Aaronic—to the consideration of the relative claims of the two priesthoods themselves, viz., the Levitical priesthood and the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ. The main ideas which he introduces, and which lie in the very nature and relations of the case, are the following: 1. That the Mosaic economy rested for its execution and effectiveness on the Levitical priesthood; the abrogation, therefore, of the latter involves an abrogation of the former. This abrogation he mildly calls a transfer. 2. That this abrogation of the priesthood and of its associated and superincumbent economy is already predicted in the Old Testament, (in the declaration of God, Thou art a priest forever, etc.), and that this prediction is actually realized in the well-known descent of Jesus Christ from the stock of Judah—a non-priestly tribe3. That the change of priesthood, and of course the superiority of the latter, consists even more in the internal character of the Melchisedek priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, than in the mere external fact of change4. That the oath which accompanied the inauguration of the Melchisedek priest marks its superiority5. That its superiority is also marked by its singleness, untransferableness, and perpetuity, in all which features it stands contrasted with the Levitical. These are the general ideas from Hebrews 7:11 to Hebrews 7:26, and it is only at two or three points, chiefly at Hebrews 7:12-13; Hebrews 7:15, that the difficulty is found in tracing the precise thread of connection. Without feeling over confident, I think it as nearly as follows:

If, indeed, now (the now οὖν, linking it in a general way with what precedes, the μέν pointing to the suppressed affirmation, contrasted with the supposition as; if, indeed it were, but it is not) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood—and that priesthood was bound to make the law effective, for the legislation of Moses was based upon it—there were no need for another priest to be spoken of in prophecy as about to arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron. And that such a change would not take place without urgent cause is evident, for see how far-reaching it is. For when the priesthood is transferred, as in the prediction of the Psalm it is, it carries with it a transfer and an abrogation of the Law. And that such a transfer is made is clear; for he in regard to whom the language of this prediction is uttered, belongs to another tribe, of which none has ministered at the altar;—(Delitzsch considers that in this verse ( Hebrews 7:13) the author has already descended from the region of prophecy to that of fulfilment. Moll regards him as still standing on the ground of the prophecy, and simply stating what the prophecy implies regarding the birth and tribal relations of the predicted priest. In favor of Moll’s view is the indefinite ἐφ’ ο͂ν λέγεται ταῦτα; in favor of that of Delitzsch are the definite statements with the perfect tense of the verb, which seem to point to actual historical facts. I concur on the whole with Delitzsch; Alford scarcely touches the question).—For it is a well-known historical fact, that our Lord hath sprung from Judah, to which tribe appertains no regular priesthood. From this fact now it is evident that that change of priesthood has taken place which brings change of law, viz., the fact that the old priesthood belonged to a particular tribe, and that when it passes to another tribe, of course the Mosaic priesthood is subverted, and therefore the whole structure reared upon it falls to the ground; but it is still more abundantly evident from another fact, viz., the intrinsically different character of this new priesthood, in that this priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedek—having those properties which this likeness would presuppose—who hath been made, etc. From this point the course of thought is easy. I thus do not regard the course of thought as carried out with strict logical precision. The author shows how great consequences depend on the overthrow of the Levitical priesthood—no less consequences than the abrogation of the whole law that rests upon it—shows how this transfer is actually made in the person of Jesus, and how still more vital and deep-reaching than the mere transfer, is the change in the intrinsic character of the Melchisedek priesthood itself. Here he has, as it were, drifted into the topic of the superiority of Christ’s Melchisedek priesthood to the Aaronic, which he then farther illustrates by the matter of the oath, and the singleness and perpetuity of the Melchisedek priest as against the plurality and transitoriness of the Levitical priests.—K.].

Hebrews 7:16. Who has been made not after the law, etc.—By νόμος here Chrys, Calv, Beng, Böhme, Thol, and others, understand the Mosaic law, whose elements are collectively designated as a fleshly institution. But the expression κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης in antithesis to κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, requires certainly that we take νόμος as at Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23 in the sense of norm. We are not, however, to infer from this that ἐντολὴ σαρκίνη is the special requisition of the Mosaic law regarding the Levitical priesthood (Lün.), and is so designated because it lays stress merely on outward, earthly things, which are liable to destruction, as on lineal descent, etc., and installs only mortal men as priests (Theod, Grot, Bl, De Wette, etc.). Still less may we appeal to the fact that in later Greek the distinction between adj. ending in ικός and ινος is done away (Winer, Thol, etc.). For no New Testament writer could characterize the Mosaic law, whether taken as a whole or in any of its ordinances, as fleshly, inasmuch as they are collectively to be referred back to the will of God, and for this reason Paul expressly emphasizes the spiritual nature alike of the νόμος and of the ἐντολή, Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14. Doubtless, indeed, the signification of perishableness, which Beng, Carpz, etc., have found in σαρκικός, is possible for σάρκινος (=made of flesh). Still I should prefer to refer the epithet to the qualities of externality, frailty and impotence, which belong to the nature of the σάρξ, and which are also at the same time predicated of the ritual and statutory character of the Mosaic law. It is this property of the law which I conceive to be expressed by ἐντολὴ σαρκίνη. To this corresponds the fact that it is not placed in contrast directly with the historic Jesus but with the ἔτερος ἱερεύς, which finds its realization in Him, whose characteristic, as shown by Hebrews 7:18, is drawn from the words of the Psalm. Any reference to the capacity of Christ to impart life to others (as supposed by Cam, Dorsch, Calov, etc.), is not for a moment to be assumed. As previously κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχ. was explained by κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα M, so here εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is explained by κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς άκαταλύτου. The language then has not reference to the incarnation of Christ the Messiah, but to His appointment as Melchisedek priest in the presence of God, in the completeness and perfection of His personal life. He is also the subject of μαρτυρεῖται [so Alf.], which Bleek and others take impersonally. Ὅτι is the ὅτι of citation as Hebrews 10:8; Hebrews 11:18.

Hebrews 7:18. For there becometh a doing away, etc.—The author is showing that the thought expressed in Hebrews 7:15-16 is contained in the passage of the Psalm. To this passage points the Pres. γίνεται, which belongs to the two clauses that are separated by the parenthesis. Some interpreters remove the parenthesis, erroneously and make Hebrews 7:19 an independent sentence, either making ἐπεισαγωγή a predicate to ὁ νόμος, and supplying ἐστίν or ἦν (Erasm, Calv, Ebr, etc.), or making ἐπεισαγωγή subject and repeating ἐτελείωσεν (as Beza, Grot, E. Ver.). In the former case the meaning would be: “but the law is indeed, or was, an introduction to a better hope:” in the second case: “but the ἐπεισαγωγή, etc., did bring in perfection.” The latter construction would demand the article before ἐπεισαγ. as before νόμος, indicating the subject. The former is opposed alike by the fact that the μὲν γάρ without the corresponding δέ is not=namely, but only=for to be sure, for at least, (Hart. Partik. II, 414), which is here entirely out of place, and that ἐπεισαγωγή is not=εἰσαγωγή, but denotes the introduction of something either as added to an object already existing, or as a substitute for it. This object is here προάγουσα ἐντολή, whose meaning is determined by the connection, for which reason the absence of the article does not require that the clause be taken as a general one (Schlicht, De Wette), while the use of ἐντολή as substantially equivalent to the Mosaic νόμος, would be adverse to it, (Primas, Chrys, Theod, Calv, Grot, etc.). The thought contained in the parenthesis (so rightly at first constructed by Luther, and erroneously changed in his later version), is weakened by changing the neut. οὐδέν into the masc. οὐδένα, (Chrys, Schlicht, Grot, Carpz, Bisp, etc.).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

From this passage Chr. Ferd. Baur takes occasion (“Christianity and the Church of the three first centuries,” p99), to maintain that our author holds an essentially different position from Paul, saying, “To the Apostle Paul Judaism is essentially law, while in the law again appears only its negative relation to Christianity. To the author of the Hebrews, Judaism is essentially a priesthood. The priesthood is with him the primary thing, and the starting point of his entire discussion; the law is but secondary. The latter must regulate itself by the former.” It is only when torn from its connection that our passage can be so explained. It points rather to the historically known fact, that the Mosaic law, through which the Israelites in general were constituted a people, and especially a people of God, was given to them with direct reference to, and on condition of the ministry of the priesthood, which, in its establishment and functions, stood indissolubly connected with it. From this, then, could the conclusion be drawn, that the change of so essential an institution as the priesthood would include and draw after it the change of the law itself. If then, farther, as an historical fact it must be acknowledged, that in the Old Testament itself, by the divine word of prophecy, this change of the priesthood is announced as one designed by God, and with certainty to be introduced through the Messiah, there could be drawn the farther conclusion that the whole law and the legal covenant relation in general, has, in the plan of God himself, only a transitory, and as elsewhere indicated, disciplinary significance. The fact was thus demonstrated, that in the establishment of the Law, and of its institutions, God did not promise and pledge within the covenant of the law itself, and within its means of grace, the attainment of the demanded and designed perfection. Rather this perfection must and can be attained by other means of grace, which are in like manner announced by God, and have been already introduced.

2. The Law can, as the verbal expression of the Divine will, only describe perfection; it cannot exhibit it personally. It can further, as the command of God to His people, only demand from them human perfection, but not create it in them. Finally, as the law of the holy God, it cannot overlook the universal lack of perfection, nor leave those whose duty binds them to this perfection, exempt from punishment. It must rather judge the sin everywhere disclosed by it, and, since all men prove themselves to be sinners, can only condemn and not acquit. This is the imperfection and the weakness—this incapacity to produce perfection—which lies in the nature of law as such, and of course also in the law of God; comp. Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:9, where Paul calls the law τὰ ἀσθενῆ καί πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα.

3. Should, with this condition of things, a positive covenant relation between God and His people, bound solemnly to the law, be possible, this could only take place by instituting an expiation, upon the foundation of which rests a reconciliation for the forgiveness of sin, and the introduction of the spiritual peace and blessing, which we so deeply need. But since man as a sinner is incapacitated for it, his only hope rests upon the Divine interposition in providing such an expiation.

4. This divinely originated plan is not merely promised by the word of prophecy, but was immediately, by a system of legal arrangements, by the institution of the Levitical priesthood, at once prepared for and prefigured. So far was it from lying within the divine purpose to introduce perfection by this institution, that on the one hand its typical and symbolical character was made clearly manifest, and on the other its transitory nature and import were expressly declared by the direct prediction of a priesthood of another character in the Old Testament itself, where the Messiah is purposely represented not merely as a priest-king, but also as not an Aaronic, but a Melchisedek Priest.

5. It is true that Christ is also the antitype of the high-priest Aaron; yet only in so far as His death on the cross, which wrought an eternal redemption, is compared with the annual expiatory sacrifice, which only the high-priest, after first making expiation for himself, was permitted to offer. But in respect, on the other hand, to the origin and dignity of the Song of Solomon, who, forever perfected, sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father; in respect to that ministry of intercession and of blessing, which gives perpetual efficacy in heaven to the sacrifice which once for all was offered upon earth,—in respect to these He is the counterpart of the Priestly King Melchisedek.

6. In this relation Christ exercises forever His mediatorial function, because in His person He possesses an indestructible life. He is Priest, not in consequence of any commandment, or on the ground of any priestly descent, but in virtue of His personality, which renders Him the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthood, on the ground of His offering of Himself on the cross, and in consequence of the position which He assumes as the Risen, eternally living God- man, exalted above all heavens to the throne of God.

7. The origin of Jesus from the tribe of Judah ( Revelation 5:5), through His descent from the house of David ( Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8), which is, on the one hand, like the rising of a star, Numbers 24:17, or of light from on high, Isaiah 60:1; Malachi 3:20; Luke 1:78; on the other, like the sprouting branch, Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, shows that the priesthood of Jesus is not the Levitico-Aaronical, but the Melchisedek priesthood; that thus the change predicted in the Old Testament has already historically taken place, and with this the abrogation of the Mosaic law received its authorized beginning. In this connection the remark of the author that this birth of Jesus from Judah is a perfectly well-known fact, so that he can make of it as of an unquestionable foundation, the most decided use in addressing his readers, is of great historical importance, especially in view of the circumstance that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

8. In the old covenant the Levitical priests were the mediators between God and the people; they had the honorable appellation of “those who draw near to Jehovah,” Numbers 10:3. Since Christ entered on His office as the only and eternal mediator, the whole people of God have received the appellation of a royal priesthood; a free access to the Father has been opened to all believers, and the realization of a better hope has commenced, which in the Old Testament prophecy came from the Melchisedek priest to the law, and passed over, out of and beyond it.

9. Also the hope of the believers of the Old Covenant was not directed merely to earthly goods, to long life and possession of the promised land, to security from enemies, and to dominion over unbelievers. The hope of a future life was according to Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:13-14 by no means wanting to the Patriarchs, and the Messianic hope gave them not only a concrete subject matter of their hope, but led also to better means for perfection than the legal institutions could furnish.

10. The idea of perfection embraces all points and elements in that state of perfectness in which the Divinely appointed goal is reached, to which Christ was led by sufferings ( Hebrews 2:10), and to which man ( Hebrews 10:1) can attain only through this ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας on the ground of the sacrifice of this New Test. high-priest ( Hebrews 10:14). But this state is not with Reuss (Hist. de la Theol. II., 551) to be limited to subjective and moral perfection. It rather has only its beginning in the purification which appertains to the conscience, Hebrews 9:7; its progress in that drawing near to God ( Hebrews 7:19), in which the outward objective principle of sanctification described in Hebrews 10:14, now proves itself actually efficacious; and its conclusion in eternal life, primarily in the spirits of just men made perfect, Hebrews 12:23, then after the resurrection, in their participation in glory, Hebrews 11:40.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The likeness and unlikeness of Christ to the priests of the law.—Wherein consists the strength, and wherein the weakness of the law?—The hope, by which we draw near to God, as already foretold in the Old Testament, by means of the old covenant, however, was not to be realized.—God changes not His plan, but does change sometimes the means of its accomplishment.—The glorious harmony of prophecy and history in the person of Jesus Christ.—How do law and Gospel stand related to each other?—The hope to which we are called: a. as to its substance; b. as to its foundation; c. as to its nurture.—Christ, a priest of a different kind from all other priests whatsoever.—Christ at once God and man, Priest and King, subject to the law, and free from its statutory observance.—The mutual relation of law and priesthood.

Starke:—The Old Testament, as one which in itself was much too weak, must necessarily be changed, and through the New Testament, a better hope be brought in, through the efficacious sacrifice and intercession of Jesus Christ, as the perfect high-priest, who alone gives us salvation. The Levitical Priesthood is fulfilled through the Messianic, and thereby has been done away.—The holy and wise God has in His word set forth, for the good of men, the mystery of Christ, in manifold ways, with so many reasons, of which some are at once clearer and more binding than others.—What the prophets have predicted of Christ so many hundred years ago, has been in Him so exactly fulfilled. Who sees not also in this, the divinity of the Holy Scriptures?—While all believing Christians are permitted to draw near to God in Christ, they are also all spiritual priests, whose dignity and office it is to offer themselves in sacrifice to God, ( Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9) as those who are animated with the Spirit of Christ, and adorned with the white priestly garment of righteousness, Isaiah 61:10.—Blessed is he who from time to time draws near in faith to Christ, and in Christ unto God, and makes his whole life nothing else than, as it were, a perpetual going out from himself and the world, and going in unto God, James 4:8.—He who, while he lives on earth, draws not near to God, in faith and prayer, will not come to God after death, Hebrews 4:16; Romans 5:1-2.

Hahn:—As Priest, Christ assists from within; creates an internal atmosphere, gives freedom and joy. As King, He aids also from without, and removes everything which can hinder the inner life of His people, and brings to naught the assaults of their foes.

Rieger:—From the fact that another Priest was to appear, was to be inferred an entire change in the economy of God.

Heubner:—The present religion of the Jews is an exceedingly defective Judaism. They admit some of its elements, while what is most important in it, they are utterly unable to carry out.—All mysteries, orders, societies, which claim equal or even superior rank to the Church of Christ, are a sin against the high-priestly dignity of Christ.

Stein:—Christianity is by so much the more perfect covenant, in that the covenant of God in the Old Testament, merely introduced, prepared for, and prefigured it; in that it then removes imperfections which the former was not able to remove; and finally, in that there are also blessed prospects for the future, which indicate Christianity as the more perfect covenant.

Footnotes

III

The New Covenant is by so much the more excellent as Jesus Himself is its personal guarantee

Hebrews 7:20-22

20And inasmuch as not without an oath [the swearing of an oath, ὁρχωμοσία] was he made priest: 21(For those priests were made [for they indeed have become priests] without an oath; but this [he] with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek:)¹¹ 22By so much¹² [also] was Jesus made [hath Jesus also become] a surety of a better testament [covenant].

[ Hebrews 7:20.—ὁρκωμοσία, the swearing of an oath: so the fuller form (like μισθαποδοσία, Hebrews 2:2) had better be rendered (with Alf.), than by the simple oath (ὃρκος, as Hebrews 6:17).

Hebrews 7:21.—οἰ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὃρκωμ. εἰσὶν ἰερ. γεγ, for they indeed=for while they, without the swearing, etc, have become priests. It is difficult to reproduce in English the force of the periphrastic είσὶν γεγονότες, are having become, bringing out more fully the two-fold idea of becoming and continuance. We cannot, perhaps, render better than simply have become as if it were γέγονατε.

Hebrews 7:22.—καὶ κρείττονος διαθ. γεγ. ἔγγυος Ἰης., also of a better covenant (not testament), hath Jesus become (not, been made) surety.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Hebrews 7:20. And inasmuch as, etc.—Luther translates erroneously, “and besides, what is much,” from a misconception of the Vulgate et quantum est. He connects also, like Chrys, Theodoret, Erasm, Calv, etc., these words with the preceding. True, the text in fact emphasizes the idea that this hope was not introduced without the swearing of an oath, but in form a protasis precedes to which the κατὰ τοσοῦτο corresponds, and in which we are not to supply ἱερεὺς γέγονεν (Œc, Beng, Böhme, Lün.), still less ἔγγυος γέγονεν, but, γίνεται τοῦτο (Bleek, De W, Thol, Hofm, Del.).

Hebrews 7:22. Surety of a better covenant.—Luther erroneously understands here διαθήκη as testament, and translates without authority ἔγγυος, ausrichter=executor. In classic Greek διαθήκη always denotes an arrangement, in general, a disposition or settlement, of which will or testament is a special form. The Sept, however, employs the word regularly instead of συνθήκη, as a translation of בְּרִית, so that it is also to be regarded in the New Testament as a terminus dogmaticus = covenant, from which signification we are to depart, only when compelled by the connection. The justification of this view of the word on the part of the LXX, and of the New Testament writers, lies in the fact that the covenant of God with men is not a compact concluded between two equally authorized and independent parties; but is essentially a Divine arrangement and disposition against sin and for human salvation, into which those who are called enter under a religious obligation, and to which God binds Himself in His truth and faithfulness. The Hebrew expression appears, on the contrary, to spring from this latter view, since for the word בָּרָה the signification “determine, constitute, establish,” assumed by Hofm, cannot be proved, but only either the signification “separate, choose out,” is admissible, 1 Samuel 17:8, or the signification “cut,” with reference to the original mode of ratifying a covenant, to which Jehovah ( Genesis 15.), as matter of convenience condescends.—Ἔγγυος is not to be explained by μεσίτης, mediator, although this word (not found elsewhere in the New Testament) may have been selected with allusion to the preceding ἐγγίζειν. Moreover the strictly juristic conception of the term fidejussor, and a reference to Christ’s vicarious satisfaction (Thom. Aquin, Calov, etc.), as well as any supposed reference to Christ’s sufferings in general, as sealing the covenant (Bl, De W, Lün.) is against the context, which in Christ, the Everlasting One, exalted at the right hand of God, recognizes the voucher and guaranty for the eternal maintenance and validity of the covenant which He mediates.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Levitical priests entered the priestly office by a simple command; Christ entered it by an arrangement confirmed with a Divine oath. In this lies an undoubted pledge: 1. for the fulfilment under the conduct of the Messiah, of the Divine promise; 2. for the exaltation of the New Covenant above the earlier one; 3. for its everlasting duration.

2. Jesus is the promised eternal priestly king, whose personal character, position and dignity, give to the covenant which He mediates a closely allied and corresponding preëminence.

3. In the very nature of a royal command in regard to an arrangement and institution whose perpetuity is not specially indicated, still less promised and pledged, lies already the possibility of the reversing of the command, of the annulling of the institution, of a change of the arrangement by the Ruler Himself, without His thereby of necessity becoming untruthful, unrighteous and untrustworthy, falling into contradiction with Himself, or throwing back into confusion the products of His own creative power.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Jesus Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, is at the same time the pledge: a. of its everlasting continuance; b. of its divinely approved character; and c. of the perpetual accomplishment of its promises.—How the preëminence of the New Covenant over the Old is assured a. by the promise and oath of its author; b. by the person of its priestly mediator.—From the Old Testament itself we might infer the exaltation of the Priest of the Promise above the priests of the law, and above their service.—The Promise connects with one another Law and Gospel, and at the same time leads over from time into eternity.

Starke:—As it was conceived and determined in the counsels of the adored Trinity, so in Christ Jesus has all been carried out that in Him all should become blessed, and whatever will may become blessed.

Rieger—From the swearing of the oath the Apostle justly infers the great earnestness, the weighty interest and the extraordinary pleasure with which God has entered into and sealed this His arrangement.—Elsewhere he swears who undertakes an office in order that persons may entrust to him their interests; but here He swears who confers the office in testimony of His high purposes, and of His unchangeable will.

Footnotes

IV

Christ lives forever, and can therefore, in His unchangeable Priesthood, forever intercede in the presence of God on behalf of the redeemed

Hebrews 7:23-25

23And they truly[indeed] were many priests [have more than one been made priests], because they were¹³ not suffered to continue by reason of death[on account of their 24 being hindered by death from continuing]: But this man [he], because he continueth 25 forever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore [whence also] he is able also [om. also] to save to the uttermost [completely, unto perfection, εἰς τὸ πανταλές] them that come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

[ Hebrews 7:23.—Καὶ οἱ μέν, and they indeed=and while, they—πλείονές εἰσιν, etc, have in larger numbers, as more than one, become priests—διὰ τὸ θαν. κωλεύεσθαι, on account of their being hindered by death, etc. If the finite verb is used it should be in the present, not “were not suffered.”

Hebrews 7:24.—Ὁ, δέ, but he, not, but this man—ἀπαραβάτον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην, hath his priesthood, not to be passed by, hence superceded; or, perhaps, better (with reference to the active παραβαίνω, go aside from, transgress, violate, παράβασις, transgression, violation) not to be transgressed or transcended, inviolate.

Hebrews 7:25.—Ὅθεν καί, whence also.—εἰς τὸ παντελές, unto completion, completely, πάντοτε ζῶν, always living.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[But by no means necessarily in the same signification. I think Grot, Del, etc., are clearly right. To make μένειν and παραμένειν identical in meaning makes an intolerable platitude: “they are hindered by death from remaining in life!” But the change of reference is both suggested by the change in the verbs (μένειν and παραμένειν) and gives to each an appropriate and beautiful force: ‘They are hindered by death from abiding in their priesthood;’ He on account of His abiding forever in life, hath His priesthood unchangeable. The necessity of giving to both verbs the same reference is only apparent. The real contrast is against it—K.].

Hebrews 7:24. Unchangeable.—Ἀπαράβατος belongs to the later Greek, and with Theodor, Œc, Theoph, Erasm, is by most taken actively=not passing over to another, whence Este and Justiniani explain that the priests of the Catholic Church are not successors, but vicarii et ministri Christi. More accordant with usage is the Passive construction, not to be passed beyond or overstepped, hence inviolable, unchangeable.

Hebrews 7:25. To the uttermost, completely, to the consummation.—Εἰς τὸ παντελές is erroneously referred by the Peshito, Vulg, Chrys, Luth, Calv, Schlicht, Grot, etc., to time. Ὅθεν καί, whence also, shows that the declaration in this clause is to be regarded as the consequence, and indeed the natural consequence, of the statement of the clause just previous. [This seems hardly decisive against the reference of the adverbial clause to time; yet in the connection we can scarcely doubt that the reference is not to His saving always, or forever, but to His saving completely, those who come to God through Him. The perpetuity of His priesthood enables Him to carry through the salvation which He has commenced—K.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. A further prerogative of the New Covenant lies in the unchangeableness of the Priesthood, attached to one and the same person, and by Him carried out in the most perfect manner forever. The ground of this lies in the fact that Christ tasted death indeed, but has also forever overcome it; and that to both these alike, to His sufferings and His victory, as He originally undertook and accomplished them on our behalf, so also in heaven He gives on our behalf perpetual validity and efficacy.

2. The eternally unchanging, high-priestly, and royal sway of the glorified Son of man, is the cause of our perfect salvation, in that, by means of this, we, reconciled, draw near to God, and are kept in perpetual fellowship of life with God.

3. The Priesthood of Jesus Christ does not commence with His ministry in heaven. There rather, Hebrews, the eternally Living One, as antitype of the priestly-king, Melchisedek, gives entire completeness and efficacy ( Romans 8:34) to the sacrifice which, as antitype of the Aaronic high-priest, He offered in His death upon the cross, by the sacrifice of Himself.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Salvation and blessedness are the grand aim of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.—The Priesthood of Christ is not less efficacious than it is permanent and comprehensive.—Nearness to God is possible only through the Song of Solomon, but through Him is ultimately enjoyed in blissful perfection,—Wherein lies, on the one hand, the indispensableness, on the other, the imperishableness of the Priesthood of Christ?—In what consists, on what rests, and by what means is effected, the complete deliverance of men through Jesus Christ?—Christ has in His Priesthood no successor, since He lives forever, and no substitute, because He Himself exercises His office perfectly and all-sufficiently.

Starke:—The exalted Jesus prays actually before the throne of His Heavenly Father, on behalf of men, in a way that is pleasing to Him, so long as the kingdom of grace continues, since He can still bring man to salvation.—True members of Christ evince their spiritual priesthood toward others, in the fact that they pray for them zealously, although not with the meritorious supplication with which Christ pleads for us, yet still acceptably, and in a manner that is productive of blessing.—Priest, Bishop, and Prelate, all are nothing. Christ is the true Archbishop and Chief Shepherd, to whom all things minister, and through whom all are nurtured and live, physically, spiritually and eternally.

Rieger:—The death of Jesus Christ was no hinderance to the continuance of His Priestly office and employment, rather was itself a part of it. That Christ lives forever, is not only a prerogative of this Living Person Himself, but is also a blessing for us. Many circumstances that contribute to my happiness may change, but this capital circumstance changes not: “He ever lives and makes intercession for us.” Who would ever reach the destined goal, were there not such a priestly office and intercession ever exercised on our behalf in the Sanctuary of God?

Heubner:—Drawing near to God implies not merely coming to Him in prayer, but obtaining His grace on earth, and His heavenly kingdom hereafter.—Christ is not merely an intercessor on behalf of those who are to be made subjects of grace, but also on behalf of those already converted, in their state of moral weakness and infirmity.—All human dignities, institutions, schools, perish; the dignity and office of Christ are imperishable.

Hahn:—In heaven we are more regarded and cared for than we believe, and in the heart of the Father and of the Son there is much that is taking place on our behalf.

V

As the sinless Son of God, Jesus Christ has once for all offered Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world

Hebrews 7:26-28

26 For also [om. also] such an high priest [also] became¹⁴ us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate [having been separated] from sinners, and made [become] higher than the heavens; 27who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once [for all], when he offered up himself 28 For the law maketh [constitutes, καθίστησιν] men high priests, which [who] have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Song of Solomon, who is [hath been] consecrated [perfected] for evermore.

Hebrews 7:26.—Τοιοῦτος γάρ. The clause is constructed with exquisite rhetorical beauty. In place of τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἱερεύς which would have sprung naturally from the preceding, the author, with reference to the following discussion, changes the noun to ἀρχιερεύς, and then skilfully throws this over to the end of the clause, where it takes the reader by surprise.—ἄκακος hardly harmless by which word our Eng. ver, also renders ἄκεραιος. The latter is properly guileless, the former, perhaps,=void of malice. ‘Harmless’ is certainly too negative a term.—κεχαρισμένος, having been separated, locally withdrawn, from sinners.—γενόμενος, not made, but becoming, viz: in His exaltation at God’s right hand.

Hebrews 7:27.—καθ’ ἡμέραν, day by day, daily.—ἀνενέγκας, by offering up.

Hebrews 7:28.—ἀνθρώπους emphatic, those who are mere men.—υἱόν him who is Son—the art. omitted as Hebrews 1:1, τετελειωμένον, having been perfected.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Hebrews 7:26. For such an high priest, also, etc.—Τοιοῦτος refers back to the high-priest described in Hebrews 7:25; γάρ finds the reason of His existence in His adaptedness to our needs; καί emphasizes the naturalness and justness of such a reference; and the following predicates holy, etc., define the special traits of our Melchisedek High-priest: Ὅσιος, with the LXX, a common translation of חָםִיד, refers to one’s relation toward God; ἄκακος to His relations toward men; ἀμίαντος to His personal unceasing fitness for priestly service; κεχ. ἁπὸ τ. ἁμαρτ. to His withdrawal from all disturbing contact with the wicked, John 7:32-36; Isaiah 53:8; not to His inward purity in His outward association with sinners during His earthly life (Ebr.); ὑψηλ.—γενομ. to that absolutely supraterrestrial, supramundane mode of existence which followed His exaltation.

Hebrews 7:27.—Who hath no daily need, etc.—Καθ ἡμέραν, daily, day by day, cannot mean “on a definite day in the course of the year,” (Schlicht, Michael.), nor can it with διαπαντός be taken as indicating annual repetition=still ever and ever recurring, (Grot, Böhm, De W, Ebr.). It is supposed, therefore, with Calov, and the best older interpreters, by Bl, Thol, Lün, that the author, with his mind specially on the singleness and finality of the sacrifice of Christ, has in loose and inexact expression, blended the priestly sacrifices in general with the grand high-priestly sacrifice on the annually recurring day of atonement. They point, in support of the assumption, to the fact that the high-priest was not merely empowered to take part in the daily burnt offering as often as he chose (Mishn. Tract. Thamid VII:3) but that he made frequent use of this privilege, particularly on Sabbaths, new moons, and festal occasions, (Joseph. Bell. Jud. Hebrews 7:5-6), and that the same is true of the daily incense offerings, to which there was ascribed an atoning significancy, Leviticus 17:11-12; Numbers 33:10, LXX. As this sacrifice would seem to have been originally offered morning and evening by Aaron in person, Exodus 30:7; and the author of our epistle goes back in various ways, to the original institutions which were intended to be binding on all the generations of Israel, Exodus 12:14; Exodus 30:8, the words ἀνάγκην ἔχει may admit this explanation all the more, as already Sirach 45:14; Sirach 45:16, the sacrificial service is designated generally as the service of Aaron, and also Philo (Ed. Mang. II:321) calls the high-priest εὐχὰς καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. Against Wieseler’s assumption that this passage attests a rite existing merely in the Egyptian temple of Onias, we have the decisive fact that also in the Jerus. Talmud, tr. Chagiga, II:4, and in the Babyl. Talmud, tr. Pesachim, 57 a, it is said of the high-priest that he offers daily sacrifice (Del. Talmud. Studien XIII. in Rudelb. and Guer. Zeitschr. für die luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1860, I:7:593 ff.). In like manner we may observe that, according to Philo, I:497, in the daily sacrifices the priests offered a meat-offering for themselves, and the sacrificial lamb for the people. In this the πρότερον and ἔπειτα standing in relation to the daily offering, may find an explanation. We shall thus be under no necessity of referring the language exclusively to the high-priestly minhha, i.e, to the vegetable meat offering, which according to Leviticus 6:13-16, the high-priest has to offer from the day of his anointing, daily, morning and evening, and this not for the people, but as a matter of daily consecration for himself; and to lay the emphasis on the fact that this meat-offering is designated Sirach 45:14; Philo, I:497, 26; II:321, 38; Joseph. Antt. III:10, 7, as a θυσία, and is also mentioned by Origen (Homil. IV. in Levit.): See Lundius Jüd. Heiligth, III:9, § 19, more recently Thalhofer: ‘The bloodless sacrifices of the Mosaic Ritual,’ p139–156. It may, however, well be urged that our author Hebrews 5:1, designates every sacrifice including the δῶρα in the narrower sense, as a sacrifice made in its ultimate ground and purpose, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. Only we must not deny that primarily the comparison of our passage with Hebrews 5:3, points certainly to a proper expiatory offering made by the high-priest περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, and that the sin-offerings following in succession suit no other day so well as the annual great day of atonement. The statements above made, however, show that we need not necessarily on this account yield our assent to the view of Hofmann (Schriftb. II:1, 287, 2 Ausg. II:1, 404), as is done by Riehm, Alford, and Delitzsch in his commentary: “The comparison is not made between what Christ would have to do, and that which the high-priests have daily to do; but between that which the high-priests have to do, and that which Christ would have to do day by day. He would be obliged, inasmuch as ever new and perpetual expiation would be required, to do day by day that which he has now done once for all.” Delitzsch remarks that this view is favored alike by the nicely chosen position of καθ’ ἡμέραν, and by the plural expression ὤσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς; but he has retracted his concurrence (Rudelbach, Zeitschrift, 1860, I:7:595). Hofmann refers the τοῦτο ἐποίησεν to the whole expression πρότερον—λαοῦ, as also Schlicht, Grot, Hammond did, though with different special views, inasmuch as Hofmann regards as the antitype of the sin-offering presented by the High-priest περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, the supplication of Jesus in Gethsemane ( Hebrews 5:7-8); while against all use of language, Schlichting understands by ἀμαρτίαι Christ’s infirmitates et perpessiones, Grotius understands by it the dolores assumed and submitted to by Christ as punishment for the sins of humanity, from which dolores He was only set free by death. Delitzsch, however, with the majority, refers it to the high-priestly θυσίας ἀναφέρειυ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ. The γάρ Hebrews 7:28 introduces the reason, as lying in the fact of the case, for the above-mentioned relation of Christ to the Mosaic priests.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is in its essential significance to be conceived as a voluntary self-sacrifice, corresponding to the purpose of God, yet not barely in the sense of a moral offering for the benefit of others, but as a vicarious sacrifice, expiating the guilt of sin for collective humanity, taking away the punishment of sin, and working reconciliation with God.

2. Its fitness for such a work this death derives from the character of the person, who is at the same time priest and victim, and unites in himself, and possesses in their truth and reality, all qualities which in the Levitical service are divided between priest and victim, and which there have but a mere symbolical efficacy.

3. The nature of this self-sacrifice of Christ excludes the continuance of the symbolico-typical priesthood and sacrificial service, just as its eternal validity and efficacy admits no repetition of this perfect sacrifice, and no substitution, or the offering of any other sacrifice of like dignity and importance with the Song of Solomon, who is perfected forever.

4. The weakness which inheres in mortals is partly a creaturely limitation, partly an inborn sinfulness, partly a personal guiltiness. From this springs the partial nature of the legal high-priesthood, its purely symbolical significance, and the necessity of a plurality of persons relieving one another, and of actions which repeat themselves with special mutually supplementary acts. But within the Old Testament revelation itself, the promise of God, confirmed by His oath, points to the universal character, to the reality and to the efficacy of the atonement accomplished by the eternally perfected Son.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1. The character of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, in its dependence on the nature of the person of the Lord.—The sole and single high-priesthood of Jesus Christ, corresponds perfectly to the necessities of the human race, and to the revealed purpose and will of God.—The weakness of men and the eternal perfection of the Son.—Christ at the same time priest and victim.—The causes of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are: a. the sin of the world; b. the purpose of God; c. the loving obedience of the Son.—The effects of the offering of Jesus Christ by Himself: a. on the perfection of His own person; b. on the relation of the world to God; c. on the character of the priesthood exercised by man.—Wherein consists the preëminence of the high-priesthood of Jesus Christ?

Starke:—Preachers bear their treasures in earthen vessels. When they err let none be stumbled thereat; they are obliged also for themselves to bring the offering of repentance.—Christ has made an offering once for all; by this we should and must abide; and thus it is to depreciate His sacrifice, to desire still daily to offer it as Popish priests assume and undertake to do.—The sacrifice of Christ made once for all, serves us, as for the strengthening of our faith, so also for the cleansing of our walk, that we may abide therein and not draw back.—Behold the ground of the efficacy and perfection of the single and final propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; He is the Son of God whom the Father hath raised from the dead, received into His glory, and placed at the right hand of His majesty.

Rieger:—The depth of our need, and the loftiness of the purposes for which God has commenced His dealings with us, demanded such a High-priest as God in this One has prepared for us.—Such a high-priest was necessary for us, who, with the purest zeal for the honor of God, could still in a becoming manner lead to Him a world full of sinners.—Jesus has shown satisfactorily that He is at once a true friend of sinners, and from the heart an enemy of sin.

Heubner:—The ground of the priestly dignity of Christ lies in His innocence, righteousness and holiness.—The repetition of sacrifices was a constant reminder of the weakness and sinfulness of men.

Menken:—Holiness in feeling and in conduct the Scripture ascribes to mortal men while they live in the flesh and on the earth, as it also demands of believers and righteous men, that they shall cherish in their heart, and evince in their life, holiness, not merely in the future but also in the present world. But it styles no mortal man perfect.

Footnotes