HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
the phrase iv vlf, used to describe the agent of the Chrisriiin revelation. In the end of the diiys God spake to men hy one liavin;; the staniliin; of ii son. A son knows all that is in a Father's mind ; when 111- has sjioken there is nothing more to be said.
(:; ) Clirist <iii(l Aiiijih. — We are apt to think that the second comparison, that between Christ and angels, might have been dispensed with. IJnt the author was writing for the benetit of Jiir^ (this, in the meantime, may be assumed ; it is tlie im- pression one naturally first takes from the book), and angels held a prominent i)lace In contemporary .lewish religious thought. To them was assigned the function of executors of t;od"s will in the natural world, and also tliat of intermediaries between .1" and Israel in the lawgiving. The law wa.s a word spoken by angels (2-, cf. Ac 7*^, (iai :\^'->). Therefore, whatever the writer's own thoughts might be as to the position of angels in the universe and in the history of revelation, he was under the necessity of deferring to current opinion and speaking of them as rivals to Christ. Therefore his second thesis is : Christ better than angels, his proof consisting of a mosaic of ()T texts which bring out a threefold contrast : Christ to angels as son to .servants, as king to subjects, as creator to creatures. 'I'he conclusion is that the e.ssential function of angels is to serve. They are miiustering spirits — all of them, even the highest archangel — to God, to Christ, even to Cliristinnn — 'sent forth for service to those who are about to inherit salvation' (1").
(3) Ctirist and Moses. — For Moses the writer had a much deeper respect than for angels, whose rOle he probably conceived to be greatly inflated in .Jewish theology. Jloses was a great historic reality, \vho.se functions in behalf of Israel at the creative epoch of her history he was not tempted to disparage. But even Moses occupied a place of subordination compared to Jesus, and he does not hesitate to point the fact out, contriving, how- ever, to do so in a nuuiner that could not wound .Jewish susceptibilities, lie knows how to prai.se Moses whik; yet giving him the second place. Faithful in all God's house, on God's own testi- mony, yet faithful only as a servant. But Christ Wiis faithful as a son.
(4) Christ and Aaron. — While the comparison be- tween Christ and Moses is despatched in a few sentences, that between Christ and Aaron runs through two chapters. This is not due to the writer having a higher esteem for Aaron than for -Moses. The reverse was the fact. While for his mind Moses was probably one of the world's greatest men, and the Kxodus one of the great heroic achievements of human history, the char- acter and functions of the first high [iriest of Israel seem to have inspired him with only moderate respect. All that elaborate ritual on the great Day of Atonement, in which the high priest played the princii)al part, .seemed to him much ado about nothing. For the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin. How poor that Levitical sacri- ficial system compared with the one sacrifice of Christ, who by an eternal spirit offered Himself to Goil ! But why, then, make the comparison, and at such length? Because he is writing for people who think Aaron a very august figure, and his sacerdotal service one of very great import- ance ; and because his apologetic method requires him to use Aaron as a type whereby to convey to ill-instructed Hebrew Christians some rudi- mentary ideas as to the nature of Christ's sacer- dotal functions.
(5) Christ and ?felch>sedek. — One other OT per- sonage is brought upon the stage in the course of the argument — Melchizedek. He is introduced, however, not for the purpose of contrast, but to aid
iti the embodiment of the writer's lofty conception of Christ's priestly function. His thesis here is not. Christ t/renter than Melchizedek. but, Christ like Melcliizedek. His use of this historic figure also serves an apologetic purpose, but in a different way. He had a ditticuliy to meet in coiniexion with the doctrine th.al Chri.st was a luie.st. .Jesus did not belong to the tribe of Levi. That was an insurnu)untalile obstacle to the recognition of Him as a priest for law-ridden minds, llow, then, does the writer deal with il '.' In effect thus : ' I know i|uite well that .Jesus could not be a priest on earth, i.e. one of the only class of priests you .Jews are accpiainted with, because He did not belong to the tribe whence the priests are taken. But the lleb. oracles know of another priesthood besides the l.evitical, whereof they make honourable mention— that of Melcliizedek, i)riest of the Most High God. It was a more ancient priesthood than that of Aaron. Do you rejily : yes, .ancient enough, but rude, suitable only for primitive times, and, of course, superseded by a regularly estab- lished s.icerdotal da.ss, like that of Aaron and his family '.' I s,ay, not so, for in a jisalm later than the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and recognized by you all as Messianic, the Mehhize- dek priesthood is referred to as if it were the ideally perfect type. " A priest for ever after the orderof Melchize<lek," The Christ is to be a priest after this ideal type. And He is appointed by an oath of God which implies that it is an appoitit- inent of unique importance. And God declares that He will not rejieiu of the appointment, which teaches by implication that God has rei)ented of another kind of priesthood, and that it will pa.ss away, .and that the new priesthood will be of such excellence that it will never need to pass away.' We have here an apologetic use of the ancient priesthood of the king of Salem, analogous to that m.ade by the Apostle I'aul of the promise given to Abraham long before the era of the lawgiving.