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

tautas: tautes D?*. 24 eis. hagia 'A: hagia eis. CD?. Christos: ho chr. S.

17 ff.; Is. xxiv. 5, 6; Jer. xxiii. 10; Rom. viii. 18 ff.). And conversely the effect of Christ's work extends throughout creation with reconciling, harmonising power: Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20.

ananke] It was necessary. The reference is definite, to the purification of the earthly sanctuary on the one hand by the High-priest, and of the heavenly sanctuary by Christ. For ananke see v. 16; Matt. xviii. 7; and for hupodeigmata (Vulg. exemplaria) c. viii. 5 note.

toutois kath.] with these ceremonial observances, that is, the blood of bulls and goats, applied according to the directions of the Law. The Mosaic system was external: the means of purification were external also.

auta ta epourania] This phrase, as distinguished from ta en tois ouranois, expresses those things, answering to the sanctuary with all its furniture, which have their proper sphere in the heavenly order (comp. c. iii. 1; viii. 5 notes; John iii. 12), and not simply those things which are there.

kreittosi thusiais] The plural is used for the expression of the general idea (kr. th. para tautas). And in point of fact the single sacrifice of Christ fulfilled perfectly the ideas presented by the different forms of the Levitical sacrifices, the sacrifices of service (burnt-offering and peace-offering), and the sacrifices for atonement (sin-offering and trespass-offering).

24—26. The writer shews that Christ has satisfied the requirement which he has described in v. 23. He has entered heaven itself to make ready a place for us (e. 24); and that not by providing for the accomplishment of a recurrent atonement (vv. 25, 26 a); but by vanquishing sin for ever (26 b).

(24). ou gar eis cheir.] The clause justifies the reference to the purification of the heavenly things. If we consider what was needed for the due preparation of that spiritual Tabernacle for man's service and God's revelation of Himself we shall feel the greatness of the requirements. For it was no Holy place made by hands Christ entered, and entered once for all, but heaven itself. He has fulfilled therefore, necessarily fulfilled, all those requirements to which the symbols pointed.

The epithet cheiropoieta stands emphatically first: 'for it was not into a hand-made sanctuary Christ entered.'

The title Christos has become a proper name: v. 11; c. iii. 6. It stands emphatically at the end of the sentence as cheiropoieta at the beginning.

antitupa ton al.] like to the pattern (tupos c. viii. 5) of the true....Vulg. exemplaria verorum, O.L. exemplarium veritatis (allegoria verorum).

In the two passages in which the word antitupon is used in the N.T. the sense corresponds with the two fundamentally different ideas of tupos. The tupos may be the archetype (comp. Acts vii. 44) of which the antitupon is the provisional copy, as here; or the tupos may be the provisional adumbration (comp. Acts vii. 43) of that which the antitupon more completely expresses. So the water of baptism answered as antitupon to the water of the flood which bore in safety the tenants of the ark (1 Pet. iii. 21). emphanisthenai to prosopo tou theou huper hemon. ²?oud' hina

hemon: humon C.

Comp. Const. Apost. v. 14, 4 paradous ta antitupa musteria tou timiou somatos kai haimatos...vi. 30, 1 ten antitupon tou basileiou somatos Christou dekten eucharistian prospherete...2 Clem. c. xiv. and Br Lightfoot's Note.

eis auton ton our.] The sing. (ouranos) occurs again xi. 12; xii. 26. The plural marks the whole heavenly order: the singular that which we conceive of as locally definite. 'The heaven itself,' 'the very heaven,' is regarded as the absolute truth which the Holy of Holies symbolised, 'quo nihil ulterius.' nun emphanisth. to pros. t. th.] now to appear openly before the face of God. Vulg. ut appareat nunc vultui Dei. (The Old Latin rendering modo apparuit personæ Dei implies a reading enephanisthe.) The open evident appearance of Christ before the face of God is contrasted with the appearance of the High-priest in the dark sanctuary veiled by the cloud of incense (Lev. xvi. 12 f.).

So too the 'face of God' suggests the idea of a vision direct and absolute, not like that of 'the glory of the Lord' (Ex. xl. 34 ff.), or even that granted to Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 18 ff.).

The word emphanizesthai (Matt. xxvii. 53; comp. Rom. x. 20), as distinguished in such a connexion from phanerousthai (2 Cor. v. 11 f.), conveys the thought of that being made a clear object of sight, which under ordinary circumstances is not so (comp. Wisd. i. 2; xvi. 21; xvii. 4 phasmata enephanizeto; John xiv. 21 f.). Emphanes is the general opposite to 'invisible,' as phaneros is to 'indistinct.' In Christ humanity becomes the object of the regard of God. In the glorified Son the words used at critical revelations during His earthly work find absolute fulfilment: en soi eudokesa (Lk. iii. 22; Matt. xvii. 5: [xii. 18]).

The phrase 'the face of God (of the Father)' occurs in the N. T. only Matt. xviii. 10; Apoc. xxii. 4; and in quotations from the lxx.: Acts ii. 28; l Pet. iii. 12; in addition to the occurrence of the phrase pro prosopou kuriou (Matt. xi. 10 &c.). In the O. T. the thought of 'the face' (pnym) of God occupies an important place, as expressing the revolution of His Presence (Ex. xxxiii. 14; Deut. iv. 37, R. V.); and that either in judgment (Ps. xxi. 10 Hebr.); or, as the defence (Ps. xxxi. 20) and crowning joy of the faithful (Ps. iv. 7; xvii. 15). The significance of the phrase is seen specially in the priestly blessing: Num. vi. 25; comp. Ps. iv. 6.

In this connexion it appears strange at first that Christ should be said to have entered the heavenly sanctuary 'to appear openly' before the face of God and not to look on the face of God: that he should be described as the object of the vision of God and not that God should be spoken of as seen perfectly by Him. The explanation of the form of thought seems to lie in this, that everything finally must be referred to God: that which bears His regard is accepted by Him. Comp. Gal. iv. 9 gnuntes theon mallon de gnosthentes hupo theou: 1 Cor. xiii. 12 tote epignosomai kathos kai epegnosthen 1 Cor. viii. 2, 3 ei tis agapaton theon, outos egnostai hup' autou.

Nor must we limit the conception of the appearance of Christ before the face of God to one part of His work. It is commonly regarded only as the effective manifestation of His redeeming Passion (e.g. apparet vultui, id est præsentiæ et benevolentiæ Dei Patris, intercedeus apud eum pro nobis ostendendo cicatrices vulnerum quæ pro nostra redemptione pertulit. Herv.); but it is necessary to include in it also the thought of the revelation of pollakis prosphere heauton, hosper ho achiereus eiserchetai eis ta hagia kat' eniauton ev haimati allotrio,

25 ta hagia: + ton hagion '* the (æg).

humanity consummated by the fulfilment of the will of God (x. 9 ff.). The 'appearance' of Christ alone is, to our conception, the adequate presentment of the whole work of the Son to the Father (comp. c. vii. 25 note).

There is another peculiarity in the form of expression which requires to be noticed, the combination of nun with the aor. emphanisthenai. This combination appears to affirm two complementary truths and to exclude two opposite errors. The manifestation of Christ, in whom humanity is shewn in its perfect ideal before the face of God, is 'one act at once' (emphanisthenai); and still for us who work in time it is in the case of each believer a present act (nun). There is, to look at the subject from the opposite side, no succession in the fulfilment of His work; and, on the other hand, it cannot in any sense grow old.

Such epexegetical infinitives as emphanisthenai are generally in the aorist as expressing the abstract thought (v. 9; Matt. xi. 7; xx. 28; Luke i. 17); but the present is also used when the idea of continuance or repetition predominates: John iv. 15; Lu. viii. 8; Mk. iii. 14; vii. 4; 1 Cor. i. 17. Both tenses are combined 1 Cor. x. 7.

The manifestation of Christ before God is 'on our behalf' (huper hemon). In Him humanity obtains its true harmony with God, and in Him it can bear the full light of God. He can be therefore, in virtue of His perfect manhood, our Advocate (1 John ii. 2 Iesoun Christon dikaion). Nun gar proton, as Theodoret says, eis ton ouranon phusis aneleluthen anthropeia; and each Christian in Christ, as well as through Him, has access to God: Eph. iii. 12 (en o echomen ten...prosagogen). Comp. c. vii. 25.

(25). The writer of the Epistle goes on to meet another difficulty of his Jewish readers while he unfolds the absolute uniqueness of Christ's Death. They found it hard to understand how Christ should die, and how one death could have never-ending virtue. It is shewn from the very nature of the case that He could only die once, and that by this Death He satisfied completely the wants of humanity.

oud' hina...] Nor yet did He enter (eiselthen) in order that He may again often offer Himself, and so enter afresh as the High-priest from time to time. The main idea of the writer seems to be: 'Christ did not enter in order to secure an access to God which might be available on repeated occasions.' Then for such a phrase as 'in order to repeat His entrance' be substitutes 'in order to offer Himself,' and thus by bringing into preeminence the preliminary condition of entrance he shews the impossibility of repetition.

pollakis] The parallel is between Christ's offering and entrance and the High-priest's offering and entrance as a whole repeated year by year. The idea that the parallel is between Christ's work and the repeated entrances of the High-priest into the Holy of Holies on each day of Atonement, which invoked the two sacrifices of the bullock and goat, is against the whole form of the argument in the Epistle. The ceremony of the Day of Atonement is treated as one great act. The thought of the High-priest's offering for himself is necessarily excluded in the case of Christ (vii. 27); but this consideration does not come into account here.

prosphere heauton] Two different interpretations of this offering have been proposed. It has been supposed to correspond with the bringing of ²?epei edei auton pollakis pathein apo kataboles kosmou. nuni de apax epi sunteleia ton aionon eis athetesin tes

26 pollakis: polla D?*. pathein: apothanein the (æg). nuni 'AC: nun S D?.

the blood into the Holy of Holies, and again with the offering of the victim upon the altar. The general usage of the writer, apart from other considerations, is decisive in favour of the second view. It is unreasonable to give a different sense to the words from that which they bear in v. 14 heauton prosenenken amomon to theo (comp. n. 28), where the reference is to the Passion of Christ. See also xi. 17; vii. 27 v. l.; viii. 3 note.

It was only by the offering upon the Cross that the Blood 'through which' the divine High-priest entered into the heavenly sanctuary was made available. This sense of the phrase is confirmed by the words which follow, where prosenechtheis stands parallel to apothanein. Compare also c. x. 10 dia tes prosphoras tou somatos Iesou Christou, which can only refer to the offering on the Cross.

The contrast of tenses in prosphere here and prosenenke c. viii. 3 is clearly marked.

hosper...] An annually repeated sacrifice was the necessary means for obtaining the atoning blood in virtue of which the Levitical High-priest entered the Sanctuary year by year.

en haimati allotrio] The use of different prepositions in this connexion will repay study: v. 7 ou choris haimatos, v. 12 di' haimatos. For the use of ev compare v. 22 haimati kath.: x. 19 en to haim. Iesou: xiii. 20 en haim. diathekes aioniou: and in other Books: Rom. iii. 25 hov proeth. hilast...en to haim.: v. 9 dikaiothentes en to haim.: Eph. ii. 13 egenethete engus en to haim. tou chr. (i. 7 en o...dia tou haimatos): Apoc. i. 5 lusanti...en to haim.: n. 9 egorasas...en to haim.: vii. 14 eleukanan...en to haim.

The High-priest was, as it were, surrounded, enveloped, in the life sacrificed and symbolically communicated. Christ Himself living through death came before God.

(26). If the one offering of Christ is (as has been shewn from its nature) sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, then it is evident that its efficacy reaches through all time past and future. If it had not been sufficient, then it must have been repeated. It is assumed that it is God's will that complete atonement should be made for sin; and if He had willed that this should be made in detail and by successive acts, occasion must have arisen in earlier ages for Christ's sufferings, a thought in itself inconceivable. The virtue of Christ's work for the past in the eternal counsel of God is taken for granted.

epei] Vulg. alioquin, since in that case, else. See v. 17, c. x. 2; Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 10, &c.

edei] For the force of dei see c. ii. 1; and for the absence of han 1 Cor. v. 10 epei opheilete. Winer, pp. 353 f.

apo kataboles kosmou] Vulg. ab origine mundi. Compare c. iv. 3 note. A prospect is opened beyond the beginning of the Mosaic system. The divine counsel had a universal scope.

nuni de] but now, as things actually are, once for all, at the close of the ages, hath He been manifested to disannul (set at naught) sin by the sacrifice of Himself, Vulg. nunc autem semel in consummatione sæculorum ad destitutionem peccati per hostiam suam apparuit. Each element in this sentence brings out some contrast between the work of Christ and that hamartias dia tes thusias autou pephanerotai. ²?kai kath' tes ham. 'A ægg: om. tes C: hamartion D?*.

of the Levitical High-priests. Their sacrifices were repeated year by year during a long period of preparation: His sacrifice was offered once for all at the close of the succession of ages. They by their action called sins to mind (c. x. 3): He annulled sin. They provided typical atonement through the blood of victims: He provided an absolute atonement by the sacrifice of Himself. With them the most impressive fact was the entrance into the darkness in which the Divine Presence was shrouded: with Him the manifestation on earth, still realised as an abiding reality, brought the Divine Presence near to men.

Generally it is made plain that Christ accomplished all that the Levitical Service pointed to.

hapax] The absolute oneness of Christ's offering has been touched upon before, v. 12; c. vii. 27. In proportion as this truth was felt, the weakness of the Levitical offerings, shewn by their repetition, became evident.

It is assumed that the repetition of Christ's suffering in the future is inconceivable.

epi sunteleia ton ai.] at the close of the ages, of a long and complex course of finite development. The exact phrase is not found elsewhere in the N.T.

Compare Matt. xiii. 39 sunteleia aionos: vv. 40, 49 en te sunt. tou aionos: xxiv. 3 he se parousia kai sunt. tou ai.: xxviii. 20 eos tes sunt. tou ai. For epi (as distinguished from ev) see vv. 10, 15 notes; Phil. i. 3.

Similar phrases occur in the Greek translations of Daniel: ix. 7 sunt. kairon; xii. 13 sunt. hemeron.

Episunteleia ton aionon has a somewhat different meaning from ep' eschatou ton hem. touton (c. i. 2). This latter phrase describes the last period of 'the present age' (see note); while epi sunteleia ton ai. marks a point of termination of a series (so to speak) of preparatory ages. The Death of the Lord, including His Resurrection and Ascension, is essentially the beginning of a new development in the life of man and in the life of the world. It was needful, as we speak, that the 'natural' development of man should have had fullest scope before Christ came.

Dia ti epi sunteleia ton aionon; Chrysostom asks, and answers meta ta polla hamartemata. ei men oun para ten archen egenonto (leg. egeneto) eita oudeis episteusen, hen an to tes oikonomias anoneton.

The word sunteleia occurs in the N.T. only in the passages which have been quoted. It occurs frequently in the lxx. A characteristic use is found in Ex. xxiii. 16 heorte sunteleias ('of ingathering'). As distinguished from telos, the end as one definite fact, snnteleia expresses a consummation, an end involving many parts. Compare suntelein Luke iv. 2; Acts xxi. 27; c. viii. 8; Luke iv. 13.

The plural aiones occurs again in the Epistle; xiii. 8, 21; and, in a different connexion, i. 2 (note); xi. 3.

In each case it preserves its full meaning. The whole discipline and growth of creation in time is made up of manifold periods of discipline, each having its proper unity and completeness. Per sæcula debemus intellegere omnia quæ facta sunt in tempore (Primas. ad c. i. 2).

eis athetesin tes hamart.] This thought goes beyond 'the redemption from transgressions' (v. 15). It is literally 'for the disannulling of sin' (vii. 18 athetesis proag. ent.). Sin is vanquished, shewn in its weakness, 'set at naught' (Mk. vii. 9; Gal. iii. 15).

The comment of Theodoret deserves notice: pantelos tes hamartias hoson apokeitai tois anthropois hapax apothanein, meta de

kateluse ten 'schun athanasian hemin huposchomenos. enochlein gar aute tois athanatois ou dunatai somasi.

The use of the singular tes hamartias brings out this general, abstract conception (comp. x. 18 prosphora peri hamartias). Elsewhere in the Epistle the work of Christ is regarded in its action on the many actual sins in which sin shews itself. Comp. p. 32.

In this connexion different phrases are used which present different aspects of its efficacy.

[The Son] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty katharismon ton hamartion poiesamenos (i. 3). He is a merciful and faithful High-priest eis to hilaskesthai tas hamartias tou laou (ii. 17). (Compare ix. 15 apolutrosin ton epi te prote diatheke parabaseon.)

It is further said that the 'blood of bulls and goats is unable aphairein hamartias (x. 4)' and that the Levitical sacrifices cannot perielein hamartias (x. ii); where it is implied that the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ have this efficacy.

So sins are presented as a defilement which clings to man, a force which separates him from God, a burden which he bears, a robe of custom in which he is arrayed.

dia tes thusias autou] The phrase, referring as it does to en haimati allotrio v. 25, cannot mean anything less than 'the sacrifice of Himself.' The word thusia is used again of Christ c. x. 12; and in connexion with prosphora in Eph. v. 2.

pephanerotath] He, who is our High-priest, hath been manifested, hath entered the visible life of men as man. On the scene of earth, before the eyes of men, He has overcome death (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54—57). And more than this: the fact of the Incarnation is regarded in its abiding consequences. The manifestation of Christ continues in its effects.

In this relation the 'manifestation' of Christ offers a contrast to the veiling of the High-priest in darkness when he was engaged in fulfilling his atoning service. Christ is withdrawn and yet present: hidden and yet seen.

The perfect occurs again v. 8; 2 Cor. v. 11; Rom. iii. 21.

(27), (28). The fulfilment of the work of the Levitical High-priest suggests another thought. When the atonement was completed the High-priest came again among the people (Lev. xvi. 24). So too Christ shall return. He shall in this respect also satisfy the conditions of humanity. His Death shall be followed by the manifestation of His righteousness in the judgment of God.

(27). The conditions of human life are regarded as furnishing a measure by analogy of the conditions of Christ's work as man. He fulfilled the part of man perfectly in fact and not in figure (as by the Mosaic sacrifices). For Him therefore Death, necessarily one, must be followed by a Divine Judgment.

kath' hoson...houtos kai...] inasmuch as...even so also...Vulg. quamadmodum...sic et...Kath' hoson is found in the N.T. only in this Epistle (iii. 3; vii. 20); eph' hoson occurs Matt. ix. 15; xxv. 40, 45; Rom. xi. 13; 2 Pet. i. 13.

Kath' hoson...houtos kai expresses a conclusion drawn from an identity between two objects in some particular respects (comp. kathos...houto v. 3), while hosper...houtos...(not found in this Epistle) describes a complete correspondence so far as the objects are compared (Rom. v. 12, 19, 21).

apokeitai] Vulg. statutum est. Death lies stored in the future, 'laid up' for each man: 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. i. 5.

meta de touto...] and after this cometh judgment, not in immediate sequence of time, but in the development touto krisis, ²?houtos kai ho christos, hapax prosenechtheis eis to pollon anenenkein hamartias, ek deuterou choris

28 houtos kai 'ACD? vg syrr ægg: om. kai S.

of personal being. The writer appears to connect the Judgment with the Return of Christ on 'the Day': c. x. 25, 37 f.

For the distinction of krisis, the act, the process, of judgment, from krima, the issue of judgment, the sentence, compare c. vi. 2 with x. 27; see also John ix. 39; 1 John iv. 17 note.

(28). houtos kai...] Death finally closes man's earthly work, and is followed by the judgment which reveals its issue. So too Christ as man died once only; and that which answers to judgment in His case is the revelation of His glory, the revelation of Himself as He is.

Sicut enim unusquisque nostrum post mortem recipit juxta opera sua, ita Christus devicta morte et adepto regno secundo apparebit expectantibus se in salutem ut juste vindicet suos qui injuste passus est ab alienis (Primas.).

For the force of ho christos, 'the Christ,' see Addit. Note i. 4.

hapax prosenechtheis] Vulg. semel oblatus. The passive form (contrast v. 25 hina prosphere heauton) completes the conception of the Lord's offering. It is on the one side voluntary and on the other side it is the result of outward force. How this outward force was exerted and by whom is not made known. It cannot be said directly that Christ was 'offered up' by God, nor yet that He was 'offered up' by men; nor would such a form be used to express the offering of Christ by Himself (hupi tinos prosenechtheis; huph' heautou delonoti. entautha oude hierea deiknusin auton monon alla kai thuma kai hiereion. Chrys.). There is a divine law which men unconsciously and even involuntarily fulfil. This embodies the divine will of love and right. The Jews were instruments in carrying it out.

eis to poll. anen. ham.] to carry the sins of many, Vulg. ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. This most remarkable phrase appears to be taken from Is. liii. 12 (6) lxx., where the sense is 'to take upon himself and bear the burden of sin.' But pherein as distinguished from bastazein (comp. c. i. 3 note) involves the notion of carrying to some end; and so in 1 Pet. ii. 24 (the nearest parallel in the N. T.) we read tas hamartias anenenken epi to xulon ('carried up to'). Hence comes the sense of 'offering,' 'carrying up to the altar' (vii. 27; xiii. 15; James ii. 21); and it is difficult to suppose that this idea is not present in the phrase here. Christ 'carried to the cross' and there did away with sin and sins. Compare Chrysostom: ti de astin anenenkein hamartias; hosper epi tes prosphoras hes anapheromen, propheromen kai ta hamartemata legontes Eite hekontes eite akontes hemartomen sunchoreson. toutesti memnemetha auton proton kai tote ten sunchoresin aitoumen, houto de kai entautha gegone. pou touto pepoieken ho Christos; akouson autou legontos. Kai huper auton hagiazo emauton. idou anenenke ta hamartemata, heren auta apo anthropon kai anenenke to patri ouch hina ti horise kat' auton all' hina auta are

In any case it is essential to the understanding of the passage to keep strictly to the literal statement. The burden which Christ took upon Him and bore to the cross was 'the sins of many,' not, primarily or separately from the sins, the punishment of sins. 'Punishment' may be a blessing to the child conscious of his sonship.

In the lxx. anapherein is used with hamartia in Is. liii. 12 (Hebrewfy); comp. Num. xiv. 33; and Is. liii. 11 (Hebrew^3p). Commonly Hebrewiph} in connexion with Sin hamartias ophthesetai tois auton apekdechomenois eis soterian.

apekdech. ¨ekdech. D?*. eis sot. 'CD? vg syr vg ægg: + dia pisteos A syr hl.

is rendered in lxx. (Pent. Ezek.) by lambanein: Lev. v. 1, 17; vii. 8 (18) &c. Num. ix. 13; xviii. 22 ff. &c. Ezek. iv. 5; xxiii. 49; comp. Ezek. xviii. 19 f.

The word 'many' does not (of course) imply 'many out of the whole number of men'; but 'many' is simply contrasted with Christ's single person, and His single entrance. Compare ii. 10 note; Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28.

Chrysostom's note is strangely wide of the meaning: dia ti de pollon eipe kai me panton; epeide me pantes episteusan. huper apanton men gar apethanen eis to sosai pantas, to autou meros, antirropos gar hen ho thanatos ekeinos tes panton apoleias, ou panton de tas hamartias anenenke dia to me thelesai pantas.

ek deuterou...soterian] The 'appearance' of Christ corresponds in the parallel to the judgment of men. In this case the complete acceptance of Christ's work by the Father, testified by the Return in glory, is the correlative to the sentence given on human life. He rises above judgment, and yet His absolute righteousness receives this testimony. For Him what is judgment in the case of men is seen in the Return to bear the final message of salvation.

The fulness of this thought finds more complete expression by the description of Christ's Return as a return 'for salvation' and not (under another aspect) as a return 'for judgment,' which might have seemed superficially more natural. 'Salvation' emphasises the actual efficacy of His work, while 'judgment' declares its present partial failure.

Nothing indeed is said of the effect of Christ's Return upon the unbelieving. This aspect of its working does not fall within the scope of the writer; and it is characteristic of the Epistle that judgment is not directly referred to Christ, whom the writer regards peculiarly as the Royal High-priest. Compare c. x. 27 note.

ek deuterou] in comparison with His first manifestation on earth: Acts i. 11.

choris hamartias] c. iv. 15. Here the words stands in contrast with eis to pollon anenenkein hamartias. At His first manifestation Christ took on Him the sins of humanity, and, though Himself sinless, endured the consequences of sin. At His second coming this burden will exist no longer. Sin then will have no place, (choran ouketi echouses kata ton anthropon tes hamartias. Theodt.)

ophthesetai] Apoc. i. 7; 1 John iii. 2. The vision is regarded from the side of man who sees, and not (v. 26 pephanerotai) from that of God who reveals.

By the use of the word ophthesetai the Return of Christ is presented as a historical fact (comp. Acts i. 10 f.). But it is to be noticed that the writer does not use the word parousia, which is found in St Matthew, 2 Peter, St James, St Paul, St John. Nor does he use the word epiphaneia which has a more limited range: 2 Thess. (ii. 8 he epiph. tes parousias autou), 1, 2 Tim., Tit.

This revelation will be the completion of the transitory revelations after the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. hophthe). But, like those, it will be for such as wait for Him, even as the people of Israel waited for the return of the High-priest from the Holy of Holies after the atonement had been made.

The word apekdechesthai appears to be always used in the N. T. with reference to a future manifestation of the glory of Christ (1 Cor. i. 7; Phil. iii. 20), or of His people (Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25). Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8.

eis soterian] to accomplish, consummate salvation, which includes not only the removal of sin but also the attainment of the ideal of humanity.

*Additional Note on* ix. 7. *The Service of the Day of Atonement*.

The ritual of the Day of Atonement, 'the Day' (Joma), is present to the mind of the writer throughout this section of the Epistle, and it will be convenient to set out the Levitical ordinances in a clear form, that the relation of their typical teaching to the work of Christ may be distinctly seen (Lev. xvi.; xxiii. 26—32; comp. Lev. xxv. 9; Num. xxix. 11; Ezek. xlv. 18 ff.).

The Mishnaic treatise Joma, of which there is a convenient edition by Sheringham, gives some additional details as to later usage; and Delitzsch has given a translation of the full account of the service by Maimonides. To the edition of Sheringham's Joma of 1696 is added a very elaborate comparison of the work of the High-priest with that of Christ by J. Rhenferd.

The Service of the Day summed up and interpreted the whole conception of Sacrifices, which were designed by divine appointment to gain for man access to God.

In the same way the High-priest summed up the idea of consecration and religious service, represented in different stages by the people, the Levites, the priests.

The occasion of the institution of the Service illustrates its central thought. It followed on the death of the eldest sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, for 'offering strange fire' (Lev. x. 6 f.; xvi. 1; comp. Num. iii. 4; xxvi. 61). The way of access to God was not yet freely open: even the most privileged servants could only draw near as God provided a way.

The day was the one Fast of the Law: Acts xxvii. 9 (he nesteia).

All the ordinary priestly duties of the day were done by the High-priest in his 'golden robes,' and according to custom he prepared for his work by a retirement of seven days.

On the day itself, after bathing, the High-priest put on his [white] linen robes (Lev. xvi. 4; comp. Lk. ix. 29) as representing the people before God, while 'the golden robes' were appropriate to the messenger of God to the people.

Then the victims for the congregation and for the High-priest were prepared and presented (for sin offerings, a bullock for the High-priest, and two goats for the people; for burnt-offerings, a ram for each: Lev. xvi. 3, 5, 6), and one of the two goats was assigned by lot 'to the Lord' and the other 'to Azazel' (v. 8 ff).

All being thus made ready, the High-priest killed the bullock, and made atonement 'for himself and for his house' (the priesthood), entering within the veil, under cover of a cloud of incense that 'he might not die' (vv. 11 ff.; comp. v. 2).

After this (and according to the later ritual he returned meanwhile from the Holy of Holies and re-entered it with the blood) he took of the blood and sprinkled it with hie finger 'upon the mercy seat eastward,' and 'before the mercy seat seven times' (v. 14).

So the High-priest and the scene of the manifestation of God were duly atoned, and the High-priest was able to act for the people. He then killed the goat, the sin-offering for the people, and dealt with its blood as with the blood of the bullock (v. 15). As in the ordinary sacrifices the blood was applied in some cases to the altar of burnt-offering and in other cases to the altar of incense, so now it was brought to the mercy seat. Afterwards the High-priest 'made atonement' for the Holy place, being there alone (Ex. xxx. 10), and for the altar of burnt-offering (vv. 16 ff.).

Atonement having been thus made for priests and people and the whole place of service (the sanctuary in its three parts), the High-priest 'laid both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel [with which the Law dealt]... putting them upon the head of the goat, and sent it away...into the wilderness' (vv. 20 ff.).

Thus the special service was ended. The High-priest put off his linen garments in tho Holy place, washed himself, put on his robes and offered the burnt-offerings for himself and the people, 'and made an atonement for himself and the people' (vv. 23 ff.).

Last of all the bodies of the sin-offerings were carried without the camp and wholly consumed (v. 27)

Thus in a figure year by year the people had access to the Presence of God in the person of the High-priest. The fellowship between God and the people, established by the Covenant but marred by sins against its conditions, was restored. By the virtue of an offered life communion became possible.

To this end there was a double sacrifice for the High-priest and for the people, and a double representation of the people by the High-priest and by the sin-offering; and till the atonement was made for the High-priest he could only enter the Holy of Holies under the cloud of incense. It is needless to point out the general fulfilment of the type by Christ. One point only, which appears to have been left unnoticed, may be suggested for consideration. The High-priest entered 'the unseen' twice, once for himself, once for the people. May we not see in this a foreshadowing of the two entrances of Christ into 'the unseen'? Once He entered, and came back victorious over death, ready in His glorified humanity to fulfil His work for His people. Again He entered the unseen 'to appear (emphanisthenai) before the face of God for us,' and hereafter returning thence 'He shall appear (aphthesetai) a second time to them that wait for Him.'

*Additional Note on* ix. 9. *The prae-Christian idea of Sacrifice*.

There is no reason to think that Sacrifice was instituted in obedience to a direct revelation¹.

It is mentioned in Scripture at first as natural and known.

It was practically universal in prae-Christian times [Kalisch's reference to Strabo xi. 11, 8 is in error (ouden thelu thuousi)]. Compare Hes. Op. 134 ff.; Porph. de abet. ii. 8 [Theophrastus].

In due time the popular practice of Sacrifice was regulated by revelation as disciplinary, and also used as a vehicle for typical teaching.

Sacrifice, in fact, in the most general form, belongs to the life of man, and, in the truest sense, expresses the life of man. It is essentially the response of love to love, of the son to the Father, the rendering to God in grateful use of that which has been received from Him. Language cannot offer a more impressive example of moral degeneration in words, than the popular connexion of thoughts of loss and suffering with that which is a divine service.

In considering the Biblical teaching on Sacrifice we must take account of

I. @Natural Conceptions.

I. Natural Conceptions. 1. The general idea.

The natural idea of sacrifices in each case is shaped by the view which is entertained by men of their relation to the unseen.

(1) They recognise, to speak generally, a relation of dependence on unseen powers, conceived after their own likeness. Hence they bring

(2) More particularly they necessarily connect joy and suffering with the unseen. Hence follow

(a) Eucharistic offerings in acknowledgment of benefits.

(b) Deprecatory offerings to obtain relief.

(g) Impetratory offerings to obtain blessings. These are connected with prayer as a gift with a request. Comp. Tylor, ii. 340.

Such offerings are of two kinds:

(a) To gratify: the offering of that which is valued, as presents in homage; self-abnegation in fasting.

(b) To benefit: the offering of that which is thought useful as food, of which the spiritual element is supposed to be consumed. Comp. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 428.

And they embody two kinds of feeling (love or fear) according as the power is conceived to be

(a) Good and righteous; or

(b) Malevolent or capricious.

The difference is shewn in the most extreme case. Thus there are two aspects of human sacrifices.

(a) To prove the complete devotion of the worshipper.

(b) To propitiate the cruelty of the power to which the sacrifice is made.

So far, with the partial exception of the Eucharistic offerings, the sacrifices have a personal end (thank-offerings: fear-offerings: prayer-offerings).

In accordance with this general view Theophrastus (quoted and adopted by Porphyry, de abet. ii. 24; comp. 44) classes Sacrifices as he dia timen he dia charin he dia chreian ton agathon. Moreover they are 'concerned with material things. The feeling by which they are prompted may be that of the slave, the subject, the friend, the son.

But one signal omission will be observed. There are so far no expiatory offerings.

The idea of expiatory offerings, answering to the consciousness of sin, does not belong to the early religion of Greece. Expiation was the work of special ministers.

Comp. Plat. Resp. ii. p. 364 b J. Bernays' Theophrastos üb. Frömmigkeit, pp. 106 f.

It is not possible to determine absolutely in what order the different kinds of sacrifice came into use. The order probably depended in a great degree upon physical conditions, as the ordinary phenomena of life suggested terror or gratitude. This is the teaching of present experience.

(2). Materials of sacrifice

(1) Simple produce of the earth.

Comp. Ovid, Fast. 1. 337 ff.; Porphyr. [Theophr.] de Abet. ii. 5 ff.; iv. 22.

(2) Prepared produce of the earth: first-fruits of food: juice of soma.

Comp. Porphyr. ii. 9. These were generally limited to those used for food: Porphyr. l.c. ii. 24, 25; offered to 'demons': id. ii 36, 38.

(4) Human beings.

Comp. Porphyr. ii. 27 ff.; 54 ff.; Just. M. Ar. ii. 12; Tertull. Ap. 9; C. Quest. 7; Aug. de Civ. vii. 19.

The custom of offering human sacrifices was not unfrequently signified by representative offerings: Herod. ii. 47; Ovid, Fasti, v. 621 ff.; Tylor, ii. 366 f.

See E. V. Lasaulx, D. Sühnopfer der Gr. u. Röm.

Here again it is impossible to determine what materials were first used in sacrifice. General tradition points to the offering of the fruits of the earth as the earliest form of worship. Comp. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 782 c; Plut. Quaest. Conv. viii. 8. 3.

The primitive manner of sacrifice was determined by the thought that the Divine Power received the gifts, and shared the feast. Hence the use of

(1) The altar.

The gifts were symbolically brought near to God.

The etherealised essence of the gift was borne aloft (Hom. Il. i. 317).

The adorning, &c. of the victims preserved the fiction that they met death willingly.

(4). Effect of sacrifice.

The effect of sacrifices was conceived of either as

When the offering was welcomed as an expression of a real harmony of spirit and fellowship between the worshipper and the object of his worship; or

When the sacrifice had in itself a positive virtue. This view finds the most complete expression in Hindu theology. Comp. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 31 note. In its popular form it became a subject for Classical Satirists: e.g. Luc. de sacr. 2.

In addition to the sacrifices which formed part of common worship, account must be taken of those which were made by vows (e.g. Spolia opima), and by voluntary devotion (legends of Macaria, Curtius, the Decii).

Meanwhile the true idea of sacrifice found not infrequent expression: e.g. Porphyr. ii. 34, 46.

Nowhere, as far as I know, is the ethnic conception of sacrifice, as the means of a fellowship of men with spirits, and of the one representative of the nation—the Emperor—with God, given more fully or impressively than in the Sacred Books of China. See Li Ki (Sacred Books of the East, xxvii, xxviii.) Books xx, xxi. Comp. Book vii. § 4.

II. Biblical teaching.

Præ-Mosaic sacrifice is presented to us in two forms:

(a) Gen. iv. 4 (Cain and Abel) (i).

Both offerings are called HebrewPPr (gifts: comp. Gen. xxxii. 14; xliii. 11; Num. xvi. 15; 1 Sam. ii. 17; xxvi. 19).

(b) The spirit of the offerer is that to which God looks ('Abel and his offering,' 'Cain and his...'). Comp. Heb. xi. 4.

(b) Gen. viii. 20 (Noah) (ii).

An Altar is now first mentioned.

The offerings are 'of every clean beast and every clean fowl.' Thus we have the widest offering: a universal consecration in worship of all that is for man's support.

Gen. xii. 6, 7, 8 (iii); xiii. 4 (iv.).

Gen. xiii. 18 (v).

An altar at Hebron: 2 Sam. xv. 7.

Gen. xv. 9 ff. (vi).

The Covenant offerings. Animals allowed by the Levitical Law. For the birds see Lev. i, 14—17.

Gen. xxii. 1 ff. (vii).

At Moriah. The practice of sacrifice familiar (v. 7).

The offering of Isaac is a critical point in the history of the Biblical teaching on Sacrifice. It is shewn that the most absolute faith and devotion exists without the material exhibition of it. The human sacrifices of Canaan were most effectively condemned by the clear proof that the element of good to which they witnessed was wholly independent of their horrors.

It was plainly declared what God would and what He would not have.

Isaac, the child of promise, was a second time given to faith. Faith received him at his birth, as a divine gift, and again from death. He became the sign of the power of God and of human self-surrender: Hebr. xi. 19.

Under the Law the first-born were given representatively: Ex. xxii. 29. Comp. Euseb. Praep. Ev. i. 10, p. 37.

Gen. xxvi. 25 (viii).

An altar at Beer-sheba (the altar first, then the tent). Comp. c. xxi. 33.

(g) Jacob. Gen. xxviii. 18 ff. (ix).

A 'pillar' at Beth-el. Comp. c. xxxi. 45; xxxv. 14; Ex. xxiv. 4; Is. xix. 19: 'pillars' forbidden, Deut. xvi. 22. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 7 (an altar: El-beth-el).

Gen. xxxi. 54 (x).

A sacrifice and feast at Mizpah: a 'pillar' and 'heap' set up. Comp. c. xxvi. 30; Ex. xxiv. 11; 2 Sam. iii. 20.

Gen. xxxiii. 20 (xi).

An altar at Shalem: El-elehe-Israel (comp. xxxv. 7; Ex. xvii. 15).

Gen. xxxv. 1 ff. (xii), 7 (xiii).

An altar at Beth-el (El-beth-el). Comp. c. xxviii. 18 ff.

Gen. xxxv. 14 (xiv).

A pillar at Beth-el (comp. xxviii. 18). A drink-offering first mentioned.

Gen. xlvi. 1 (xv).

Sacrifices at Beer-sheba (c. xxvi. 25).

Compare also Gen. xxi. 33. Abraham planted 'a tamarisk-tree' in Beer-sheba (R. V., Hebrewp;X) and called there on the name of the Lord...(Amos v. 5; viii. 14).

To these references may be added: Job i. 5; xlii. 8; Ex. x. 25.

On the other hand there is no trace of the idea of

(a) a vicarious substitution of the victim for the offer (not Gen. xxii. 13; comp. Mic. vi. 7 f.); or of

God is invited to share in the common feast: fellowship with God is realised by the worshipper.

In Ex. xviii. 12 (Jethro) we have the transition to the new order. Here the primitive conception of sacrifice is fully recognised when it was about to be replaced by a more definite typical teaching. The sacrifice of Jethro bears the same relation to the Levitical Law of sacrifice as the appearance of Melchisedek to the Levitical Law of Priesthood.

In Ex. xxiv. 4—11 (the Covenant sacrifice) specific mention is made of 'burnt-offerings,' 'peace-offerings,' and of the sprinkling of the blood.

Note@. On human sacrifices in Palestine. The following references will be useful in investigating how far human sacrifices were offered in Palestine:

(1) Among the non-Jewish peoples:

2 K. iii. 26 f. (the King of Moab).

— xvii. 31 (the Sepharvites).

The passages in the Pentateuch shew how great the temptation would be to the Jew to try whether his own faith could rival the devotion of the neighbouring nations.

Jud. xi. 30 ff. (v. 31 distinctly suggests a human offering; so lxx. ho ekporeuomenos, Vulg. quicunque primus fuerit egressus. Comp. v. 2).

[The incident in 2 Sam xxi. 1—14 is in no sense a sacrifice. See also 2 Sam xii. 31.]

2 K. xvi. 3 (Ahas): 2 Chron. xxviii. 3.

— xvii. 17 (the children of Israel).

— xxi. 6 (Manasseh): 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6.

— xxiii. 10.

Is. lvii. 5 (the people).

Jer. vii. 31 (the children of Judah).

— xix. 5(-).

— xxxii. 35 (—).

Ezek. xvi. 20 f. (Jerusalem).

— xx. 25 f., 31 (the house of Israel).

Comp. Mic. vi. 7.

The Levitical Sacrifices were based upon existing customs (Lev. xvii. 1—7). They were in some sense a concession to the spiritual immaturity of the people (Jer. vii. 22 f.); but at the same time the legislation by which they were regulated guarded them from superstitious excesses, and preserved the different true ideas to which natural sacrifice bore witness, and completed this instructive expression of devotion by fresh lessons corresponding with deeper knowledge of God and man.

(1) The general idea.

The Levitical offerings express the main thoughts which are expressed by the Gentile offerings though they express much more. They are in a true sense a tribute brought by a people to its Sovereign (Ex. xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 16 f.); and they represent what man, in human fashion, conceives of as 'the bread—the food—of God' (Lev. iii. 11, 16; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21; xxii. 25; Num. xxviii. 2, 24; Ezek. xliv. 7).

The idea is naturally connected with idolatrous services (Deut. xxxii. 38; Is. lxv. 11; Jer. vii. 18; Ezek. xvi. 19; xxiii. 41; Bel and Dr.); but it admits of a true spiritual interpretation. In this sense it has been most justly remarked that Ood says to us, 'Give Me my daily bread' (Hengstenberg); and under one aspect the Jewish sacrifices were a type of this 'reasonable service' (comp. Jos. B. J. vi. 2, 1 he kath' hemeran trophe [tou theou]).

At the same time while God is represented as accepting these gifts from men, it is carefully laid down that He does not need them (Is. xl. 16 f.; Ps. l. 8 ff.).

Another thought contained in the Gentile sacrifices was recognised in the Law. He to whom the sacrifice was offered admitted His worshippers (with certain limitations) to His table. They 'had communion with the altar' (l Cor. X. 18 hoi esthiontes tas thusias koinonoi tou thusiasteriou eisi). They shared with the Lord in a common feast.

But all these thoughts of homage, servioe, fellowship, were shewn to rest, as men are, upon the thought of a foregoing atonement, cleansing, consecration. This thought was brought out into fullest relief in the Levitical ritual by the characteristic use which was made of the blood—the virtue of the offered life.

The foundation of the Levitical law of sacrifice is laid in the Covenant Sacrifice (Ex. xxiv.). 'Young men of the children of Israel'— the representatives of the people in the fulness of their vigour—'offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord' (v. 5). Such was the spontaneous expression of human worship. But it was not enough. 'Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar' (v. 6). Then followed the pledge of obedience; 'and Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you...' (v. 8). 'Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel... they saw God and did eat and drink' (vv. 9 ff.). So the human desire was justified and fulfilled. The blood of the Covenant, the power of a new life made available for the people of God, enabled men to hold communion with God (v. 11 upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand: contrast c. xix. 21). The lessons of sacrifice were completed: service, cleansing, consecration, fellowship.

The teaching thus broadly given in the consecration of the people to God found a more detailed exposition in the consecration of the priests, the representatives of the people in the divine service (Ex. xxix.; Lev. viii.). Here, as was natural, the acknowledgment of personal sin was of the more prominent. The bathing, robing, anointing, were followed by the sacrifice of a sin-offering (Ex. xxix. 10 ff.). Then one of two rams was offered as a whole burnt-offering, 'a sweet savour,' and of the other, after the blood had been duly applied to the altar and the candidates for the priesthood, part, together with a portion of the prepared bread, was burnt for a 'sweet savour before the Lord,' and part with the remainder of the bread was eaten by Aaron and his sons by the door of the tent of meeting (v. 32): they ate those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate, to sanctify them (v. 33).

It follows from the general idea of the Jewish sacrifices that they were ruled by the conception of the Covenant. In part they embodied the devout action of those for whom the full privileges of the Covenant were in force; and in part they made provision for the restoration of the privileges which had been temporarily forfeited.

(a) Sacrifices made while the covenant relation is valid.

(b) The peace-offerings (HebrewD^, of three kinds: (1) Hebrewnjta thanksgiving: (2) T}} vow: (3) Hebrewn} free-will offering: Lev. vii. 12, 16). Lev. iii. 1 ff.

(a) The sin-offering (HebrewginwjO). Lev. iv. 1 ff.

(b) The guilt-(trespass-) offering (HebrewDdf). Lev. v. 15 ff.

To these must be added the various sacrifices for Purification: Lev. xiv. (lepers); xv. (uncleanness); Num. xix. (contact with dead).

The Peace-offering, through which man entered in a peculiar sense into fellowship with God, was offered after the Sin-offering and the Burnt-offering: Lev. ix. 18; Num. vi. 16 f.

It is necessary to observe that the range of the Levitical atonements was very narrow. They were confined to

(b) Ceremonial offences.

(g) Sins of ignorance.

(d) Certain specified offences: Lev. vi. 1, 7; xix. 20.

They did not deal with moral offences as such: they had no relief for 'high-handed sins.' Here the voice of Psalmist and Prophet met the heart-broken penitent with promises which the Law could not give.

To the other Sacrifices the Passover must be added, which stood by itself and renewed the foundation of the Covenant.

The distinction of Sacrifices as 'bleeding' and 'unbloody' is not expressly noticed in the O. T.; but there were occasions when they were made separately according to the Levitical ritual. Thus we have to notice offerings of

(a) The produce of the earth. Wine: oil: meal. Simple fruits (grapes, olives, &c.²) or flowers were not accepted.

It was required that man's life and labour should have entered into that which he offered to God (Gen. iii. 17—19).

These kinds were mixed in the Meal- (and Drink-) offering (Minchah, Nesek) and offered separately in the Holy Place: Bread: Oil (the lamps): with Incense, but not with Wine.

Incense was not offered by itself.

No details are given as to the Wine: it is once spoken of as HebrewTjtf (Num. xxviii. 7).

The Meal was of 'corn': not less than one-tenth of an ephah (a day's food: Ex. xvi. 16). Barley, which was half the value (2 K. vii. 1), was admitted only in the offering of jealousy: Num. v. 15 ff.

The sheaf of first-fruits was of barley, because that is ripe earliest: Lev. xxiii. 10 (comp. Ruth ii. 23; 2 Sam. xxi. 9).

Oil is a natural symbol of refreshment, light, life, spirit. So it was used for consecration. Comp. Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxv. 14.

The Incense was given wholly to God: of this the priest had no part. It was a symbol of prayer offered to God only (comp. Apoc. viii. 3 f.; v. 8).

It was not used with the sin-offering (Lev. v. 11); or with the jealousy-offering (Num. v. 15).

Leaven was not admitted except Lev. vii. 13; xxiii. 17; nor honey (except as an oblation of first-fruits) which was especially used in offerings to the dead: Porphyr. de antr. Nymph. 18.

Tho use of water as 'poured out before the Lord' (1 Sam. vii. 6; 2 Sam. xxiii. 16) is obviously exceptional.

For the Meal-offering, see Lev. ii. 1 ff: for the Drink-offering, Lev. xxiii. 13, 18, 37; Ex. xxix. 40 f.; xxx. 9; Num. xv. 1 ff.; for Incense, Ex. xxx. 22 ff.

(b) Animals. Clean domestic (not wild) animals: oxen; sheep; goats; pigeons: representing different types of service (comp. Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, pp. 77 ff.).

These served as the support of man's own life, and were nearest to him in labour, and as food.

They were required to be perfect (Hebrew99, hamomoi): Deut. xvii. 1; and, in detail: Lev. xxii. 18 ff.; comp. Mal. i. 8. There was relaxation only in the case of the 'free-will offering': Lev. xxii. 23. The victims were always male in a public offering for the people; and generally a year old: in no case less than seven days: Lev. xxii. 27.

As compared with the requirements of other rituals, the Levitical rules are singularly simple and significant. They contain no restrictions as to colour, &c.

Salt was used with all sacrifices: Lev. ii. 13; Ex. xxx. 35 R.V.; comp. Ezek. xliii. 24; Mk. ix. 49 v. l.; and see also lxx. Lev. xxiv. 7 (add. kai hala).

Salt keeps off corruption; removes impurity; acts internally like fire; sustains peace (by withdrawing elements of disorder): Mk. ix. 50; and so it came to be regarded as a symbol of an indissoluble covenant: Num. xviii. 19.

Compare Philo de vict. § 3 (ii. 240 M.) hoi ales [sumbolon] diamones tes ton sumpanton, ois gar an peripasthosi diaterousi, kai hikanou prosophematos.

The 'meal-offering' made alone was represented by the 'Shew-bread.' The offering in Lev. v. 11 was not a true Minchah; and the offerings of first-fruits were of a different order.

Animal sacrifices alone were made in the sin and guilt offerings (yet notice Lev. v. 11).

The burnt and peace offerings included meal and drink offerings.

(3) Characteristics of ritual. The sacrifices wore to be made at an appointed place: Lev. xvii. 3—5. The access to God was not yet freely open (comp. John iv. 21).

The structure of the Altar was prescribed: Ex. xx. 24 f.; xxvii. 1 ff.

In the Sacrifice itself notice must be taken of (a) the imposition of hands, (b) the killing, (c) the exception of the blood, (d) the application of the blood, (e) the disposition of the victim, (f) the sacrificial meal.

Compare Num. viii. 10 (Num. xxvii. 20; Deut. xxxiv. 9) (hands laid on the Levites); Lev. xvi. 21 (the High-priest laid both hands on the scape-goat); Lev. xxiv. 14 (the hands of the witnesses laid on the blasphemer before he was stoned).

The action expressed an intimate connexion between the offerer and the victim: in some sense a connexion of life: a dedication to a representative office.

The interpretation in each case depended upon tho particular office or act to be fulfilled by the offering.

(b) The killing (HebrewprP: Hebrewn3J and HebrewBGph to be distinguished). As a general rule the killing of the victim (unless it was a bird) was not the work of the priest but of the offerer in the case of private sacrifices: Lev. i. 5; iii. 2; iv. 24, 29. 33; though the priests might kill them. Compare Ochler, § 126.

In sacrifices for the whole nation the victims were killed by the priests who here represented the offerers; and so on the Great Day of Atonement they were killed by the High-priest: Lev. xvi. 15.

The victim was killed with the least possible pain: no stress was laid on death as suffering.

(c) The exception of the blood. The blood of the victim was the appointed means of atonement: Lev. xvii. 11.

It was received by the priests (2 Chron. xxix. 22; comp. 2 Chron. xxx. 16).

In certain cases it was mixed with water: Lev. xiv. 5 f.; but nothing is said in the O. T. of the mixture noticed in Hebr. ix. 19.

(d) The application of the blood. This was the most significant part of the sacrifice. The rules in their solemn variety of detail are characteristic of the Levitical ritual. Elsewhere we read generally of the blood being poured upon the altars. In some cases (e.g. in Arabia) idols were smeared with blood. But there is apparently no parallel to the minute distinctions as to the use of the blood observed in Judaism.

The blood was applied by the priests only, and in four different ways.

i. It was 'sprinkled' (HebrewPit to asperse), i.e. probably it was all thrown about from the bowl directly or by the hand from the bowl 'on the altar [of burnt-offering] round about': Lev. i. 5; iii. 2; vii. 2, &c. This was done in the case of burnt-, peace- and guilt-offerings.

ii. It was 'applied' (HebrewJPJ to give) to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and the remainder poured out at the base of the altar: Lev. iv. 30. This was done in the case of a sin-offering for 'one of the common people.' iii. It was carried into the Holy place, and some of it was applied to the horns of the altar of incense and sprinkled (HebrewP|P) with the finger upon the veil seven times: the remainder was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering: Lev. iv. 6, 17 f. This was done in the case of a sin-offering for a priest or for the congregation.

iv. It was carried into the Holy of holies and sprinkled with the finger 'upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat seven times': afterwards it was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and sprinkled upon it with the finger seven times: Lev. xvi. 14, 15, 18, 19. [Nothing is said of the disposition of the remainder of the blood.] This was done on the Day of Atonement.

(e) The disposition of the victim. The gift to God by fire followed on the completion of the atonement by the use of the blood.

In this connection the word for 'burning' was not Hebrewnb (used of consuming the remains of offerings outside the camp), but HebrewNP 'to cause to [ascend as] smoke.'

The fire was kept perpetually burning: Lev. vi. 13.

The burnt-offerings, and the offerings whose blood was carried into the Holy or most Holy place (sin offerings for the priest or the congregation) were wholly consumed: Lev. iv. 11, 21; xvi. 27; Hebr. xiii. 11. So also were the unbloody offerings for priests.

Other offerings, under special limitations, were consumed by the priests or made the materials of a feast by the offerer.

Two rites, apparently peculiar to the Jews, have to be noticed in this connexion, the 'waving' (HebrewPru$) and the 'heaving' (HebrewnpVUjI) of parts of the offering which were so presented to God and then in some cases resigned by Him to the priests: Ex. xxix. 23 ff.; Lev. vii. 34; viii. 27 ff.; xxiii. 11, 20; Num. v. 25; xv. 19 ff.; xviii. 26 ff.; comp. Num. viii. 9 ff.; xviii. 6 f.

The absence of all inspection of the entrails of the victims, which was usual in Phoenicia, Egypt, &c., is specially to be noticed.

The parts of the offerings which were not consumed by fire were disposed of in different ways.

i. The unbloody offerings of the people except the part burnt as a 'memorial' (HebrewTJtl) were eaten by the priests alone in the court of the sanctuary: Lev. vii. 9 f.; x. 12 ff.

ii. The flesh of the guilt-offerings and of the sin-offerings for one of the people were eaten by the priests in the Holy place: Lev. vi. 25 ff.; vii. 6 ff; x. 16 ff.

iii. In the case of the peace- (thank-) offerings (Hebrewgt), after the disposal of the assigned parts, the offerer made a feast of the remainder within a fixed time and at a fixed place, to which he invited his household, his friends and the poor: Lev. vii. 15 ff.; xix. 5 ff.; xxii. 29 f.; Deut. xii. 6 ff.

In this last case we have the completest view of the sacrifice offered in virtue of a covenant relation with God. The offering is made to God, and He returns part to His worshipper through whom it is made a common blessing. Thus, as Philo pointed out, God received the faithful offerer to His own table: de vict. § 8 (ii. 245 M.).

The student will not fail to notice the representative completeness of the references to the Levitical Sacrifices in the Epistle. Thus we have the general description gifts and sacrifices (v. 1; viii. 3 f.); and, more particularly sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin (x. 8). Mention is made of the daily (x. 11) and of the yearly sacrifices (ix. 6 ff.; x. 1); of the Covenant Sacrifice (ix. 18 ff.); and of the sacrifices which were provided for removing the legal impurities which impaired the validity of the Covenant, through contact with death (ix. 13), or in the common conduct of life, on the Day of Atonement (v. 3; vii. 27 ff.; ix. 7 f.).

*Additional Note on* ix. 9. *The idea of suneidesis*.

The conception of 'the conscience' (he suneidesis), which is not developed in the O. T. (comp. Ecclus. x. 20; Wisd. xvii. 11), comes into clear prominence in the N. T. It presents man as his own judge. Man does not stand alone. He has direct knowledge of a law — a law of God — which claims his obedience, and he has direct knowledge also of his own conduct. He cannot then but compare them and give sentence. His 'conscience,' as the power directing this process, is regarded apart from himself (Rom. ix. 1; ii. 15). The conscience may be imperfectly disciplined and informed (1 Cor. x. 25 ff.; viii. 7 ff.; contrast Acts xxiii. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 9; 2 Tim. i. 3; 1 Pet iii. 16, 21). It may again be modified (1 Cor. viii. 10, 12), and defiled (Tit. i. 15); and finally it may be seared and become insensible (1 Tim. iv. 2). The man is responsible for the character which it assumes.

The distribution of the word in the Books of the N. T. is interesting. It is not found in the Gospels (notice the occurrence in some copies in [John] viii. 9). It occurs in Acts, the central group of St Paul's Epistles (1, 2 Cor., Rom.), the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2 Tim., Tit), the Epistle to the Hebrews and 1 Peter.

The simplest use is that for direct, personal, knowledge with the gen. of the object (1 Cor. viii 7 eidolou, 1 Pet ii. 19 theou, Hebr. x. 2 hamartion), corresponding to suneidenai ti (1 Cor. iv. 4).

The absolute use of the word presents various functions which the conscience fulfils. It is a witness (2 Cor. i. 12; Rom. ii. 15); a judge (2 Cor. iv. 2; v. 11); a motive (1 Pet. ii. 19 dia s.; 1 Cor. x. 25 ff. dia ten s.; Rom. xiii. 5). It is turned to God (Acts xxiii. 1 to theo; xxiv. 16 *pros ton theon); and it becomes an object of consideration to men (1 Cor. x. 28 f.).

In one passage it is placed in a most significant relation with 'the heart' and 'faith' (1 Tim. i. 5). The end of the Apostolic charge is love 'out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.' Purity of personal character, rectitude of moral judgment, sincerity of trust in the unseen, form the triple foundation of active Christian work.

For the manifold description of the conscience see c. x. 22 note; and for references to general discussions see Thayer-Grimm, s.v. Nowhere have the claims of conscience been more nobly set out than in the writings of Mencius: Legge's Chinese Classics ii, Prolegg. 61 ff.

*Additional Note on* ix. 12. *On the use of the term 'Blood' in the Epistle*.

I have endeavoured to shew elsewhere (Addit.' Note on 1 John i. 7) that the Scriptural idea of Blood is essentially an idea of life and not of death. This idea is widely spread among primitive races, and finds a striking illustration in the familiar passage of the Odyssey, where the ghosts of the dead are represented as receiving strength for a time from the blood which they eagerly drink: Od. xi. 36 ff.; 95 ff.; 152; 231.

The Blood, in other words, represents the energy of the physical, earthly, life as it is. The use of the term in the Epistle to the Hebrews becomes first fully intelligible by taking account of this truth. The Blood poured out is the energy of present human life made available for others. 1. The first mention of Blood prepares for all that follows from the conception: Since the children are sharers in blood and flesh, He also in like manner partook of the same...(ii. 14). Christ became true man under such conditions that He could die even as men die, and in dying make the virtue of His life accessible to the race. For it must be remembered that in Scripture death under its present form is not regarded as a natural necessity, but as a consequence of sin. By this perfect assumption of humanity, the sacrifice of absolute obedience became possible. In life and in death Christ was able 'to do the will of God,' both as Son of man and under the circumstances of the Fall (x. 4 ff.). 2. The next mention of Christ's Blood brings before us the accomplishment of this work: Through His own Blood [Christ] entered once for all into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (ix. 12). As, in the type, the Jewish High-priest came before God through and in (v. 25) the power of the life of victims offered up, Christ came before Him 'through His own Blood³.' Through a life lived and a death willingly borne according to the mind of God, He could rightly approach God in His glorified humanity; and at the same time He provided for men also the means of approach 'in His Blood.' 3. This thought comes next. The Life of Christ offered in its purity and fulness to God cleanses men, and enables them also to serve Him Who is a living God (ix. 14). Just as the blood of the appointed victims was efficacious by Divine promise for the representative of the people, the Blood of Christ in its essential nature is efficacious for those to whom it is applied. In the Blood of Jesus—not simply 'through' it—we have boldness to enter into the Holy place (x. 19). In this respect the Blood has a twofold action, personal and social. It is the 'blood of sprinkling' (xii. 24), touching with its quickening power each believer; and it is also a force of consecration through which 'Jesus sanctified the people' (xiii. 12). 4. This last passage brings into prominence yet another thought The Blood of Christ is not only available for individual men. It has established for the race a new relation to God. The offered Life in which Christ found the glorified Life of the Resurrection (xiii. 20 ho anagagon ek nekron...en haimati...), is, in virtue of His Nature, the blood of an eternal covenant (l.c.). In this the Christian is sanctified (x. 29) when he is admitted into the Christian Society. And, however little we may be able to give distinctness to the truth, its hallowing, cleansing, power reaches to all finite things with which man has contact.

The mere indication of the passages, as they follow one after the other and reveal the harmonious completeness of the apostolic teaching, will be enough to encourage the student to examine them in detail in their mutual relations.

*Additional Note on* ix. 12. *The idea of lutrousthai, lutrosis, *.

The use in the N. T. of the group of words connected with Chutror is based upon their use in the lxx. All the simple forms (Chutror, Chutroo, lntrosis, lutrotes) are found there together with the compound apoChutrour (Ex. xxi. 8 for e|; Zeph. iii. 1 for i>K|).

The word Chutron, in relation to men, represents IDb, as a ransom for a life: Ex. xxi. 30; xxx. 12; Num. xxxv. 31 f.; Prov. xiii. 8 (ilasma Aq. Sym. Th.) comp. Prov. vi. 35; TfUp, as the price of a captive: Is. xlv. 13; Tupn (?VJ$), and P^| as the price of redemption of a slave: Lev. xix. 20, and xxv. 51 f. (comp. Num. iii. 46 ff.; xviii 15); and more widely n^KJ, as the price of redemption of land: Lev. xxv. 24.

The verb Chutrousthai is very frequent as the translation of?$\ and PI9 (of each more than forty times). It is used literally of the 'redemption' of that which has been alienated: Lev. xxv. 25 ff. (lutrostai te prasir tou a&Chphou); xxvii. 13 ff.; and in a more general sense of deliverance from the power of outward enemies: Ps. cvi. [cvii.] 2, &c.; from the power of sin: Ps. cxxix. [cxxx.] 8; Dan. iv. 24; and from the power of death: Hos. xiii. 14. It was specially used of the 'redemption' of Israel from Egypt: Ex. vi. 6 (lutronomai umas p brachioni upseChg kai krise migoCh); xn. 13; Deut. nii. 8; ix. 26; xiii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Ps. lxxvi. [lxxvii.] 16; Mic. vi. 4; and of that future 'redemption' of which this was a type: Is. xxxv. 9; xli. 14; xliii. 1, 14).

utrosi occurs with the full breadth of the meaning of the verb: of the redemption of a slave (Lev. xxv. 48), of the firstborn (Num. xviii. 16), of the people (Ps. cx. [cxi.] 8), of the penitent (Ps. cxxix. [cxxx.] 7). Comp. Jud. i. 15 (a false reading of the Hebr.).

lutrotes which is not quoted from classical authors, is found in Ps. xviii. [xix.] 15; lxxvii. [lxxviii.] 35 (for bni). [The form Chutrotai in Lev. xxv. 31, 32 is wrongly referred to the noun; it is evidently from the verbal lutrotos.]

In the N. T. Xvrpov occurs only in Matt. xx. 28 || Mk. x. 45 sounai ten psuchen autou Chutron ant\ pollon. The compound antIChutron is found in I Tim. ii. 6 Ch. I. o ftow «autor antilutron upir pantor.

The verb Chutrousthai is comparatively rare. It occurs only three times, Lk. xxiv. 21 dti autos ivrip 6 milloon Chutrousthai t6n Israel. Tit. ii. 14 Ina Chutrosetai emas apo pases anomias. I Pet. i. 18 ou phtharto\s...Ilutrothet9 ik tes mataias umon anastrophes.. Alla timio aimati.... The variety of construction in these three passages is strikingly representative, (1) absolutely, (2) with apo, (3) with ek and the addition of dat. instr. Apolutrousthai is not found in N.T.

Lutrosis occurs Lk. i. 68 epoiesen lutrosin to lao autou, ii. 38 tois prosdechomenois lutrosin Ierousalem. Hebr. ix. 12 aionian lutrosin heuramenos.

Apolutrosis is much more common: Lk. xxi. 28 engizei he apolutrosin heuramenos humon. Rom. iii. 24 dia tes ap. tes ev X. I. viii. 23 ten ap. tou somatos. 1 Cor. i. de (Iesous) egenethe...hemin...ap. Eph. i. 7 || Col. i 14 en ho echomen ten apolutrosin. id. i. 14 eis ap. tes perpoieseos. iv. 30 eis hemeran ap. Hebr. ix. 15 eis ap. ton epi te prote diatheke parabaseon. xi. 35 ou prosdexamenoi ten ap.

Lutrotes is found only in Acts vii. 35 touton (Mousen) ho theos kai archonta kai lutroten apestalken.

The whole group of words, it will be seen, with the exception of the single occurrence of lutron in the Synoptic narrative, is confined to the Epistles of St Paul and writings (including 1 Peter) which are strongly coloured by his language. They are entirely absent from the writings of St John.

The conception of 'redemption' lies in the history of Israel. The idea of deliverance from Egypt furnished the imagery of hope. To this the work of Christ offered the perfect spiritual antitype. This parallel is of importance, for it will be obvious from the usage of the lxx. that the idea of a ransom received by the power from which the captive is delivered is practically lost in lutrousthai, &c. It cannot be said that God paid to the Egyptian oppressor any price for the redemption of His people. On the other hand the idea of the exertion of a mighty force, the idea that the 'redemption' costs much, is everywhere present. The force may be represented by Divine might, or love, or self-sacrifice, which become finally identical. But there is no thought of any power which can claim from God what is not according to the original ordinance of His righteous compassion.

It follows that the discussions which have been raised on the question of 'To whom was the ransom for man's redemption paid' are apt to be misleading. The deliverance of man from the debt, the captivity, the bondage of sin—however we express the image—could only be through the satisfaction of the claims of a violated law. These claims regarded under the light of punishment present a twofold aspect. To him who rebels against the divine law, they are simply pain: to him who humbly submits himself to it, they are a salutary discipline. The first aspect includes the truth which was expressed by the patristic conception that Christ paid the ransom of man to the devil: the second includes the truth expressed by the later view that the ransom was paid to God. Each view however is essentially incomplete, and it is perilous to attempt to draw conclusions from limited interpretations of Scripture.

The idea of 'redemption,' 'deliverance,' in the spiritual order requires to be supplemented by the idea of 'purchase.' Man has no power of standing by himself. His freedom lies in his complete acceptance of the will of God. When therefore he is 'redeemed' from the power of evil he is also 'purchased,' so as to become wholly in the hands of God. The idea of 'purchase,' though of less frequent occurrence in the N. T. than the idea of 'redemption,' is more widely spread. It occurs in St Paul, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse (agolazein, exagorazein).

1 Cor. vi. 20 ouk este heauton, egorasthete gar times.

1 Cor. vii. 22 f. ho eleutheros kletheis doulos esti Christou. times egorasthete me ginesthe douloi anthropon.

2 Pet. ii. 1 ton agorasanta autous despoten arnoumenoi.

Apoc. v. 9 esphages kai eorasas to theo en to aimati sou ek pases phulpes kai glosses kai laou kai ethnous....

— xiv. 3 f. (adousin hos oden kainen) hoi egorasmenoi apo tes ges...houtoi egorasthesan apo ton anthropon, aparche to theo kai to arnio.

The compound exagorazein combines the thought of redemption with that of purchase:

Gal. iii. 13 Christos hemas exegorasen ek tes kataras tou nomou genomenos huper hemon katara.

— iv. 4 f. exapesteilen ho theos ton huion autou...hina tous hupo nomon exagorase, hina ten huiothesian apolabomen.

The Christian, it appears, is bought at the price of Christ's Blood for God. He is Christ's bond-servant, and at the same time God's son by adoption. They that have been purchased leave a work for others: they are firstfruits to God and the Lamb.

Additional Note on ix. 14. Aspects of Christ's Sacrifice.