1. Use in regard to Jews. — The actual high priest of the day figures in Acts alone (4'' 7' 22= 2,j\ etc.), whilst in Heb. the original and tj'pical high priest, Aaron, is introduced for the purpose of comparison with the priest of the New Covenant. The term is used with some laxity even in Acts, as in 4^, where it is applied to Annas, whose son-in-law Caiaphas was the actual holder of the office. Apparently it covered the group of ex-high-priests, whose number varied with the frequent changes of appointment made by the Roman authorities, and was the style of address of the occupant of the chair at any important meeting of the Sanhedrin. The phrase * chief priests,' again confined to Acts,* is of the same elastic kind. It included such officials prob- ably as were ' of the kindred of the high priest ' (Ac 4^), with such representatives of the priesthood as were prominent through ability or influence. Technically it was confined at first to the heads of the twenty-four courses ; but the term was convenient and fluid, and when used loosely, em- braced any priests wliose character or status gave
* In the Didache the title is triven to the prophets, who are re- presented as pronouncing the blessintr at the Eucharist in such words as they pleased. But the question o! the date and trust- worthiness of this part of the document has lately been re- opened, and a date within our century is inipossit)le (see C. Bigg, The Doctrine of the Twelm Apostles, 1898, and especially J. Armitage Robinson, JThSt xiii. [1911-12] 339 ff.).
them a certain recognized authority. After the fall of Jerusalem they rapidly declined in influence tlirough their loss of income and inability to dis- charge their sacrilicial duties, liut their priestly ]H'digree still remained a distinction, preserved by the incidence upon them of special prohibitions, thougli not investing them witli any authority comparable in fact with that of the Rabbis, the masters and exjjounders of the I, aw. A sacrili<'ial priest becomes an anachronism when his duties are in abeyance, and the opportunity for their discharge is but a hojic always dcft^rcd.
2. The priesthood of Jesus Christ. — According to apostolic teaching, Jesus Christ (a) gathered to Himself all the iileas essential to the conception of a sacerdotal |)erson or ministry ; (h) particularly was the antitype, in regard alike to qualilication and to function, of all the distinctive features of the Jewish institution, but stood eternally above all His predecessors, closing the line of development in Himself in smdi a final and comi)lete way that no other priest is needed, and no real want of the human soul is left unmet.
(a) In the earliest times the priestly was a part of the parental function, but was so far separable from it that any adult man was held to be able to approach God for himself with ofl'erings or prayers, and after due preparation to communicate Divine responses to others. Gradually the offices were differentiated. Access to God in aspiration and vow remained the recognized privilege of every man, while in the case of sacrificial duties, of every- thing that belonged to the deep religious life and to the promptings begotten of the consciousness of an actual or imminent breach in right relation with God, resort was had to an official class or family. In the course of time the members of this class were invested with a quasi-sacred dignity, and were regarded as intermediaries between God and man. On the one hand, they were the representa- tives of man to God, and through them only could ofl'erings be made that would expiate sin or jiro- pitiate an offended Deity. They were the cus- todians of the prescribed ritual, the acknowledged mediators. On the other hand, they were the representatives of God to man ; and, however this character may have been claimed or possessed by the prophets, the prophets were rather preachers of righteousness, and not directly concerned with the aclministration of institutional religion. The priest presented the sacrifice to God, and blessed the people 'in the name of the Lord' (Dt 21''), settling ililficult perplexities and sending men away from the altar with the assurance of Divine grace and help. For Jesus Christ as Priest and High Priest the NT claims this doubly representative character. The phrase 'appointeu for men in things pertaining to God' (He 2" 5') suggests, if it does not actually cover, ' appointed for God in things pertaining to man.' He oilers Himself, as representing man, as a sacrifice for man. Between God and man there is only ' one mediator, himself man ' (1 Ti ¥), who gave Himself a ransom for all, and in whom men are blessed with every spiritual blessing (Eph 1^). As representative of God, He reveals the Father, and gives men in Himself the sum of all benediction. As representative of men, He approaches God with an adequate oll'ering, and continues permanently to act as our Paraclete or Advocate (I Jn 2') — an office which includes, though it is not conlined to, His priestly work.
The NT is far from silent in regard to the con- ditions of His appointment as Priest and Repre- sentative. He was not self-appointed, nor on the other hand was He selected and chosen by those whom He represents. The latter course was im- possible in the case of a priesthood alfecting an generations, future and past as well as present ;