And as the High-priests took part in the daily sacrifices on special occasions, Jos. B. J. v. 5, 7, or at their pleasure (Mishna, Tamid 7. 3), they were said both by Philo (de spec. legg. § 23, ii. 321 M.) and by the Jewish Rabbis to offer daily: Delitzsch, Ztschr. f. d. luther. Theol. 1860 ff. 593 f. The passage of Philo is of considerable interest. He is dwelling upon the representative character of the High-priest. In this respect, he says: tou sumpantos ethnous sungenes kai anchisteus koinos ho archiereus esti...euchas...kai thusias telon kath' ekasten hemeran kai gonesn kai teknon...
Comp. Eccles. xlv. 14 thusiai autou (Aaron) holokarpothesontai kath' hemeran hendelechos dis. v. 16. Ex. xxx. 7; Lev. vi. 20 ff.; Jos. Antt. iii. 10, 7.
Under this aspect the daily sacrifices were a significant memorial of the conditions of the High-priestly intercession on the one Day of Atonement. It may be added that in this connexion the variant harchiereus in x. 11 is of considerable interest.
hos ouk echei...] This, which is the chief characteristic of the new High-priest, is not given in a participial clause, but as a substantive statement (toioutos...hos ouk echei).
ech. an....anapherein] Lk. xiv. 18; (xxiii. 17). The phrase is not in the lxx.
ohi arch.] the High-priests who belong to the system under discussion.
(proteron).....epeita ton tou laou] Latt. deinde pro populi. This was the order on the great Day of Atonement: Lev. xvi. 6 ff.
The full construction of the word is anapherein epi to thusiasterion (James ii. 21).
In the lxx. anapherein is the habitual rendering of Hebrewnf% in connexion with the Hebrewnjty (holokautoma); and of HebrewvpfJO in connexion with HebrewP0 in the Pentateuch. ²?ho nomos gar anthropous kathistesin archiereis echontas
28 ka0. hiereis antth. D?.
It occurs very rarely in this sense for HebrewW?ft (2 Chron. xxix. 31 f.).
On the other hand prospherein is the habitual rendering of HebrewK'?P and of Hebrewanp?j.
It is not used in the Pentateuch as a rendering of Hebrewig#e, though it does so occur in the later books: Jer. xiv. 12; and for Hebrewvppn 2 K. xvi. 15.
The full construction is prospherein to theo (kurio).
From these usages it appears that in anapherein (to offer up) we have mainly the notion of an offering made to God and placed upon His altar, in prospherein (to offer) that of an offering brought to God. In the former the thought of the destination of the offering prevails: in the latter that of the offerer in his relation to God.
Anapherein therefore properly describes the ministerial action of the priest, and prospherein the action of the offerer (Lev. ii. 14, 16; vi. 33, 35); but the distinction is not observed universally; thus anapherein is used of the people (Lev. xvii. 5), and prospherein of the priests (Lev. xxi. 21).
touto gar...] It is generally supposed that the reference is to be limited to the latter clause, that is, to the making an offering for the sins of the people. It is of course true that for Himself Christ had no need to offer a sacrifice in any sense. But perhaps it is better to supply the ideal sense of the High-priest's offerings, and so to leave the statement in a general form. Whatever the Aaronic High-priest did in symbol, as a sinful man, that Christ did perfectly as sinless in His humanity for men.
ephapax] c. ix. 12; x. 10. Comp. hapax vi. 4 note.
Contrary to the general usage of the Epistle ephapax follows the word with which it is connected instead of preceding it.
heauton anenenkas] in that He offered up Himself, Latt. se (seipsum) offerendo. Here first Christ is presented as at once the Priest and the victim. Comp. ix. 12, 14 (dia pn. aion.), 25 f. x. 10, 12; Eph. v. 2 (paridoken). Ohutos de to heautou prosenenoche soma, autos hiereus kai hiereion genomenos, kai hos theos meta tou patros kai tou pneumatos to doron dechomenos (Thdt).
Herveius calls attention to the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice: ut quoniam quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, quid offeratur, cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse unus verusque mediator per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos Deo unum cum ille maneret cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui offerebat et quod offerebat.
The offering of Christ upon the Cross was a High-priestly act, though Christ did not become 'High-priest after the order of Melchizedek,' that is, royal High-priest, till the Ascension. Comp. vi. 20 note.
On tho completeness of Christ's priestly work Chrysostom has a striking sentence: me toinun auton hierea akonsai aei hierasthai nomize. hapax gar Iirosato kai loipon ekathisen. Comp. Euth. Zig. ho Christos hapax hierateusen.
(28). ho nomos...ho logos tes horkom...] The freedom of Christ from the necessity by which the Aaronic High-priests are bound follows from His nature, for the Law... The truth which has been laid open in the two preceding verses is here expressed summarily by recapitulation in its final form: the Levitical High-priests are weak men, the High-priest after the order of Melchizedek a Son eternally perfected.
anthropous] in contrast with huion: astheneian, ho logos de tes horkomosias ges meta ton nomon huion, eis ton aiona teteleiomenon.
many men (v. 23) are contrasted with the One Son. The plural also suggests the notion of death in contrast with eis ton aiona.
echontas asth.] cf. c. v. 2. For the force of echon astheneian as distinguished from asthenes see 1 John i. 8 note. Compare v. 12; vii. 27; ix. 8; x. 36; xi. 25. This 'weakness' includes both the actual limitations of humanity as it is, and the personal imperfections and sins of the particular priest. The use of the sing. (astheneia) and the plur. (astheneiai) is always instructive.
For sing. in the Epistles see Rom. vi. 19; viii. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 3; xv. 43; 2 Cor. xi. 30.
The sing, and plur. occur together, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Compare Matt. viii. 17.
ho l. tes horkom. tes m. t. v.] the word of the oath, spoken in Psalm cx. 4, which was taken after the Law...The 'oath-taking' and not the 'word' is the emphatic element (hork. tes meta t. v. not ho meta t. n.). The oath came after the Law, and must therefore have had respect to it, and so prospectively annulled it. In this respect the 'oath' takes up the 'promise.' Comp. Gal. iii. 17.
huion, eis t. ai. tetel.] The idea of Son (i. 1 ff.; iii. 6; iv. 14 ton huion tou theou) is now combined with that of High-priest. Our High-priest is not only a Son, but a Son who having become man has been raised above all the limitations of humanity. The complete idea of the Person of the High-priest of the new Dispensation is thus gained before His work is unfolded in detail.
Compare Theodoret: ou men allon huion noeteon para ton phusei huion alla ton auton kai phusei onta huion hos theon kai palin dechomenon ten auten prosegorian hos anthropon.
And Primasius: Ponit hic Apostolus Filii nomen ad distinctionem servorum qui fuerunt in lege; quia servi infirmi fuerunt sive quia peccatores sive quia mortales erant: Filium vero perfectum ostendit, quia semper vivit et sine poccato est.
The participle, as contrasted with the adjective teleios, forms a complete antithesis to echon astheneian. The perfection is gained through the experience of a true human life (c. v. 7—9).
The realisation of the Priesthood of Christ necessarily carries with it the abrogation of the typical priesthood of the Law. The presence of 'weakness' in the Levitical priests was realised in the consequences of imperfection and death. Such a priesthood could not bring teleiosis, and it was of necessity interrupted. On the other hand Christ took upon Himself human nature (iv. 15) subject to temptation and death, that so He might taste death for all but as High-priest in His glory He is raised wholly above all infirmity and death, though still able to sympathise with those who are subject to them (cf. n. 1 f.). Compare Additional Note.
*Additional Note on* vii. 1. *The significance of Melchizedek*.
Additional Note on vii. 1. The significance of Melchizedek.
The appearance of Melchizedek in the narrative of the Pentateuch is of deep interest, both (1) from the position which he occupies in the course of Revelation; and (2) from the manner in which the record of his appearance is treated in the Epistle.
(1). Melchizedek appears at a crisis in the religious history of the world as the representative of primitive revelation, or of the primitive relation of God and man still preserved pure in some isolated tribe. If, as on the whole seems to be most likely, he was an Amorite, the fact that he had preserved a true faith becomes more impressive. On this point however Scripture is wholly silent. The lessons of his appearance lie in the appearance itself. Abraham marks a new departure, the beginning of a new discipline, in the divine history of mankind starting from a personal call.
The normal development of the divine life has been interrupted. But before the fresh order is established we have a vision of the old in its superior majesty; and this, on the eve of disappearance, gives its blessing to the new. So the past and the future meet: the one bearing witness to an original communion of God and men which had been practically lost, the other pointing forward to a future fellowship to be established permanently. At the same time the names of the God of the former revelation and of the God of the later revelation are set side by side and identified (Gen. xiv. 22; comp. Deut. xxxii. 8 f.).
(2). The writer of the Epistle interprets the Scriptural picture of Melchizedek, and does not attempt to realise the historical person of Melchizedek. He starts from the phrase in the Psalm after the order of Melchizedek (kata taxin Melchisedek), and determines the ideas which such a description was fitted to convey from a study, not of the life of the king-priest, which was unknown, but of the single record of him which had been preserved. By the choice of the phrase the Psalmist had already broadly distinguished the priesthood of the divine king from the Levitical priesthood. It remained to work out the distinction. Therefore the writer of the Epistle insists upon the silence of Scripture. He draws lessons from the fact that in the narrative of the O. T. no mention is made of the parentage or genealogy of Melchizedek or of the commencement or close of his priestly office1. He seeks to set vividly before his readers the impression conveyed by the remarkable phenomena of his unique appearance in patriarchal life, and the thoughts which they might suggest
At the same time this mode of treatment leaves the actual human personality and history of Melchizedek quite untouched. The writer does not imply that that was true of him literally as a living man which is suggested in the ideal interpretation of his single appearance in the Bible. He does not answer the question Who and what was Melchizedek? but What is the characteristic conception which can be gained from Scripture of the Priesthood of Melchizedek?
The treatment of the history of Melchizedek is typical and not allegorical. The Epistle in fact contains no allegorical interpretation. The difference between the two modes is clear and decisive. Between the type and the antitype there is a historical, a real, correspondence in the main idea of each event or institution. Between the allegory and the application the correspondence lies in special points arbitrarily taken to represent facts or thoughts of a different kind. A history, for example, is taken to illustrate the relation of abstract ideas (comp. Gal. iv.). The understanding of the type lies in the application of a rule of proportion. The law by which it is regulated lies in the record, which is taken to represent the life. The understanding of the allegory depends on the fancy of the composer. He determines which of many possible applications shall be given to the subject with which he deals.
A type presupposes a purpose in history wrought out from age to age. An allegory rests finally in the imagination, though the thoughts which it expresses may be justified by the harmonies which connect the many elements of life.
This consideration tends further to explain why the writer of the Epistle takes the Biblical record of Melchizedek, that is Melchizedek so far as he enters into the divine history, and not Melchizedek himself, as a type of Christ The history of the Bible is the record of the divine life of humanity, of humanity as it was disciplined for the Christ. The importance of this limitation of the treatment of the subject is recognised by patristic writers; e.g. legei ta kat' ekeinon ou ten phusin exegoumenos alla ten kat' auton diegesin apo tes theias titheis graphes kai ap' ekeines emphainon to homoion (Theodore ap. Cram. Cat. vii. p. 203).
One omission in the Epistle cannot but strike the student The writer takes no notice of the gifts of Melchizedek, who 'brought forth bread and wine' (Gen. xiv. 18) when he came to meet Abraham. This is the more remarkable as the incident is dwelt upon in the Midrash. The 'bread and wine' are regarded there as symbols of the shewbread and the drink offering, or of the Torah itself (Beresh. R. xliii. 18) [Prov. ix. 5]; Wünsche p. 199). And stress was naturally laid upon this detail in later times. The Fathers from Clement of Alexandria (see below) and Cyprian (Ep. ad Cæcil. 63, 4) downwards not unfrequently regard the bread and wine as the materials of a sacrifice offered by Melchizedek; and Jerome distinctly states that they were offered for Abraham (ad Matt. xxii. 41 ff.; comp. ad Matt. xxvi. 26 ff.)2.
Philo (see below); Tertullian adv. Jud.
All this makes the silence of the Apostle the more significant. He presents, and we cannot but believe that he purposely presents, Melchizedek as priest, not in sacrificing but in blessing, that is, in communicating the fruits of an efficacious sacrifice already made. He only can bless who is in fellowship with God and speaks as His representative. And it is under this aspect that the writer of the Epistle brings before us characteristically the present work of Christ.
A similar lesson lies in the positive fact which stands out most significantly in the words of the Epistle. Melchizedek is priest at once and king. The combination of offices which meets us in the simplest forms of society is seen to be realised also when humanity has attained its end. Philo in an interesting passage points out the difficulty of combining the priesthood with kingly power (de carit. § 1; ii. p. 384 M.), and yet such a combination must exist in the ideal state. He who unites with the Unseen must direct action. He who commands the use of every endowment and faculty must be able to consecrate them. He who represents man to God with the efficacy of perfect sympathy must also represent God to man with the authority of absolute power.
It is remarkable that Melchizedek is not dwelt upon in early Jewish commentators. It does not appear that he was ever regarded as a type of Messiah (Schoettgen ad loc.). The only example of this interpretation is quoted by Heinsius from Moses Hadarshan, whose person and writings are involved in great obscurity, but who seems to have lived in the 11th century (Heinsius, Exercit. Sacrae, p. 517; and from him Deyling, Exercit. Sacrae, ii. 73).
The writer of the Epistle, as we have seen, regards Melchizedek as a living type of a living and eternal King-priest. The old history, true in its literal reality, was, according to him, perfectly, ideally fulfilled in the facts of Christian history. Philo also deals with Melchizedek, but with characteristic differences. For Philo the history is a philosophic allegory and not a typical foreshadowing of a true human life. Melchizedek represents the power of rational persuasion which offers to the soul food of gladness and joy, and so in some sense answers to the priestly Logos: Leg. Alleg. iii. §§ 25 f. (i. p. 103 M.): kaleistho ouv ho men turannos archon polimou ho de basileus "ngemon eirenes, Salem. kai prosphereto te psuche trophas euphrosunes kai charas plereis* artous gar kai oinon prosphirei... Thus he recognises his position as a 'natural' priest, but his priesthood is a symbol of the action of 'right reason,' which brings to man righteousness and joy through thoughts of absolute truth. Compare de congr. erud. grat. § 18 (i. p. 533 M.) ho tev automathe kai autodidakton lachon ierosunen; de Abrahamo § 40 (ii. 34 M.) ho megas archiereus tou megistou theou.
Clement of Alexandria dwells on the combination of righteousness and
3; Epiph. Haer. lv. § 8, p. 475, nor can there be any doubt that the original narrative describes refreshment offered to Abraham and his company and not a sacrifice made on their behalf. Compare, in answer to Bellarmine, Whitaker Disputation, pp. 167 f. (Park. Soc.); Jackson On the Creed, ix. 10; Waterland App. to the Christian Sacrifice explained, pp. 461 ff. (ed. 1868). Heidegger Hist. Patr. ii. Dissert. 2 § 21. peace in Melchizedek and Christ, and sees in the offerings of bread and wine a figure of the Eucharist (eis tupon eucharistias Strom. iv. 25 § 163, p. 637 P.; comp. Strom. ii. 5 § 21, p. 439 P.).
Jerome gives in one of his letters (Ep. lxxiii. ad Evangelum; comp. Vallarsius ad loc.) a summary of early opinions as to the person of Melchizedek in answer to a correspondent who had sent him an essay written with a view to shew that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
Origen and Didymus, he says, regarded him as an Angel (compare Nagel Stud. u. Krit. 1849, ss. 332 ff.). Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Apollinaris, and Eustathius of Antioch, as a man, a Canaanite prince, who exercised priestly functions, like 'Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job.'
The Jews, he adds (and so Primasius: 'tradunt Hebraei'), identified him with Shem, an opinion which finds expression in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem: Melchizedek king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the son of Noah [Jerus. the High-priest (K2I jro) of the Most High].
This last opinion has found much favour; but it is supported by direct evidence (comp. Heidegger Hist. Patriarch, ii. Diss. 2). Epiphanius attributes it to the Samaritans (Haer. lv. 6; p. 471).
Two other strange opinions may be noticed. Some orthodox Christians supposed that Melchizedek was an Incarnation of the Son of God or perhaps simply a Christophany. How then, Epiphanius asks, could he be said to be made like to himself? (Haer. lv. 7; p. 474). Hierax (c. 280) in order to avoid this difficulty held, according to the view noticed by Jerome, that be was an incarnation, or more probably an appearance, of the Holy Spirit (Epiph. Haer. lxvii. 7; p. 715). This opinion finds a very bold expression in the anonymous Quaest. ex V. et N. Testamento appended to the works of Augustine (Vol. iii. Ed. Bened.): Similis Dei filio non potest esse nisi sit ejusdem naturae. Et quid incredibile si Melchisedech ut homo apparuit cum intelligatur tertia esse persona? Si enim Christus qui secunda persona est frequenter visus est in habitu hominis, quid ambigitur de lis quas dicta sunt? Summus sacerdos Christus est, Melchisedech Secundus...Christus vicarius Patris est et autistes, ac per hoc dicitur et sacerdos. Similiter et Spiritus sanctus, quasi autistes, sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt...(Aug. iii. App. § cix. Migne P. L. 35, p. 2329; comp. Hier. Ep. lxxiii. ad Evang. § 1).
The sect of the 'Melchizedechians' described by Epiphanius (Haer. lv.) offers some points of interest. As an offshoot of the 'Theodotians' (Epiph. l. c. i.; p. 468) they started from humanitarian views of Christ, and naturally looked for some higher Mediator. Melchizedek, they argued, was higher than Christ, because Christ was appointed after his order. Christ was ordained by God to turn men from idols and shew them the way to the true knowledge of this eternal High-priest. They therefore 'made their offerings to the name of Melchizedek' (§ 8 *eis honoma toutou tou Melchisedek he...hairesis kai tas prosphoras anapherei), in order that 'through him offerings might be made (prosenechthe) for them and they might find life through him.' He was in their judgment the priest 'who brought men to God' (eisagogeus pros ton theon)3.
The tradition, or fiction, as to Melchizedek in 'the Book of Adam' is singularly picturesque. To him and Shem, it is said, the charge was given to bear the body of Adam to Calvary, and place it there where in aftertime the Incarnate Word should suffer, so that the blood of the Saviour might fall on the skull of the Protoplast. In the fulfilment of this mission Melchizedek built an altar of twelve stones, typical of the twelve apostles, by the spot where Adam was laid, and offered upon it, by the direction of an angel, bread and wine 'as a symbol of the sacrifice which Christ should make' in due time. When the mission was accomplished Shem returned to his old home, but Melchizedek, divinely appointed to this priesthood, continued to serve God with prayer and fasting at the holy place, arrayed in a robe of fire. So afterwards when Abraham came to the neighbourhood he communicated to him also 'the holy mysteries,' the symbolical Eucharist (Dillmann, Das Christl. Adambuch d. Morgenl. ss. 111 ff., 1853.)
*Additional Note on* vii. 1. *The Biblical Idea of Blessing*.
Additional Note on vii. 1. The Biblical Idea of Blessing.
The idea of 'blessing' in its simplest form, the solemn expression, that is, of goodwill towards another by one who occupies in this respect a position of superiority towards him, is a natural recognition of the spiritual influence of man upon man. The idea often becomes degraded, materialised, perverted: it gives rise to the opposite conception of 'cursing'; but in Scripture it assumes a characteristic form which throws light upon the Biblical teaching as to man's relation to God.
The two words which are used in the Old and New Testaments for Biblical blessing iri OP?) and eulogein appear to convey two fundamental thoughts which are included in the act. The first (TO), from a root which describes 'kneeling,' 'prostration,' seems to express the feeling of reverent adoration which arises from the recognition of a spiritual presence by him who blesses4; and the second (eulogein) marks the utterance of the good which is supposed to be prophetically seen or ideally anticipated and realised5. Thus the two words when taken together describe the conception of blessing in its loftiest sense as involving a true perception of what God is and what His will is, both generally and towards the person over whom it is pronounced, according as the blessing is addressed to God Himself or to man.
The patriarchal blessings bring out this idea of blessing distinctly. This appears in the first exercise of the father's prophetic power (Gen. ix. 25 ff.) The curse and the blessing of Noah pronounced upon his sons is the unrolling of their future. The blessing of Shem lies in the recognition of the majesty of the Lord (Gen. ix. 26 Blessed be (is) the Lord, the God of Shem). The truth becomes plainer afterwards. The patriarch becomes the interpreter of the divine counsel to him through whom it is to be fulfilled. His own natural purpose is subordinated to the expression of the spiritual message which he delivers. The will of God found so clear a revelation in His direct dealings with Abraham and Isaac that no human voice was needed to enforce it. A new departure began with Jacob. Here a choice was made by God contrary to the wish of Isaac, but when once Isaac perceived what had been done he acknowledged that the will of God was his will also (Gen. xxvii. 33). Jacob himself in his turn, consciously set aside the privilege of birth (Gen. xlviii. 14 ff.) and gave precedence to Ephraim the younger son in his blessing of Joseph (Gen. xlviii. 19). And so completely is the thought of the declaration of the divine counsel identified with the blessing of him to whom it is announced that in the prophetic outline of tho fortunes of the twelve tribes (Gen. xlix.) even the outward disasters which were announced to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi are reckoned among blessings (Gen. xlix. 28) by him who saw beyond the human aspect of things (comp. Deut. xxxiii.).
Such an idea of blessing as the simple announcement of the counsel of God, which must in its essence be welcomed as a counsel of righteousness and love, is a fruit of revelation. It corresponds with the view of creation as destined to fulfil the purpose of the Creator in spite of the self-assertion of the creature. It embodies an absolute faith in human progress.
In sharp contrast with this divine idea of blessing is that which is expressed by Balak. For him blessings and curses are dispensed by the arbitrary will of one who is possessed of an exceptional power (Num. xxii. 6; comp. xxiv. 1). But the utter frustration of his hopes leaves in the record of Scripture the fullest possible affirmation of the fact that the prophet cannot do more than give utterance to that which is the mind of God (Num. xxii. 38; xxiii. 26; xxiv. 13. Comp. Josh. vi. 26; 2 K. ii. 24).
The prophetic blessing is necessarily exceptional, but the solemn declaration of God's purpose belongs to ail time. Thus in the organisation of worship and life blessing is the voice of the authoritative minister of God, the priest or the head of the household, who acknowledges the love and power of God and prays that they may be effective for those on whose behalf they are invoked (comp. 2 Sam. vi. 18; 1 K. viii. 5 f., 55; 1 Chron. xvi. 2; 1 Sam. ii. 20; 2 Chron. xxx. 27). Blessings formed an important part of the public and of the private service of the Jews. When Aaron was solemnly invested with the priesthood 'he lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them' (Lev. ix. 22), and at this point of transition in the religious history of Israel Moses joined with him in repeating the action, 'and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people' (Lev. ix. 23). The first treatise in the Mlshnah is on 'Blessings' (Berachoth); and the series of 'the Eighteen' Blessings is the most striking feature In the daily service of the Synagogue.
The form of sacerdotal blessing prescribed to 'Aaron and his sons' (Num. vi. 22 ff.) brings into a clear light the character and the foundation of the divine blessing:
The Lord bless thee and keep thee:
The Lord make His face to thine upon thee and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace (comp. Ps. iv. 6; lxvii. 1).
So, it is added, shall they put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them. The blessing, that is, consists in the true fellowship of the people with God as He had made Himself known to them. Hence the act of blessing itself is said to be 'in the Name of the Lord' (1 Chron. xxiii. 13; Ecclus. xlv. 15). He who fulfils it does so in virtue of his own connexion with God (comp. John xiv. 13 note).
It appears from what has been already said that the idea of a true Blessing lies in the vision and realisation of the divine will. This thought is applied in many different ways. Man 'blesses' God: God 'blesses' man: man 'blesses' man: and, much more rarely, both God and man 'bless' objects which are not personal. When man 'blesses' God he devoutly acknowledges some special feature in His nature or purpose or action which he regards as a ground of grateful praise: Deut. viii. 10; Jud. v. 2, 9; 1 K. x. 9; Neh. ix. 5.
If God 'blesses' man, He makes known to him something as to His counsel which the man is able to appropriate for his spiritual good: Gen. i. 28; ix. 1; xii. 2 f. &c.; xvii. 16; xxv. 11; (Num. vi. 24).
If man 'blesses' man, he speaks as the representative of the Divine Voice declaring its message in the form of prayer or of Interpretation: Gen. xxvii. 4 ff.; xlvii. 7; xlix. 28; Lev. ix. 23; Num. vi. 23; Deut x. 8; xxi. 5.
When man 'blesses' an impersonal object he recognises in it the working of God: 1 Sam. ix. 13 (a unique example in the 0. T.).
The last form of expression is specially liable to misunderstanding. In such a blessing there is nothing of the idea of a charm or of any magical working. The full phrase is 'to bless God for the thing'; and the early forms of blessing pronounced over various articles of food express the thought without any ambiguity. Mishna, Berachoth, vi. 1 'How do we bless for fruit? For fruit of a tree say "[Blessed art Thou, Lord our God], who createst the fruit of the wood"... For fruits of the earth say "Who createst the fruit of the ground," excepting the bread. For the bread say "Who bringest forth bread from the earth "...' Compare De Sola's Form of Prayers, &c., Philadelphia, 5638, i. pp. 270* ff.
The Jewish idea of 'blessing' which passes from the thought of adoration to the thoughts of petition and thanksgiving, all lying in the central thought of God's revealed nature, finds a characteristic and most noble expression in the 'Eighteen' Benedictions which have formed a part of the Synagogue Service from the earliest times. The text has no doubt been revised; additions have been made to it: differences exist between the forms adopted in the congregations of the Spanish and German Jews: but substantially these 'Benedictions' seem to have been in use in the Apostolic age. The first three and the last three are probably some centuries older. The whole collection forms the most precious liturgical writing of the prae-Christian period, and it has exercised considerable influence upon Christian services. As the embodiment of Jewish devotion which the Apostles and the Lord Himself may have used it claims careful study. The Benedictions are given in the following form in the Spanish (Sephardic) recension:
(1). Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Ex. iii. 15), the great God, the mighty, and the terrible (Deut. x. 17), God most High (Gen. xiv. 18), that bestowest gracious benefits (D?to D'9P), that possessest the universe, and rememberest the good deeds of the fathers (Pu{? IphP), even He that bringeth a Redeemer unto their sons' sons for His Name's sake in love.
O King, Helper, and Saviour, and Shield, blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham.
(2). Thou art mighty for ever, O Lord. Thou causest the dead to live, plenteous to save, sustaining the living in Thy goodness, quickening the dead in Thy plenteous compassion, supporting the fallen, and healing the sick, and loosing them that are in bonds, and fulfilling Thy truth to them that sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, O Lord of mighty deeds; and who can be compared unto Thee, O King, that bringest to death, and bringest to life, and causest salvation to spring forth? Yes, Thou art faithful to bring the dead to life.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that bringest the dead to life.
(3). Thou art holy and Thy Name is holy. And the holy ones praise Thee every day. Selah.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the holy God.
(4). Thou graciously givest to man (0*J^) knowledge, and teachest mortal man (B^(&) understanding. So graciously give unto us knowledge and understanding and wisdom.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that graciously givest knowledge.
(5). Turn us again, our Father, to Thy law; and make us draw near, our King, to Thy service; and bring us back with a perfect repentance to Thy presence.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that hast pleasure in repentance.
(6). Pardon us, our Father, for we have sinned. Forgive us, our King, for we have transgressod. For Thou, God, art good and ready to forgive.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, most gracious, that dost abundantly pardon (Is. lv. 7).
(7). Look, we beseech Thee, on our affliction; and plead our cause; and hasten to redeem us with a perfect redemption for Thy Name's sake. For Thou, God, art a strong Redeemer (Jer. l. 34).
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Redeemer of Israel.
(8). Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed. Save us and we shall be saved (Jer. xvii. 14). For Thou art our praise. Yea, cure and heal all our diseases and all our pains and all our wounds. For Thou, God, art a compassionate and faithful Healer.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord; even He that healeth the diseases of His people Israel.
(9). Bless us, our Father, in all the works of our hands; and bless our year with the dews of (Thy) favour, blessing and beneficence; and may its close be life and plenty and peace, as the good years that were for a blessing. For Thou, God, art good, and doest good, and blessest the years.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that blessest the years6.
(10). Sound the great trumpet for our freedom; and lift up a banner to gather our captives; and gather us together speedily from the four corners of the earth (land) to our own land (Deut. xxx. 4; Is. xxvii. 13).
Blessed art Thou, O Lord; even He that gathereth the outcasts of His people Israel.
(11). Restore us our judges as at the first; and our counsellors as at the beginning (Is. i. 26); and turn from us sorrow and sighing; and reign over us speedily, Thou, O Lord, alone, in compassion, in righteousness and in judgment.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, a king that lovest righteousness and judgment (Ps. xxxiii. 5).
(12). To slanderers (traitors)7 let there be no hope; and let all heretics (O'^phGOph) and all proud men perish in a moment. And let all thy enemies and all that hate Thee be speedily cut off. And let every one that doeth wickedness be speedily rooted up and broken in pieces and consumed. And bow them down speedily in our days.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that breakest the enemies in pieces, and bowest down the proud.
(13). Upon the righteous, and upon the pious (D^TPtJB), and upon the remnant of Thy people, the house of Israel, and upon the residue of the house of their scribes, and upon the proselytes of righteousness, and upon
Both texts differ considerably from that in the German service. us let Thy compassions, we pray Thee, be moved, O Lord, our God, and give a good reward to all that trust in Thy Name in truth, and set our portion with them. And let us not be put to shame for ever, for in Thee do we trust, and upon Thy great mercy are we stayed in truth.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that art a stay and confidence to the righteous.
(14) a. Dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, Thy city, as Thou hast said; and establish in the midst of her speedily the throne of David; and build her an eternal building speedily in our days.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that buildest Jerusalem.
(14) b. Cause the Shoot (npjf) of David Thy servant speedily to spring forth; and let his house be exalted in Thy Salvation; for we wait for Thy salvation day by day.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that causest the horn of salvation to spring forth.
(15). Hear our voice, O Lord, our Qod, merciful Father. Have mercy and compassion upon us; and receive in compassion and favour our prayer. For Thou, God, nearest prayers and supplications. And send us not away, our King, empty from Thy presence. Be gracious unto us, and answer us, and hear our prayer; for Thou hearest the prayer of every mouth.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that hearest prayer.
(16). Look, O Lord our God, with favour on Thy people Israel; and have regard to their prayer: and restore the service to the oracle ("?]?) of Thy house. And mayest Thou receive with favour speedily the burnt offerings of Israel and their prayer in love. And may the service of Israel be pleasing to Thee perpetually. And do Thou in Thy plenteous compassion look kindly upon us and be favourable to us; and may our eyes behold when Thou returnest with compassion to Zion.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, even He that restoreth His Shekinah to Zion.
(17). We confess unto Thee that Thou art He, the Lord our God, and the God of our Fathers, for ever and over: our Rock, the Rock of our life, and the Shield of our salvation. Thou art He. From generation to generation we give thanks to Thee and declare Thy praise....
Blessed art Thou, O Lord; goodness is Thy Name, and to Thee it is meet to give thanks.
(18). Grant peace, goodness, and blessing, life, grace and mercy, righteousness and compassion unto us and unto all Israel Thy people; and bless us, our Father, all of us together, in the light of Thy countenance (Num. vi. 26). For in the light of Thy countenance Thou hast given to us, O Lord our God, the Law and life, love and mercy, righteousness and compassion, blessing and peace. And may it be good In Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israel with abundant strength and peace.
Blessed art Thou, O Lord; even He that blesseth His people with peace.
Each section rests upon the Confession of some feature in the revealed character of God. Prayer is only the application of that which He has made known of Himself to the circumstances of the worshipper. Even in judgment there is a manifestation of His righteousness which the believer welcomes with grateful reverence (compare Hamburger and Ginsburg in the articles quoted above).
When we pass from the Old Testament to the New we find that the use of eulogia (eulogia, eulogetos, eulogemenos) in the N. T. closely corresponds with the use in the lxx. Eulogein is used
(1). Absolutely without any expressed object, but with the clear thought of Him to whom praise is due for every good: Mk. vi. 41 || Matt. xiv. 19; Mk. xiv. 22 || Matt. xxvi. 26 (all. eucharistesas); Lk. xxiv. 30. In these cases indeed it is possible to take tous artous, ton arton, as the object from the context (see § 3), but the Jewish custom points very plainly in the other direction; and this construction is decisively supported by the parallel use of eucharistein Mk. xiv. 23 || Matt. xxvi. 27; Mk. viii. 6; Lk. xxii. 17, 19; John vi. 11. Both words describe the devout acknowledgment of God's power and love; but while eulogein regards those in relation to God as attributes of His glorious Majesty, eucharistein regards them in relation to man as the occasion of grateful thanksgiving.
In other connexions eulogein is used absolutely in 1 Pet iii. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 12; xiv. 16; (Rom. xii. 14).
In Mk. x. 16 auta is probably to be supplied to kateulogei.
(2). With a personal object; either
(3). With a material object: Mk. viii. 7; Lk. ix. 16; 1 Cor. x. 16.
In these cases 'blessing the bread' must be understood as 'blessing God the giver of the bread.' The formulas in use [at the Paschal meal] are given by Lightfoot on Matt. xxvi. 26. Compare p. 205.
Tho usage of eulogia answers to that of eulogein. Eulogia is attributed (a) to Divine Beings ('the Lamb,' 'He that sitteth on the throne,' God) in Apoc. v. 12 f.; vii. 12; (b) to men, whether it be given (a) by God (Christ): Gal. iii. 14; Rom. xv. 29; Eph. i. 3 (comp. 1 Cor. x. 16; 1 Peter iii. 9); or (b) by man: Heb. xii. 17; and (c) to an impersonal object: Hebr. vi. 7. And 'the blessing' includes both the implied promise and that which is the substance of the promise, since from the divine side promise and fulfilment are one.
The word occurs also in a wider sense of that generosity which realises the divine purpose of wealth: 2 Cor. ix. 5 f.; Rom. xvi. 18 (comp. lxx. Gen. xxxiii. 11; Jos. xv. 19; Jud. i. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 27); and again quite generally, James iii. 10.
Eulogetos is used (seven times) of God only, and ho eulogetos in Mk. xiv. 61 as the title of God (comp. Ign. Eph. 1; Mart. Pol. 14)8. By this limitation it is distinguished from eulogemenos which is used of 'Him that cometh' (Ps. cxviii. [cxvii.] 26; Matt. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39 and parallels [in John xii. 13 D reads eulogetos]), of the Mother of the Lord and her Son (Luke i. 42); of 'the nations on the King's right hand' (Matt. xxv. 34); and of 'the kingdom of David' (Mk. xi. 10).
In classical writers eulogein, which is rare in early prose, is simply 'to speak well of,' 'to praise,' without any of the deeper thoughts which spring from the Jewish conception of the divine order and essence of things. Even in Philo and Josephus the full religious sense is comparatively rare; and Loesner remarks (on Eph. i. 3) that when the lxx. uses eulogia, Philo often introduces euche or hepainos.
In the Christian Church the use of 'Benedictions' obtained a very wide extension, but these lie outside our present scope (see the article Benedictions in D. C. A. by Rev. R. Sinker). One detail in liturgical practice may be named. In the Eastern services the response to the call for a blessing is not unfrequently and characteristically an ascription of blessing to God, where in the Western it is a direct invocation of blessing on men (Sinker l.c. p. 197).
*Additional Note on* vii. 28. *The superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ to the Levitical High-priesthood*.
Additional Note on vii. 28. The superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ to the Levitical High-priesthood.
It is worth while to enumerate distinctly the points in which the writer of the Epistle marks the superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron. He has already shewn that Christ possesses the qualifications of High-priesthood in ideal perfection, sympathy (ii. 17 f.; iv. 15; v. 8; vii. 26), and divine appointment (v. 5). And more than this he places His preeminence in a clear light by a detailed comparison as to
(a) the form of His appointment (vii. 21), by an oath (promise) and not as dependent on the fulfilment of a covenant;
(b) the rule of His priesthood (vii. 16), 'the power of an indissoluble life' and not 'a law of carnal commandment';
(c) its duration (vii. 23 f.), unchangeable without succession;
(d) its nature (vii. 28) as of a son made perfect, and not of a weak man:
(e) the scene of His service (viii. 2; ix. 11), heaven not earth; and
(f) the character (ix. 12) and
(g) completeness (vii. 27; x. 5 ff.) of His offering, consummated alike in life and death.