The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

In considering this passage several points must be kept in mind.

(1). The apostasy described is marked not only by a decisive act (parapesontas), but also by a continuous present attitude, a hostile relation to Christ himself and to belief in Christ (anastaurountas, paradeigmatizontas).

(2). Thus there is no question of the abstract efficacy of the means of grace provided through the ordinances of the Church. The state of the men themselves is such as to exclude their application.

(3). The case is hypothetical. There is nothing to shew that the conditions of fatal apostasy had been fulfilled, still less that they had been fulfilled in the case of any of those addressed. Indeed the contrary is assumed: vv. 9 ff.

(4). But though the case is only supposed it is one which must be taken into account. It is possible for us to see how it can arise. The state of a man may become such as to make the application to him of the appointed help towards the divine life not only difficult but impossible.

(5). Such a condition is noticed elsewhere c. x. 26 f.; comp. c. iii. 12; 1 John v. 16 (note).

And the frame of mind is recognised not only in relation to apostasy, but in relation to the first reception of the Gospel: Matt. xii. 31 (he tou pneumatos blasphemia), when the spirit, through which man has the power of approach to the Divine, becomes itself rebellious and defiant.

(6). Compare also Gal. v. 4 (katergethete apo Chpistou); Rom. xi. 21 (ton kata phusin kladon ouk epheisato); 1 Tim. iv. 1 (apostesontai tines tes pisteos); 1 Tim. vi. 10 (apeplanethesan apo tes pisteos); 2 Pet. ii. 20; John xn. 1 ff., 6 (eblethe exo, exeranthe, kaietai). In these passages various aspects of the sin and its consequences are indicated, which answer to the responsible action of man and the fulfilment of the divine law of retribution.

(7). The analogy of human life furnishes an illustration of the general idea. A second birth is inconceivable: but a restoration to life is not so. This however does not come within the ordinary view. So it is in the spiritual life. A re-birth is impossible, yet even here a restoration to life may be accomplished.

The passage was variously interpreted in early times. @Tertullian, representing the sterner (Montanist) view, held that it declared that all who had fallen away from the faith, either by temporary apostasy or by gross sin, were cut off from it for their whole life, without possibility of readmission on repentance: de Pudic. xx. Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam poenitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat.

In the earliest stage of the Novatianist controversy the words do not seem to have been quoted. Novatian himself does not refer to the epistle.

In the fourth century and onwards however it was pressed by those who held his views (comp. Theodoret ad loc.; Athanas. Ep. ad Serap. iv. § 13; Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 3; Ambros. de Pæn. ii. 2 §§ 6 ff.).

But this opinion and this use of these words found no favour in the Catholic Church. On the contrary the Catholic writers limited the meaning of the passage to the denial of a second baptism. So among the Greek Fathers.

And among the Latin fathers:

Ambrose@ (*de Pænit. ii. 3): De baptismate autem dictum verba ipsa declarant quibus significavit impossibile esse lapsos renovari in poenitentiam, per lavacrum enim renovamur...eo spectat ut de baptismo dictam credamus in quo crucifigimus filium Dei in nobis....

Possum quidem etiam illud dicere ei qui hoc de poenitentia dictum putat, quia quae impossibilia sunt apud homines possibilia sunt apud Deum....

Sed tamen de baptismo dictum, ne quis iteret, vera ratio persuadet.

Primasius: Quid ergo? exclusa est poenitentia post baptismum et venia delictorum? Absit. Duo siquidem genera sunt poenitentiae, unum quidem ante baptismum, quod et praeparatio baptismi potest appellari...altorum autem gonus poenitentiae quo post baptismum delentur peccata quam beatus Apostolus minime ezcludit.

This specific and outward interpretation of the words is foreign to the scope of the passage, and indeed to the thought of the apostolic age; but none the less it presents in a concrete shape the thought of the Apostle. It brings out plainly that there can be no repetition of the beginning. The forces which in the order of divine providence are fitted to call out faith in the first instance, and to communicate life, are not fitted to recreate it when it has been lost. There can be no second spiritual birth. The powers which are entrusted to the Christian society are inadequate to deal with this last result of sin; but the power of God is not limited. Compare Additional Note on 1 John v. 16.

@Herveius@ (reading renovari) emphasises the moral impossibility from the human side with singular power and freshness: Non...Montani vel Novati hæresim hic approbamus qui contendunt non posse renovari per pænitentiam eos qui crucifixere sibimet filium Dei. Sed ideo impossibile esse dicimus ut tales renoventur quia nolunt renovari. Nam si vollent, esset utique possibile. Quod ergo renovari nequeunt non est excusatio infirmitatis eorum sed culpa voluntatis ipsorum qui malunt veteres perdurare quam renovari...sicque fit ut ad pænitentiam redire non valeant...Quales et in monasteriis hodie sunt nonnulli, habentes quidem speciem pietatis virtutem autom ejus abnegantes, et ideo pænitentiam agere non possunt, quia de sole extoriori habitu gloriantur et sanctos se esse putant quia sanctitatis indumentum portant.

*Additional Note* on vi 12: *The Biblical idea of 'inheritance*' (*kleronomia*).

The group of words kleronomos (i. 2; vi. 17; xi. 7), kleronomein (i. 4, 14; vi. 12; xii. 17), and kleronomia (xi. 8) is characteristic of the Epistle. The idea of 'inheritance' which they convey is in some important respects different from that which we associate with the word. This idea finds a clear expression in the lxx. from which it was naturally transferred to the N. T.

The word kleronomos is rare in the lxx. It occurs only in Jud. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. xiv. 7; Jer. viii. 10; Mic. i. 15 (Jer. xlix. 1 Symm.) as the rendering of yvrs, and in Ecclus. xxiii 22.

Kleronomein and kleronomia are very frequent. The former word occurs about 140 times and 100 times as the rendering of yrs, and 18 times as the rendering of nchl.

The latter word occurs more than 180 times and about 145 times as the representative of nchlt and about 17 times as the rendering of derivatives of yrs.

The fundamental passage which determines the idea is the promise to Abraham Gen. xv. 7, 8 dounai soi ten gen tauten kleronomesai (following on vv. 3, 4 kleronomesei me); xxii. 17 kleronomesei to sperma sou tas poleis ton hupenantion. Comp. xxiv. 60; xxviii. 4.

Hence the phrase kleronomein ten gen is used constantly of the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites: Lev. xx. 24 "thmeis kleronomesete ten gen auton ksi ego doso humin auten ev ktesei: Deut. iv. 1, 5, 14 &c.; xxx. 5; Jos. i. 15; Jud. xviii. 9; Neh. ix. 15, 22 ff.; Obad. 20; and that also with a distinct reference to the destruction of the nations in possession of it: Num. xxi. 35; Deut. ii. 24, 31; ix. 1; xxxi. 3. The land belonged to the Lord and He gave it to Israel (Ps. civ. (cv.) 44). In the Psalms this 'inheritance of the land' assumes a spiritual colouring as the privilege of the righteous: Ps. xxiv. (xxv.) 13; xxxvi. (xxxvii.) 9, 11 (Matt. v. 5), &c.; and in the second part of Isaiah the idea finds its complete fulfilment in the Messianic age: Is. liv. 3; lvii. 13; lx. 21; lxi. 7 (ek deueras kl. t. g.); lxiii. 18; lxv. 9.

The word kleronomein is used even where the absolute claim urged by violence is unjust: 1 K. xx. (xxi.) 15 ff. (comp. 2 K. xvii. 24; Ps. lxxxii. (lxxxiii.) 13; Is. xiv. 21; Ezek. [vii. 24; xxxiii. 25]); and also where it expresses a rightful mastery used for a necessary destruction (Hos. ix. 6; Ezek. xxxvi. 12; Zech. ix. 4).

In all these cases kleronomein answers to Hebrew. As the rendering of Hebrew it is used of the possession of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 30), of inheritance generally (Jud. xi. 2), and metaphorically (Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 111; Prov. iii. 35; xiii. 22 agathos aner kleronomesei huious huion).

Comp. Ecclus. iv. 13; vi. 1; x. 11; xix. 3; xx. 25; xxxvii. 26; 2 Macc. ii. 4.

The senses of kleronomia correspond with those of kleronomein. It is used for an allotted portion, a possession, an inheritance (Num. xxiv. 18; xxvii. 7; xxxvi. 2 ff.; Deut. iii. 20; Ps. ii. 8; cxxvi. (cxxvii.) 3 he kleronomia kuriou huioi). The land itself is 'a possession' of the Lord: Jer. ii. 7 (comp. iii. 19). Two particular uses of the word require to be noticed: God is the kleronomia of His people, and His people are His kleronomia. The former usage is rare. In a peculiar sense God is spoken of as the 'inheritance'—'portion'—of the Levites: Num. xviii. 20; Josh. xiii. 14; Ezek. xliv. 28; but the same privilege is extended also to Israel: Jer. x. 16; xxviii. (li.) 19. On the other hand the thought of Israel as the 'inheritance' —'portion'— of God extends throughout the Old Testament: Deut. xxxii. 9; 1 Sam. x. 2; xxvi. 19; 2 Sam. xiv. 16; xx. 19; xxi. 3; 1 K. viii. 51, 53; Ps. xxvii. (xxviii.) 9; xxxii. (xxxiii.) 12; lxxiii. (lxxiv.) 2, &c.; Is. xix. 25; xlvii. 6; lxiii. 17; Jer. xii. 7 ff.; Joel ii. 17; Mic. vii. 14.

In all these cases kleronomia represents Hebrew which is much less frequently rendered by kleros and meris. In Deuteronomy however God is spoken of as the kleros of Levi (x. 9); and Israel as the kleros (c. ix. 29; xviii. 2) and meris (c. ix. 26) of God. Comp. Ecclus. xxiv. 12; xlv. 22 (?).

From these examples it will appear that the dominant Biblical sense of 'inheritance' is the enjoyment by a rightful title of that which is not the fruit of personal exertion. The heir being what he is in relation to others enters upon a possession which corresponds with his position; but there is no necessary thought of succession to one who has passed away (yet see Matt. xxi. 38 and parallels; Lk. xii. 13). An inheritance, in other words, answers to a position of privilege and describes a blessing conferred with absolute validity; and an heir (kleronomos) is one who has authority to deal with, to administer, a portion, a possession (kleros).

The principle that 'inheritance is by birth and not by gift' (Arist. Pol. v. 8) has a spiritual fulfilment When God 'gives' an inheritance (Acts vii. 5; xx. 32) it is because those to whom it is given stand by His grace in that filial relation which in this sense carries the gift.

In the N. T. the words are commonly used in connexion with the blessing (1 Pet. iii. 9) which belongs to divine sonship, the spiritual N. T. correlative to the promise to Abraham (Rom. iv. 13 f.; viii. 17; Gal. iii. 18, 29; iv. 1, 7; comp. c. vi. 12, 17; xi. 8). The son of God as son enjoys that which answers to his new birth (comp. Matt. v. 5; Eph. i. 14, 18; Col. iii. 24). This is described as 'eternal life' (Matt. xix. 29; Tit iii. 7; comp. Mk. x. 17; Lk. x. 25; xviii. 18), or 'the kingdom of God' (1 Cor. vi. 9 f.; xv. 50; Gal. v. 21; comp. Matt. xxv. 34; Eph. v. 5; James ii. 5), or 'salvation' (c. i. 14), 'an inheritance incorruptible' (1 Pet. i. 4; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50), 'the eternal inheritance' (c. ix. 15). Under one aspect it is realised through conflict (Apoc. xxi. 7).

This ruling sense illustrates the use of the word in the other connexions in which it is found. Esau vainly sought to 'inherit the blessing' (c. xii. 17): he had lost the character to which it belonged. Noah in virtue of his faith 'became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith' (c. xi. 7): faith produced in him its proper fruit. The Son as Creator was naturally appointed 'heir of all things' (c. i. 2); and in virtue of His work 'He hath inherited' in His glorified humanity 'a name more excellent than angels' (c. i. 4).

VII. ¹Houtos gar ho Melchisedek, basileus Salem, hiereus tou theou

1 ho (sunant.) C*: hos (*sunant.) 'ABD? (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 O. 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).

The Apostle (a) 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 (b) 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). houtos gar] The particle is explanatory and not strictly argumentative The writer purposes to lay open how much is included in the phrase kata taxin Melchisedek, to which he has again returned.

The connexion is obvious if the sentence is at once completed: ohutoss (c. vi. 20) gar M......menei hiereus eis to dienekes. 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 (archiereus, eis ton aiona, as compared with hiereus, eis to dienekes). See Additional Note.

basileus Salem] slm, like slvm, is properly an adj. sound, at peace, but is used (as slvm) 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. tou hupsistou, ho sunanresas Abraam hupostrephonti apo tes kopes toe Basileon kai eulogesas auton, ²o kai dekaten apo panton emerisen Abraam, proton men hermeneuomenos Basileus

1, 2 auton...Abraam: D?* auton kai Abraam eulogetheis hup' autou ho (sic) kai dek. panton em. [auto?].

2 apo panton emerisen: emerisen apo panton '. panton: pantos B. Abr.: + patriarches syr hl.

(hiereus) tou theou tou hupsistou] Gen. xiv. 18 ('l lyvn), 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 N. 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. OEhler, Theol. of O. T. i. 90 f. (Eng. Tr.).

ho sunantesas...hupostrephonti]...who met...as he was returning, Latt. qui obviavit...regresso (Gen. xin. 17, lxx. meta to hupostrepsai 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, theasamenos epanionta kai tropaiophorounta (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 sunantan see Lk. ix. 37; xxii. 10; Acts x. 25.

apo tes kopes] Gen. xiv. 17; Deut. xxviii. 25; Josh. x. 20. Kope (not elsewhere in N. T.) and the original phrase (mhkvt) may mean only 'the smiting,' 'the defeat.' eulogesas] 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). proton men...epeita de] being Dikaiosunes epeita de kai Basileus Salem, ho estin Basileus Eirenes, ³apator, ametor, agenealogetos, mete de kai: om. kai 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.

hermeneuomenos] The simple form (commonly methermen.) occurs elsewhere in N. T. John i. 44 (43) (ho hermen.); ix. 7.

basileus dikaiosunes] Jos. B. J. vi. 10 Melch. ho te patria glosse kletheis basileus dikaios.

dikaiosunes...eirenes] 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: autos gar [ho christos] esti kata ton apostolon he eirene hempon (Eph. ii. 14), autos kekletai kata ton propheten dikaiosune hemon (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 (bas. dik., bas. eir.) 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.

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

ho estin] Mk. vii. 34; and with meneuomenon 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 Siloam (ho ermeneuetai Apestalmenos). But the importance attached to names in the 0. T. sufficiently explains it. Comp. Is. viii. 1, 18; ix. 6. OEhler, 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.).

ap. am. hagen.] 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 (apator, ametor) 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 archen hemeron mete zoes telos echon, aphomoiomenos de enim pater Deus et orige et principium rerum quoniam parentibus caret apator atque ametor 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 ametor is used by Philo of Sarah, De ebrist. § 14 (i. 365 M.); and in Euripides Ion speaks of himself as ametor apator te gegos (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': ho goun archegetes tou thiasou toutou, he continues, legon eisagetai to patri kai te metri Ouch heoraka humas kai tous adelphous ou ginosko kai tois huiois apoginosko huper tou dicha metholkes therapeuein to on. 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.)

agenealogetos] 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.).

mete arch. hem. mete z. t. echon] Scripture records nothing of his birth or of his death, of the beginning of a life of manifold activity (ar. hemeron, 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.

aphomoiomenos t. hui. t. th.] Non dicitur Filius Dei assimilatus Melchisedeko, sed contra, nam Filius Dei est antiquior et archetypus (Bengel). So Theodoret: ekeinos toutou tupos, outos tou tupou he aletheia. 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 homoios 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 (to huio tou theou), and not to His human Nature in which He both was born and died, nor even to His official dignity (to christo). 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 (mete arch. hem. mete zoes telos, not mete archen mete telos zoes), 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: ho christos...hate theos...anarchos kata tou chronou archen ei kai ton parera archen kai aition.

aphom.] 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 to thhio tou theou, menei hiereus eis to dienekes.?Theoreite

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

to huio tou theou] 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.

menei Iereus eis to dienekes] remaineth a priest perpetually, Latt. manet sacerdos in perpetuum. The use of the phrase eis to dien. for eis ton aiona marks his priesthood as continued to the end in his person without break. He had no successors (so Theodoret rightly explains the words: epeideper ten hierosunen ou parepempsen eis paidas), 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.

eis to dien.] 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, diktator eis to dienekes herethe. Cf. Pun. viii. § 136. Heliodor. Æth. i. § 14 phuge eis to dienekes ezemiosan. 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

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

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

(g) 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.?And 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,?he whose genealogy is not counted from them tithed Abraham, and blessed him that hath the promises.?But without any gainsaying the less is blessed by the greater.?And while here dying men receive tithes, there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.?And, so to say, through Abraham, Levi also who receiveth tithes is tithed; ¹?for 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 de pelikos houtos ho dekaten Abraam edoken ek ton akrothinion ho patriarches.?kai hoi men ek ton huion Leuei

4 kai

4 pel. houtos: helikos D?*. dekaten BD?* syr vg me: + kai' dek. S'AC vg syr hl. Abr. ed.: ed. Abr. A. syr hl.

before (dekaten Abraam...ek ton akrothinion, ho patriarches).

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).

theoreite de] 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 de marks a fresh beginning. The general picture claims detailed study. Comp. viii. 1; xi. 1.

dekaten...edoken] The offering appears as the spontaneous recognition of the dignity of Melchizedek.

ek ton akroth.] Vulg. de præcipuis. O. L. de primitivis (primitiis)..., Syr. the tithes and firstfruits. The tithe was of the whole (apo panton v. 2), and it was taken from the choicest of the spoil. The akrothinia were specially the part of the spoil which was offered as a thank-offering to the gods: Herod, viii. 121 f.

pelikos] 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 pelikais kai posais basanois.

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

ho patriarches] 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). kai hoi men ek t. hui. L....lamb.] '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 ek ton hui. L. that receive the priest's office'; or the second part may be predicative, 'they ek ton hui L., as (on) receiving the priest's office.' And again, the preposition ek may be derivative ('those who traced their descent from'), or partitive ('those from among'). The parallel clause ho me auton gen. appears to be decisive in favour of the 'derivative' sense of ek, and to favour the predicative interpretations of hierat. lamb.

At the same time the description of the priests as descended 'from the ten hieratian lambanontes entolen echousin apodekatoin ton laon kata ton nomon, tout' estin tous adelphous auton, kaiper exeleluthotas ek tes osphuos Abraam.

5 apodekatoin BD?*: -toun S'AC. hosphruos D?*.

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.

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

Hisratia (-eia) occurs in N.T. only here and in Luke i. 9. In relation to hierosune (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: hierateuein, Luke i. 8 ('to perform the priest's office'), hierateuma 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9 ('a body of ministering priests').

ent. echousin] In this case the claim to the tithe rested on a specific ordinance (kata ton nomon). Abraham spontaneously recognised Melchizedek's claim.

apodekatoin ton l.] 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 apodekatoo (dekatoo), which seems to be confined to Biblical and ecclesiastical writers, is used both of

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

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

Apodekateuo is found Lk. xviii. 12, Dekateuo is a classical word.

The peculiar form apodekatoin, which is given by BD?*, is supported by kataskenoin Matt. xiii. 32; Mk. iv. 32; phimoin 1 Pet. ii. 15; and similar forms which occur in inscriptions e.g. stephanoin, zeloin.

This form, it may be observed, goes to confirm the writing i subscr. in the contracted infinitives agapan &c. zen.

kata ton nomon] 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.

tous adelphous...kaiper exeleluthotas...] 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?ho de me genealogoumenos ex auton dedekatoken Abraam, kai ton echonta tas epangelias eulogeken.?choris de pases antilogias to elatton hupo tou kreittonos bi/logeitai.?kai hode men dekatas apothneskontes anthropoi

6 Abr. 'BCD?*: + ton' 'Abr. SA. eulogeken 'B, eulogeken D?*: eulogesen C, eologesen 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 ek tes 'sphuos see Gen. xxxv. 11 (lxx.).

(6). ho de me geneal. ex au.] 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.

Ermeneuse de kai to agenealogetos. ex auton gar eipe ton Melchisedek me genealogeisthai. delon tinun hos ekeinos ouk alethos agenealogetos alla kata tupon (Thdt.).

dedekatoken...eulogeken] v. 9, dedekatotai. 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 kekleronomeken.

— 13 eireken, iv. 4.

ii. 14 kekoinoneken...meteschen.

iii. 3 hexiotai.

— 14 gegonamen.

iv. 2 esmen euengelismenoi.

— 14, 15 dieleluthota...pepeirasmenon.

vii. 3 aphomoiomenos.

— 13 metescheken.

vii. 14 anatetalken.

viii. 5 kechrematistai.

— 6 tetuchen.

nenomothetetai.

ix. 18 enkekainistai.

— 26 pephanerotai.

x. 14 teteleioken.

xi. 5 memarturetai.

— 17 prosenenochen, note.

— 28 pepoieken.

xii. 2 kekathiken.

— 3 hupomemenekota, note.

kai...eulogeken...] 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). choris de p. ant....] But without any gainsaying...Vulg. Sine ulla autem contradictione (O. L. controversia).

to el....tou kr....] 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). kai hode men...ekei de...] And, further, while here, in this system which we see,...there, in that remote and solitary example...

The hode refers to that Levitical priesthood which was nearer to the writer's experience than Melchizedek, though the latter is the immediately lambanousin, ekei de marturoumenos hoti ze.?kai hos epos eipein, di' Abraam kai Leueis ho dekatas lambanon dedekatotai, ¹?eti phar en te osphui tou patros hen hote

9 eipein: eipen C* D?*. Leueis '* BC*, Leuis A: Leuei '* D?*, Leui S.

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

Under the Mosaic Law dying men (apothmeskontes anthropoi), 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. marturoumenos de dia tou sesigesthai ten teleuten autou.) 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 marturoumenos hoti (Latt. ibi autem contestatur quia...Aug. qui testificatur se vivere) compare c. xi. 4 (emart. einai dik.); id. 5 (memart. euarestekenai). Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. § 81 (i. 132 M.), Mouses archei marturoumenos hoti esti pistos holo to oiko.

dekatas] 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. ti pros tous hiereas hemon ei Abraam dekaten edoken; (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). kai...di' Abraam...dedekatotai] 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 (dekaten edoken), but in the consequences of the act passively (dedekatotai, Latt. decimatus est). The act of his father determined his relation to Melchizedek, just as if Abraham had made himself Melchizedek's vassal.

hos epos eipein] 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) eti gar en te osphui...] Comp. v. 5 exel. ek tes osph. The repetition of the phrase, which occurs again in the N.T. only in Acts ii. 30, emphasises 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.

tou patros] 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, ho pater hemon), 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

(b) 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

(b) 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. ¹?For it is evident that our Lord hath risen out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spake nothing of priests. ¹?And what we say is yet more abundantly evident if after the likeness of Melchizedek sunentesen auto Melchisedek. ¹¹Ei men oun teleiosis

10 Melch. 'BC* D?*: + ho' Melch. SA. 11 ei: he C.

there ariseth another priest, ¹?who hath been made not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an indissoluble life; ¹?for it is witnessed of Him,

Thou art a priest for ever,

After the order of Melchizedek.

¹?For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness—¹?for the Law made nothing perfect—and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God. ²?And 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, ²?He, because He abideth for ever, hath His priesthood inviolable. ²?Whence 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). ei men oun...hen...tis eti chreia...legesthai;] 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 (ei...hen...tis eti chreia...;) 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 dia tes Leueitikes hierosunes hen, ho laos gar ep' autes nenomothetetai, tis eti chreia kata ten taxin Melchisedek heteron anistasthai hierea kai ou kata ten taxin Aaron legesthai; ¹²metatithemenes gar tes hierosunes ex anankes

om. hen B. ep' autes 'ABCD?*: ep' aute S. nenomothetetai: -teto S. tis + gar D?*.

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

dia tes Leueitikes hier.] The word Leueitikos 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': kata ten taxin Aaron) 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 hierosune occurs in the N.T. only in this chapter (re. 12, 24 [14 hiereon]). It is rare in the lxx. and found there only in the later books. As distinguished from hieratia (-eia) (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.

ho laos gar...nenomoth.] 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 epi 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 ho laos comp. c. ii. 17 note.

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

tis eti chreia...legesthai;] 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 eti 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 (ou) belongs to the descriptive clause and not to legesthai.

For anistasthai see Acts iii. 22; vii. 37. By the use of heteron (not allon) the two priesthoods are directly compared to the exclusion of all others. Contrast iv. 8 (peri alles hem.).

(12). metatith. gar...ginetai] For when the priesthood is changed...The gar may refer to the main thought of v. 11 or to the parenthesis (ho laos gar...). 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 kai nomou metathesis ginetai. ¹³eph' hon gar legetai tauta phules heteras metescheken, aph' hes oudeis prosescheken to thusiasterio. ¹?prodelon gar hoti ex Iouda

12 om. kai nomou B. 13 legetai: leges D?*. prosescheken 'BD?: proseschen AC.

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

(13). eph' hon gar l. t.] 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 eph' hon comp. Mark ix. 12 f.: eis hen v. 14 note.

metescheken] 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 (meteschen); and for the perfect v. 6 note.

The use of heteras 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.

prosescheken to thusiast.] hath given attendance at...Latt. (alt.) præsto fuit. For prosechein 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 (to hoino). 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). prodelon gar...] For it is openly, obviously, evident to all...Comp. 1 Tim. v. 24 f. The word prodelos occurs several times in Clem. 1 Cor. cc. 11, 12, 40, 51.

ex Iouda] out of the tribe of Judah. Compare Apoc. v. 5 ho leon ho ek tes phules Iouda.

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 anatetlken ho kurios hemon, eis hen phulen peri hiereon oudev Mouses elalesen. ¹?Kai perissoteron eti katadelon estin, ei kata ten homoioteta Melchisedek anistatai

14 peri hier. ouden (')ABC* D?*: ouden peri hierosunes S syrr. oud. M.: M. oud. '*

15 om. ten B.

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

anatetalken] 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: di' hon deloutai to eis photismon tou kosmou ten parousian tou kuriou genesthai.

ho kurios hemon] Compare c. xiii. 20 ho kurios he. Iesous.

Comp. ho kurios ii. 3 note.

In Apoc. xi. 15 the title is applied to the Father; ho kurios hemon kai ho christos autou.

eis hen ph.] Latt. in qua tribu.

Comp. eph hon 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). kai perissoteron eti katad...] 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: ti estin katadelon; to meson tes hierosunes hekateras, to diaphoron, hoson kreitton hos ou kata nomon entoles sarkikes gegone (Chrys.).

he hoti to enallagesesthai kai ten hierosunen kai ten diatheken (Theophlct.).

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

katadelon] The word occurs here only in the N. T. and it is not found in lxx. (Hdt. Xen. Jos.). Compare for the force of kata, kateidolos (Acts xvii. 16), kataphilein.

ei kata ten homoio. M.] 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 hiereus heteros, ¹?hos ou kata nomon entoles sarkines gegonen

16 sarkines: sarkikes 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 ei, where the truth of the supposition is assumed, see Rom. viii. 31; John vii. 23 &c.

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

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

hiereus heteros] 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). hos...gegonen...akatalutou] 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.

ou kata nom. ent. sark.] Vulg. non secundum legem mandati carnalis. In the phrase kata nomon 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 (ent. sark.) the strong form which expresses the substance (sarkinos) and not simply the character of flesh (sarkikos) 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 dikaiomata sarkos). 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 sarkinos (carneus, of flesh, fleshy) and sarkikos (carnalis, flesh-like, fleshly) is obvious. The former describes that of which the object is made (comp. lithinos John ii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 3; xulinos 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 sarkinos in lxx. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8, is moulded on the type of peeumatikos, and expresses that of which the object bears the character.

There is considerable confusion in alla kata dunamin zoes akatalutou, ¹?martureitai gar

17 martureitai K(-te)ABD?* syrr me the: marturei S C.

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

(1). sarkinos.

Rom. vii. 14 ego de sarkinos eimi opposed to ho nomos pneumatikos.

1 Cor. iii. 1 hos sarkinois opposed to hos pneumatikois.

2 Cor. iii. 3 plakes sarkinai opposed to plakes lithinai.

(2). sarkikos.

Rom. xv. 27 ta sarkika opposed to ta pneumatika.

1 Cor. iii. 3 (bis) sarkikoi este (in iii. 4 read anthropoi).

1 Cor. ix. 11 ta sarkika opposed to ta pneumatika.

2 Cor. i. 12 ev sophia sarkike.

— x. 4 ta hapla...ou sarkika alla dunata to theo.

1 Pet. ii. 11 hai sarkikai epithumiai.

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 sarkinois, in v. 3 (bis) sarkikoi and in v. 4 anthropoi. 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 pneuma. In v. 3, seeking to soften his judgment, he speaks of them as shewing traits which belong to the sarx. 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 sarkikes gives part of the sense well: panta hosa diorizeto sarkika hen. to gar legein periteme ten sarka, Chrison ten sarka, louson ten sarka, perikeiron ten sarka...tauta, eipe moi, ouchi sarkika; ei de theleis mathein kai tina ha epengeleto agatha, akoue. Polle zoe, phesi, te sarki, gala kai meli te sarki, eirene te sarki, truphe te sarki.

alla kata dunamin z. akat.] Latt. sed secundum virtutem vitæ insolubilis (infatigabilis).

The life of Christ was not endless or eternal only. It was essentially 'indissoluble' (akatalutos). 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 hoti Su hiereus eis ton aiona kata ten taxin Melchisedek. ¹?athetesis men gar ginetai proagouses entoles dia to autes astheoes

su: su + ei vg syrr me the (and v. 21). 18 prosagouses D?*.

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

(17). martureitai gar hoti Su...] 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 (eis ton aiona, kata ten t. M.).

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

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

(18), (19). athetesis men gar...epeisagoge) de...] For there is a disannulling...and a bringing in thereupon...Vulg. Reprobatio quidem fit...introductio vero... The gar 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 men and de into two corresponding parts. Ginetai goes with both; and ouden...nomos is parenthetical. This construction appears to be established decisively by the correspondence of athetesis...apeisagoge, 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.' Pauetai, phesin, ho nomos apeisagetai de he ton kreittonon elpis (Thdt.).

(18). athetesis...proag. ent...] The word athetesis occurs again c. ix. 26; the verb athetein 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 (athesia, athetema).

This open, direct disannulling of the previous system, which is, as it were, set at nought, 'cometh to pass' (ginetai) 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 proagouses entoles 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 proagousa (1 Tim. i. 18; v. 24) expresses not only priority (an earlier commandment) but connexion (a foregoing commandment). The divine commandment (entole), pointing to an earthly institution, stands in contrast with the hope, rising above earth.

The use of entole fixes the reference to the ordinance of the priesthood particularly (v. 16) in which, as has been seen, the Law (ouden etel. ho nomos) was summed up, so far as it is compared with the Gospel.

dia to aut. asth. kai anoph.] 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: kai anopheles, ¹?ouden gar eteleiosen ho nomos, epeisagoge de kreittonos elpidos, di' hes engizomen to theo.

19 epeisagoges D?*. engizomen A.

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

ouden oun ophelesen ho nomos; ophelese men kai sphodra ophelesen alla to poiesai teleious ouk ophelesen (Chrys.).

The use of the abstract forms asth., to anoph., marks the principle and not only the fact. Comp. vi. 17. For to asthenes comp. 1 Cor. i. 27; Gal. iv. 9; Rom. viii. 3 (esthenes).

entautha hemin epiphuontai hoi hairetikai. all' akoue akribos. ouk eipe dia to poneron, oude dia to mochtheron, alla dia to autes asthenes kai anopheles (Chrys.)

(19). ouden gar...] 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 (ouden) 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.

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

epeisagoge de kr. elp.] There was on the one side the disannulling of a preparatory commandment, and there was on the other side the introduction of a new (epi) 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 epeisagoge compare epeiserchomai Luke xxi. 35; and for elpis c. iii. 6; vi. 19 notes.

di' hes eng. to theo] 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 engizein to theo is used, though rarely, in lxx. of the priests: Ex. xix. 22 (ngs); Lev. x. 3 (qrv); Ezek, xlii. 13; xliii. 19.

But also more widely; Is. xxix. 13: comp. Ex. xxiv. 2: Hos. xii. 6 (eng. pros t. th.).

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 (teleiosis). 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 ²?Kai kath' hoson ou choris horkomosias, (hoi men gar choris horkomosias eisin hiereis gegonotes, ²¹ho de meta horkomosias dia tou legontos pros auton Omosen Kurios, kai ou

20 ei men gar ch. hork.: om. D?* 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). kath' hoson...kata tosouto kai...] 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 kreitton...hoso diaphoroteron. iii. 3 pleionos...kath' hoson. ix. 27 kath' hoson...houtos...; and for the introduction of the parenthesis (ohi men gar...eis ton aiona) compare c. xii. 18—24.

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

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

ohi men gar...ho de...eis ton aiona] for while they...He...Vulg. alii quidem...hic autem...This elaborate parenthesis is inserted to explain fully the contrast implied in choris horkomosias.

'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' (tat 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.

eisin hiereis gegon.] 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). dia tou legontos] 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 (dia tou eipontos c. x. 30; 2 Cor. iv. 6; James ii. 11), but as one which is still present and effective. Comp. xii. 25 (ho lalon); i. 6 note.

Though the words (homosen...ou metamel.) are not directly spoken by the Lord, they are His by implication. The oath is His.

pros auton] 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 metamelethesetai, Su hiereus eis ton aiona,) ²²kata tosouto kai kreittonos diathekes gegonen enguos Iesous. ²³Kai hoi men pleiones eisin gegonotes hiereis dia to thanato

21 om. eis ton hai. '*. eis ton ai. BC vg the: + kata ten taxin M. '* AD? syrr me. 22 tos. kai '* BC*: om. kai '* AD? vg me. tosouton S'* -to D?*. 23 geg. hier. 'B vg syrr me: hier. geg. ACD?.

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

For omosen compare Luke i. 73; Acts ii. 30; and for ou metamelethesetai, 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). kreittonos...Iesous] 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.

Iesous] 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 enguos does not occur elsewhere in N.T. See Ecclus. xxix. 15 f.; 2 Macc. x. 28 enguon euemerias kai nikes.

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: dia tes oikeias anastaseos ebebaiose tes hemeteras anastaseos ten elpida.

For diatheke 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). kai hoi men pl. ei geg....ho de...] 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 koluesthai paramenein. ²?ho de dia to menein auton eis ton aiona aparabaton echei ten hierosunen. ²?hothen kai sozein

24 hieratian D?*.

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 gegonotes hiereis as compared with v. 20 hiereis gegonotes is worthy of notice. In the former passage hiereis was accentuated; here the thought is of the number who are 'made' priests.

dia to th. kol. paramenein] 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 paramenein (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. paramenein tois anthropois, not te hierateia. Hdt. i. 30 tekna...parameinanta). 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). ho de dia to menein...ten hieros.] 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 (paramenein), 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.).

aparabaton echei ten hier.] Literally hath His priesthood inviolable, unimpaired, and so unchangeable. The word aparabatos has caused difficulty from early times (Ambr. improevaricabile, Aug. intransgressible: Theophlct. toutestin adiakopon, adiadochon). There appears to be no independent authority for the sense 'untransmitted,' 'that does not pass to another.' According to the analogy of habatos, epibatos, the form parabatos expresses that which is or may be transgressed, invaded. Aparabatos 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' (nomon aparabaton phulattein). Compare Epict. Ench. 50, 2 (nomos aparabatos); Pseudo-Just. Quæst. ad Orthod. § 27; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 41 (ti eusebeias aparabatou (inviolate) kallion; but in Antt. xviii. 9 (10), 2 he uses it of men aparabatoi memenekotes in connexion with the phrase oud' han autoi parabaiemen). So the word is used in connexion with theoria, taxis, heimarmene (comp. Wetst. ad loc.). Christ's Priesthood is His alone, open to no rival claim, liable to no invasion of its functions.

(25). hothen kai] 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. eis to panteles dunatai tous proserchomenous di' autou to theo, pantote zon eis to entunchanein huper auton.

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 sozein expresses the same idea as teleioun 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 (sozein) as distinguished from the aorist (sosai) 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.

eis to panteles] 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 eis to dienekes (so Latt. in perpetuum).

tous proserch. di' autou to th.] 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 proserchesthai (comp. engizein v. 19 note), is not used in this sense by St Paul nor elsewhere in N.T. except 1 Pet. ii. 4 (proserch. pros). Comp. c. iv. 16 note; x. 1, 22; xi. 6; xii. 18, 22. Theophylact expresses the thought very neatly: aute esti he pros ton patera hodos, kai ho tautes draxamenos ekei kataluei.

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.

pantote zon eis to ent.] seeing He ever liveth to make intercession, Vulg. semper vivens ad interpellandum (O. L. exorandum). The final clause eis to... in connexion with zon 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 pantote belongs to later Greek and is said by the grammarians to represent the hekastote of the classical writers. In the N.T. it has almost supplanted aei (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.

entunchanein] 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 (te biblo). 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 enetuchon to kurio kai edeethen autou. 3 Macc. vi. 37 enetuchon to basilei...aitoumenos. Sometimes it is only implied: Wisd. xvi. 28; 2 Macc. iv. 36 (huper tou apektanthai).

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

This sense is implied in Acts xxv. 24 (entunch. tini peri tinos); and the exact phrase recurs, Rom. xi. 2 (entunch. tini kata tinos).

Or again the invocation may be on behalf of another: Rom. viii. 27, 34 (entunch. huper), 26 (huperent. huper).

Compare enteuxis, 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 parakletos), 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.

huper auton] 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 M.) anankaio hen ton hieromenon to kosmou parti parakleto chresthai teleiotato ten areten huio, pros te amnesteian hamartematon kai choregian aphthonestaton agathon.

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.).

Kai auto de touto to sarka phorounta ton huion sunkathesthai to patri enteuxis estin huper hemon. hosanei tes sarkos huper hemon dusopouses ton patera, hos di' auto touto proslephtheises pantos, dia ten hemeteran soterian (Theophlct). Aute he enanthropesis autou parakalei ton patera huper hemon (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).

²?For such a High-priest [in truth] became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens; ²?Who 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. ²?For the Law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the

²?Toioutos gar hemin [kai] eprepen archiereus, hosios,

26 emin kai ABD? syrr: om kai 'C 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.

toioutos gar hemin] From the characteristics of Christ's priesthood foreshadowed in Melchizedek the writer deduces the general nature of His High-priesthood. The separation of toioutos from archiereus 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.' toioutos] Such a High-priest, that is, one who is absolute in power (eis to panteles) and eternal in being (pantote zon). The word (toioutos) 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 hos ouk echei (v. 27), which gives the most decisive feature of Christ's High-priesthood.

hemin [kai] eprepen] 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 kai before eprepein 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 eprepen see c. ii. 10 note.

Primasius adds a thought beautiful in itself which may perhaps lie in the word (eprepen): 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.

hemin] '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.

hosios...] 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 (hosios, akakos, amiantos) 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.

hosios] V. L. justus, Vulg. sanctus. akakos, amiantos, kechorismenos apo ton hamartolon, akakos + kai A.

The word is of rare occurrence in the N. 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 ohi hosioi [tou kuriou] (ohi hosioi Ps. cxlix. 1, 5). The phrase ohi hagioi (qdvsym) is much rarer: Ps. xvi. (xv.) 2; xxxiv. (xxxiii.) 10; lxxxix. (lxxxviii.) 5, 7.

To speak broadly, hosios refers to character and hagios 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 hagios expresses that which He is absolutely; hosios that which He shews Himself to be in a special relation to men.

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

As applied to men in themselves hagios marks consecration, devotion: hosios 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 O. T. are ohi hosioi, and in tho N. T. ohi hagioi. 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 hagios is 'profane' (bebelos): the general opposite to hosios is 'impious': the standard being the divine nature manifested under human conditions in the dealings of God with men. In this connexion hosios is the complement of dikaios (Plat. Gorg. 507 B; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 10; Tit. i. 8; Luke i. 75; Eph. iv. 24) on the one side, and of hieros on the other (Thuc. ii. 52).

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

Akakos ti estin; aponeros, ouch hupoulos. kai hoti toioutos akoue tou prophetou. Is. liii. 9. (Chrys.)

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

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

amiantos] 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 (ho hierotatos logos) in man as ho amiantos archiereus (de prof. § 21; i. 563 M.), ametochos gar kai aparadektos pantos einai piphuken hamartematos. Comp. de vict. § 10 (ii. 246 M.).

kechorismenos...genomenos...] Latt. Sec gregatus a peccatoribus...excelsior factus.

The change of tense in the two participles (comp. i. 4) marks the kai hupseloteros ton ouranon genomenos. ²?hos ouk echei kath' hemeran ananken, hosper hoi archiereis, proteron huper

27 ho archiereus D?*.

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

kechor. apo ton ham.] The complete separation of the Lord from sinners (ton ham.) 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, O. T. Theol. § 140).

hupsel. ton our. gen.] 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.

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

(27). hos ouk echei kath' hemeran...] 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 kath' hemeran (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 yvm',yvm' 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 hos ouk echei kath' hem. ananken...thusias anapherein, and not hos ouk echei ananken kath' hem. th. anaph. 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 ton idion hamartion thusias anapherein, epeita ton tou laou. (touto gar epoiesen ephapax heauton anenenkas.)

27 prosenenkas thusian D?. anenenkas SBD?: prosenenkas 'A.

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 kath' hemeran belongs only to the description of the Lord's work, and nothing more than ananken echousin is to be supplied with ohi archiereis, 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 kath' hemeran. It might have seemed more natural to say pollakis (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.): tas endelecheis thusias horas eis isa dieremenas, hen te huper hauton anagousin ohi hiereis dia tes semidaleos kai ten huper tou ethnous ton duoin amnon ous anapherein dieiretai.