W. Taylor Smith, M.A., Sevenoaks, Kent.
Rev. Harry Herbert Snell, B.A., Reading.
Late Rev. J. Soutar, M.A., Tiberias, Palestine.
Alexander Souter, M.A., Litt.D., Yates Pro- fessor of New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford.
Rev. W. B. Stevenson, B.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Introduction in the Theo- logical College, Bala.
Rev. George Wauchope Stewart, B.D., Aber- deen.
Rev. Robert Laird Stewart, D.D., Professor in Lincoln University, Chester Co., Penn.
Rev. Darwell Stone, M.A., Pusey Librarian, Oxford.
Rev. G. Gordon Stott, B.D., London.
Rev. R. H. Strachan, M.A., Elie.
Rev. A. PoLLOK Sym, B.D., Lilliesleaf.
Rev. John G. Tasker, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Handswortli Col- lege, Birmingham.
Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A., Aberdeen.
Rev. Milton Spencer Terry, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Christian Doctrine in the Garrett Biblical Institute, Northwestern University.
Rev. G. W. Thatcher, B.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament History in Mansfield Col- lege, Oxford.
Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.
Rev. William D. Thomson, M.A., Edinburgh.
Xll
AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I
Rev. Edward Harper Titchmarsh, JM.A.,
Sheffield. j
Kev. Geerhardus Vos, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of I
Biblical Tlieology in Princeton Theological j
Seminary, X.J. Rev. G. H. S. AValpole, D.D., Rector of Lambeth. ' Kev. Benjamin Breckinridge 'Warfield, D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of Theology in Princeton
Theological Seminary, N.J. Rev. George C. Watt, B.D., Edinkillie. Rev. Thomas H. Weir, B.D., M.R.A.S., Lecturer
in Hebrew and Arabic in the University of
Glasgow. Professor Dr. Johannes Weiss of the University
of Marburg. Rev. Newport J. D. AVhite, D.D., Lecturer in
Hebrew and Divinity in the University of
Dublin, and Canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Kev. B. Whitefoord, D.D., Prebendan- of Salis- bury Cathedral and Principal of the Theological College, Salisbury.
Rev. A. R. AVhitham, ^LA., Prmcipal of the Culham Training College, Abingdon.
Rev. J. R. Willis, B.D., Rector of Preban and Jloyne, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow.
Herbert G. Wood, M.A., Fellow of Jesus Col- lege, Cambridge.
Rev. Nathan E. Wood, President of the Theo- logical Seminary, and Professor of Christian Theology, Newton Centre, Mass.
Rev. Arthur W. Wotherspoon, M.A., Glasgow.
Rev. T. H. Wright, Edinburgh.
Rev. Andrew C. Zenos, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the M'Cormick Theo- logical Seminary, Chicago.
"a^^:^
1 -p-BO-ff ..nit
A ■- -
lo
3
\--A :
DICTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS
AARON. — The name occurs only 5 times in the NT. Three of the passages contain historical references only : Lk P where Elisabeth is de- scribed as ' of the daughters of Aaron ' ; Ac V which refers to the request of the Israelites that Aaron would ' make them gods ' ; and He 9^ 'Aaron's rod that budded.' The other two pas- sages refer to Aaron's office as high priest, and are directly concerned with the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of Christ. In He 5^ we read, ' And no man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron ' ; and He 7" speaks of another priest after the order of Mel- chizedek, who should ' not be reckoned after the order of Aaron.' It is as the representative high priest that Aaron has been regarded as a type of Christ.
The two points on which the writer of Hebrews insists are, one of comparison, and one of contrast. On the one hand, Christ, like Aaron, did not take His priestly office on Himself, but was directly appointed by God (5^) ; on tlie other, the Aaronic type of priesthood is sharply distinguished from that of our Lord in certain fundamental respects. Christ was indeed divinely appointed : He was prepared for service, in being made like His brethren (2-'), and fitted by His sympathy (4'°) and fidelity to undertake priestly work on their behalf ; through His death on the cross He ottered Himself as a sacrifice, apparently on earth and certainly in heaven as a temple not made with hands (9-*) ; He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him as priest, seeing He ever lives to make priestly intercession for them (7-'*). Thus far He was Aaron's antitype. But the analogy fails most seriously in certain important features, as the writer of Hebrews shows. Christ's priesthood was not according to the Law. If He were on earth. He would not be a priest at all, springing as He did from Judah, not from Levi (7"). He did not hold His office in virtue of earthly descent, nor was He limited to an earthly sanctuary, nor did He present to God a sin-offering which could be, or needed to be, frequently repeated (9"'-). None of the sacrifices of the Law could ' make perfect as pertaining to the conscience ' (9'). At loest they procured only a limited access to God. Into the holiest place the high priest was permitted to enter only once a year, and then in virtue of sacrifices offered for
VOL. I. — I
his own sins, as well as the people's (9'). Christ's priesthood was 'after the order of Melchizedek' (6-"), eternal : His sacrifice was a spiritual one, ofi'ered once for all ; it is impossible to think of the repetition on earth of that ottering which 'through (the) eternal Spirit' (9'^) our glorified High Priest presents continually in 'a more per- fect tabernacle' (v.") in heaven itself, for us. He was made a priest, not according to any legal enactment belonging to earth and finding its ex- pression in the Hesh ; but dynamically, according to the enduring power of an indissoluble life (7'").