(a) Tht' Meh-hizedek Ti/pi'. — The excursus about Melchizedek in ch. 7 is of essential importance to the author's doctrine of Christ's jiricstliood. It were an entire mistake to regard it as a discussion on a curious topic in theology on which the writer happened to have some pet idea.s. In that case the complaint he makes of the dulness of those to whom he writes is altogether unjustifiable. A man may be a good Cliristian, and yet remain ignorant, or even incapable of understanding an abstruse tlieologoumenon on the Melchizedek priesthood. The question at issue is really the f undam'Mital one : was Christ in any sense a priest ? The w: Iter's conviction is that the priesthood of Christ is not understood in its reality and worth, uide.ss it be seen to be of the .\telchizedek type.
In ch. ")" the author indicates the programme of his di.scu.^sion on the priesthood of Christ in the.se words : an Hi'jh Priest, after the order of il/e/- ckizedek: His plan is to employ two types of priesthood to indicate its nature — the order of Aaron, and the order of .Melchizedek. His pur- pose is not, as .some have imagined, to teach that Christ occupied in succession two jiricstly offices, one like that of Aaron, another like that of .Mel- chizedek, the former on earth, the latter in heaven. His intention is rather to utilize the Aaronic priesthood to set forth the nature of Christ's priestly functions, and the Melchizedek priest- hood to set forth their ideal icorth and eternal validity. The two aspects are taken up in the inverse order to that in which they are luimed in the programme: first, a priest after the order of Melchizedek (ch. 7); second, a high priest after the order of Aaron (ch.s. 8. 9).
Every order or species has its characteristic notes or marks ; therefore the first thing to be done is to determine the marks of the Melchizedek ' order.' To this task the writer addre.s.scs him- self in ch. 7'-^, which contains a summary of the facts about Melchizedek as stated in Gn H"-™, with a commentary pointing out their religious significance, and extracting from the facts the desired marks of the type. To make the facts serve his purpose the writer finds it nece.ssary to attach importance, not merely to what is said of Melchizedek, but to what is not .said, — to the silences as well as to the utterances of history : also to give ideal nuaning to the names occurring in the story. This method of interpretation ni.iy seem vicious. We may call it allegorical, or allege that it is borrowed from I'hilo ; the im- portant thing to note is that it is his method. By this way he reaches what he is in quest of — the notes of the type. These are, in all, five. Taking them in the order in which they are referred to in the commentary, they are tlie.se: the Melchizedek type of priesthood is, first, a r»;/(i/ priesthood (kinn of righteousness); second, a riijlttemts priesthood (king of riijIiteoKsnesa)] third, a priesthood pro- motive of peace, or exerci.sed in the counti->' of peace (king of Salein = king of peaee); fourth, a pemonal, not an inherited dignity (without father, without mother, i.e. so far us ibo recoril is con
33:;
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
ceriu'(l); lifth, it is an eternal priestliood (witliout beginning of ilays or imhI of life — so far as tlie record is concerai'd). The first fonr may be con- ceived as standing to the lifth in the relation of cause to effect. IJeeanse tlie priesthood in iiuestiou possesses these cliaracteristics, it is eternal.
()l).serve, now, what the writer is really (h)ing in making this ingenions commentary on the brief narrative in Cenesis. He is trying to lix the characters of an itleal priestluKul. lie is solving the problem. What is the highest conceivable type or kind of priesthood ? He might have adojited the method of philosophic speculation for the purpo.se, instead of the method of interpreting an DT text. The <|Uestion may be a.sked. Does the latter method fully serve the purpose — give us all the e.ssiiitial features of the ideal '.' To answer it, one must have in one's miml a conception of the ideal. Now, with- out hesitation one would .say that these things at least must enter nito the iilea of a priesthood of the highest order. The priest must be really not ritually, holy ; he must not be a mere sacerdotal druil;;e, but one whose priestly ministry is a course of i/rwii)iis eniKleseeiisian — n. royal jiriest ; he must be one wlui, by his pers mal worth and oflicial a"ts. can estalilish a reign of righteousness, peace, and perfect fellowship between man and (iod ; finally, he must be one who ever liveth, whose I)riesthood does not pa.ss from him to another, as a guarantee for the maintenance of peace.
Uul what about sacrifice, the most e.s.sential feature, one would say, in the vocation of a priest ? We oljserve that in the clo.se of the Melchizedek excursus, in a description of the ideal priest, which seems intended to supplement and complete the definition of the .Melcliizedek type, it is said that the ideal v'l'icst does not need to repeat sacrifice ("-'). But there is a previous (piestion : does he oiTer sacrifice at all, and what is his sacri- fice ? By the method of laying stress on the silences, one would say that in the Melcliizedek type there is no sacrifice at all, no mention being made of such in the liistory. If this were so, then it would saem to follow that precisely tfie most vital feature in the priestly office of Christ — the sacrificial offering of ifiHi.fc//— lay outside the type, as something siii generis, having nothing analogous to it either in the priesthood of Mel- cliizedek or in that of Aaron. That wonld be a serious tiaw in the writer's apologetic argument, too serious for him to have overlooked it. We must look more closely to see whether self-sacrilice be not iminanent in the other characteristics of the ideal priest. We start from the statement that the ideal priest needs not to repeat sacrifice, like the high ))ricst,s of Lsrael (7'-'). Why so ? 15ecaiLse of the otiier characteristics, especially that pointed at by the epithets holy, harmless, undeflled, which unfold the contents of the idea of righteous- nes.s. Because the ideal priest is holy (ditrios) in relation to God, benevolent (liKaKos) towards men, and free from any fault that might disiiualify for priestly functions (anlavro^), therefore he needs not to repeat sacrifice. But for the same reason he must offer one sacrifice, himself, ( )\w, who answers to the description king of riyhteuusne.sa, one who realizes in his character the ethical ideal, cannot escape the sacrifice of him.self in this world. That is not said, but .surely it must have been in the writer's mind. It was self- evident to him that one who had all the other characteristics of the Melcliizedek type must have this one also, that he w:us ready to lay down his life for righteonsness. equally so that he would be called on to do this, living as a holy one in an unholy world.