The self-sacrifice of the ideal priest, the priest after the Melchizedck type, can be reached by
another line of deduction, viz. from the roya\ character of the type. The ideal priest is not a legal drudge, but a king who graciously con- descends. Carry out the idea of conileseension to its utmost limit and it will yield the result of a life laid clown for othei-s: this is the ne phis ultra of condescension and voluntary sacenlolal servii'e, and the reijuiremenls of the ideal cannot be .satisfied with anything short of it. 'The Son of .Man came not to be ministeied unto, but to minister, and to give his lite a ransom for the many.' ' Who loved me. aiul gave himself for me.'
It is obvious that in these thoughts we pass out of the region of the ritual into the ethical, and are dealing with a kind of sacrifice of entirely dilTerent character and of incomparably greater value than tho.se pertaining to sacrifices of Leviti- cal victims. But to this there will be occasion to refer at a later stage. .Meantime it remains to indicate the use made of the Aaronic priest- hood in the exposition of the jiriestlv oflioe of Christ.
(|3) The Aitrnnir Type. — The chief use is that of afoil. The luirden of the section, chs. 8'-'J'^*, is: the priestly ministry of Christ immeasurably superior to that of Aaron. The ruble of the whole pa.s.sage is: the mure exeellent miiiiittry. But as comiiarison can be m.ade only between things having a certain resemblance, eulogy runs along the line of parallelism. Superiority is estab- lished oil a basis of similitude. The points of resemblance are very general. Common to both is saerijiee, a saiietuary where sacrifice is olTered, and a grand representative ceremnnial in which the two .systems culminate. The finst point is briefly noticed in H''. Kvery high priest is ap- pointed to offer sacrifice, therefore this man (Jesus) must also have something to offer. The vague statement is meant to jirovoke thought in dull Hell, readers. 'This man, if He be a priest, must have something to otTer. What can it be'.' He has indicated what it is already — Himski.f' ("-"), but he knows they have not gra.sped it. and he provokes them to reflection: 'What can it be? Not bulls and goats, of course ; what then ? ' The second topic, the two sanctuaries, is handled at greater length (!)'^' "). The construction and fur- niture of the Levitical tabernacle are minutely described, not, however, in an aiuiiiuarian sjiirit, but with a definite apologetic aim. The .salient points in the description are the division of the sanctuary into two coniiiartments separated by a veil, and the peculiar manner in which the location of the altar of incense {Sviuar-qpiov) is indicated. Of course it is the altar of inceii.se that is meant; there should never have been any doubt about that. And it is represented as he- limi/infi to (not jiliysically within) the Holy of Holies. The phrase is: the Holy of Holies liav- ing the golden altar of incen.se. The meaning is: that altar, though standing without the veil, be- ing required for daily service, belonged of right, in .spirit and function, to the inner shrine. And this antinomy — without in fact, within by right ^is meant to startle into thought the sluggish minds of Hebrew Chri.stians. ' Whence this puzzle as to the whereabouts and relations of the altar of incense ? See ye not, it is all due to the exist- ence of that veil, the emblem of a nule, imperfect, transient religion ? ' In comparison with the earthly tabernacle, the one in which Christ offici- ates is described as ' the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands' (!)"). and not belruiging to the visible creation, not constructed out of material things, like the precious cloths, woods, and metals of the old tabeniacle, which, however precious, were, like all material things, destined to wax old and vanish away.
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
3:53
Tlie ceveuKiiiial selected for coinparison is that of the fiieat Day of Atoneiiieut. In that stalely cereniuiiial the Levitii^al ritual culiiiinaleil and was si'en at its best. In it also, and iji it alone, the Holy of Holies eanie into use. It was the one service in tlie year in which Israel's repre.sentative man came into the immediate pre.sence of God. It also lent it-self to comparison at this vital jioint, the hi^'h jjrie.st's entrance into the inner shrine beinij comparable to the entrance of Jesus into heaven. The latter event is therefore naturally expres.sed in terms of the former, S'^'"!i ''•■**' "it points in the description to obscurities, such as the repre.-!entation of Christ entering thrmujli His oion blood into the holy place (i"-).
All Ihrouijh, the unixpres-sed refrain 'more ex- cellent' is audible, but it arrests the ear .specially in connexion with the closing comparison between the effects of the two ])riestly functions — that of Aaron on the ijreat Day of Atonement, ami that ot Christ when after His death on the Cross He entered into heaven. The effect of the one w;v.s to cancel the errors, or ignorances {aynornjATuv, 1)'), of the people througliont the bygone year, to wipe out all the offences asainst Levitical law com- mitted in a twelveinontli, so that they might make a fresh start. The effect of the other was to obtain an 'eternal redemption' {aiaviav \vt pwcm) . Comparison here becomes futile : it is a compari- son of the finite to the infinite.