PRIEST
PKIEST
417
Melchizodek priesthood. He was a royal person (wIulIi Aaron was nut) ; an abiding person (which Aaron was not) ; n unique })erson (which Aaron was nut). It is the personal superiority in these respects over the priesthood of Aaron that is d^elt upon in coiniexion witli Mekhizedek. There is, of course, no coini)arison drawn between Melchizedsk and Christ, but use is made of JMelchizedek to sym- bolize the personal superiority of Clirist's priesthood over all others — a priest'iood that is older, wider, more lasting than that of Aaron.
(5) The pa rt ir uht r /unit ions of Christ' s priesthood . — It is in connexion with tlie Aaronic priesthood that the ivork of Christ's priestliood is considered. A contrast is made, as is shown by the recurring key word ' better ' (7-- 8" ct al. ). Our Lord never was a j)riest of the Aaronic line (7'^' " 8^), but it was necessary to use the illustration of the Aaronic j)riesthood to denote Christ's priestly functions, because no characteristic jjriestly functions are re- corded of Mekhizedek. A series of comparisons between Aaron's and Christ's priesthood needs careful attention : («) first generally in 2i'- ^^ with reference to personal qualification ; (b) then after bare mention in 3\ more fully in i^-*"^^. (c) But it is in 5^'^" that we have the first definite comparison. In vv.^"' the reciuirements of the Aaronic priest- hood are stateil in regard to (a) office (v.^), (/3) character (vv.--^), (7) Divine appointment (vv.'*-^). In vv.*^"'^' we have the fulfilment of these require- ments in Christ stated in the reverse order : (a) Divine appointment (vv.^- ^), (/3) character (vv."-*), (7) office (vv."-'"). (d) Then in ch. 7 we have the comparison and contrast between Mekhizedek and Aaron, with the superiority of the former, on three grounds : (a) A.aron was not royal, (/i) Aaron did not abide, by reason of death, (7) Aaron had many successors. The superiority of the person gives superiority to the functions, (e) Then in chs. 8-10 the superiority of the work of Christ is compared with that of Aaron under three aspects : (a) a better covenant (ch. 8), because spiritual, not temporal ; (/3) a better sanctuary (ch. 9), because heavenly, not earthly ; (7) a better sacrifice (ch. 10), because real, not symbolical. In the course of this entire discussion several elements of superiority emerge. A superior order (7^"^'), a superior tribe (v.^''), a supei'ior calling (v.-^), a superior tenure (vv.^- -■*), a superior character (v.-^), a superior sanctuary and a superior covenant (ch. 9), a superior sacrifice (ch. 10). After ch. 10 there is nothing priestly in the terms used, though ch. 13 refers to functions con- nected with the priesthood. The functions of priesthood may thus be summed up as (a) access to God for man, (b) ottering to God for man, (c) intercession with God for man ; and the superiority of our Lord's priesthood is shown in the follow- ing particulars: (1) It is royal in character, (2) heavenly in sphere, (3) spiritual in nature, (4) con- tinuous in efhcacy, (5) perpetual in duration, (6) universal in scope, (7) ett'ectual in results.
At this point tiiere are three questions that call for attention, (a) There is no real distinction be- tween 'Priest 'and 'High Priest.' Christ is both (5«- 1" 6'-» 7'- '^- '5- "• -'). The ditt'erence is one of rank only, the High Priesthood being, as it were, a specialized form. The term ' high priest ' occurs only nine times in the OT, of which but two are in the Pentateuch, and it is curious that the term is never once applied to Aaron. Tliis clearly shoAvs that there is no real distinction between the two offices, for if there had been an essential difference from the first, Aaron would have been called ' high priest.' Christ is never termed 'High Priest" in connexion with Mekhizedek, but only when Aaron is under consideration. As, however, the distinc- tion was current in NT times, it was necessary to show that Christ fulfilled both offices. VOL. II.— 27
(b) Hebrews dwells very carefully on Christ's ottering as connected with His death on the cross, and also on His entrance into heaven as connected with His Ascension. Tlie absence of reference to the Resurrection (except in 13'-") is exi)lained bj- the fact that there was no place for this event in the type. Attention is therefore called to the two i)arts of the one priestly function of ottering which was connected with the D.ay of Atonement, the sacrihce of the animal without the camp (13^^-^-), and the entrance into the Holiest with the blood of the animal sacrificed. Stress is laid on the Ascension because that is regarded as the moment of our High Priest's entrance into heaven on our behalf (9^-* -■'). It is the close as- sociation of these two parts that explains 8^ ' It is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to otter.' The view that this verse teaches that Christ is now continually ottering Himself to God in heaven is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the Epistle, which lays such stress on the associa- tion of the ottering with Christ's death, and which also dwells on the uniqueness and completeness of the ott'ering (icpdwa^, 7"' 9'-- '-*), and on the -session at God's right hand (the attitude of a victor, not an ott'erer). Further, the great^ and essential char- acteristic of the New Covenant is remission of sins (8* 10"- '-), and this was possible only after the ott'ering was completed (4^" 9^^"'--). The aorist tense in 8'* seems decisive in associating the ott'ering with the death. It may be ' timeless ' (G. Milligan, Thcol. of the Ep. to the Hebrews), but at least it is not continuous (\Yestcott, in lor.). If with A. B. Davidson we interpret this ' somewhat to otter ' of the heavenly sanctuary, as seems only natural, the conditions are exactly fulfilled by the fact and at the moment of ascension, when Christ first appeared befoi'e God for us, and then sat down at the right hand of God, having fulfilktl all the requirements of the work of ott'ering anil presenta- tion of Himself on our behalf. The ott'ering in Hebrews is invariably associated with sin, not with consecration; with Christ's death, not with His life ; and ott'ering is therebj' shown to be the char- acteristic work of a priest. To regard our Lord as now ott'ering, or representing, or re-presenting Him- self in heaven, is to think of Him in the attitude of a worshipper instead of on the throne. His work of offering and presentation was finished before He sat down, and it is significant that what the author calls the 'pith,' or 'crowning-point' (KecpaXaiov) of the Epistle (8^) is a 'high priest who is set down.' This exactly answers to the type on the Day of Atonement. When the high priest had presented the blood, his work was complete ; and if we could imagine him able to remain there in the presence of God, he would staj' on the basis of that com- plete ott'ering and not as continuing to otter or present anything. Besides, there was no altar in the Holy of Holies, and there could therefore be no real sacrificial ott'ering. Christ is not now at an altar or a mercy-seat, but on the throne. If it be said that intercession is an insufficient idea of His priestly life above, it may be answered that otter- ing and intercession do not exhaust His heavenly life. His presence there on our behalf as our Representative includes everything. He Himself is (not merely His death was) the propitiation (1 Jn '2-). Does it not betoken a lack of spiritual perception to demand that Christ should always be iloing something? Why may we not be content with the thought that He is there, and that in His presence above is the secret of peace, the assurance of access, and the guarantee of perma- nent relation with God ? It is just at this point that one essential difference between type and anti- type is noticed. The high priest went into the Holy of Holies ' ivith blood'; but when Christ's