Solomon also was aware that the prediction of Ks- than would not have its final fulfilment in his mate- rial temple (1 Kings viii, 26-27). After the death of Solomon, prophecy pointed m^e and more directiy towards a certain, particular, future descendant of Da- vid, entirely distinct fh»m his then existing posterity (comp. Isaiah vii, 14 ; ix, 6, with x, 21). From the chas- tised house of David, the fallen truoJc, a fresh faraodi was to spring (Isaiah xi, 1), and to rule over the na- tions through a reign of peace and righteousneas. Yet that he was not to be an ordinary earthly king, nor s Levitical priest, but a king^priest according to tiie or- der of Melchlzedek, had tdready been shown in Psa. ex, 4, and is more fully developed in Zech. vi, 12, 13, with distinct reference to 2 Sam. vii, Psa. ex, and Isaiah xL
2. The Jfanifestation in N. T.^The carnal Israel awaited a worldly', earthly Messiah, who should estab- lish a worldly kingdom. "The Prophet" (6 wpo^^nfCi John vi, 14) appeared to them to be distinct from the Messiah, a sort of precursor of tiie latter (comp. Maik viii, 27, and John i, 21) ; but the faithful, enlightened b}' the spirit of God, thought otherwise. To them hsd Jesus already been announced by John the Baptist (Matt iii, 8 ; comp. with xii, 18, Luke iii, 4) as the "servant of Gtod" promised by Isaiah, in whom the prophetic, priestiy, and kingly offices should be united; and the Lord himself appears in these three aspects m his life, his passion, and his death.
When he goes about teaching that the " kingdom of God" has come, and confirming his words by mira- cles, he does a prophet's work, and therefore the peo- * pie themselves recognise him as the " prophet" (Loke vii, 16 ; ix, 8 ; John iv, 19 ; vii, 40). But be not only spoke as a prophet, but he was and is The Prophet, the revealer of the Father in the absolute sense. The key to this perception is given us in the passage Heb. i, 1 : ^^Godf who at sundry times and in divers nuamen spake in times p€Ut unto the fathers bg the prophets^ koA in these last dags spoken unto usbghis <Son," etc., L e. he has manifested the fulness of his essence and of his will in a personal revelation in Him who ftom all etemity has been the one God and consubstantial with the Fa- ther. Therefore he is in John i, 1, called the Word, in whom God iv apxj expressed his essence to him- self (irp^c rbv ^(6v), " by whom all things were jnade; without whom was not any thing made that was made; in whom was life ; and the life was the light of men." Christ, as the Word become man, is then no longer s prophet merelg in word and action, but is one in his very essence. His whole being and essence is the revelation of the Father (John xiv, 9).
CHRIST, OFFICES OF
265 CHRIST, SINLESSNESS OF
The EpbUe to the Hebrews represents Christ as a priest, nay, even as the etemo/ kigh-pnest (Heb. vii). He is the eternal high-priest because of his haying of- feied the only eternally valid sacrifice, the final sacri- fice which renders all others henceforth saperflnous — kim$elf. His being in other parts of the Scriptures considered more as the hostia (victim) than as the priest, is merely a formal, not a material difference. Christ, on the one hand, absolutely satisfied the de- mands of God's law upon man (namely, to be sinless, holy, and filled with the love of God), and thus ren- dered the obedientia aeiwa which we do not render ; and, on the other hand, he assumed the penalty which the law hiflicted on the sinner, "Thou shalt die the death," on himself; he who owed nothing sufibring for thiose who are debtors. See Atonembht ; Obb- DiEHCE. He thus, by substitution, took upon him- self our debt and its penalty, and became an expia- tory offering for us. For the fhndamental principle of an offerings for sin under the old dispensation was Uiis very subetitution of one to suffer death for an- other; who could have been the mediating priest be- tween Christ and the Father ? He himself, the sin- less, holy, the Xoyoc — vpo^iirnQ^ who had ever been with the Father, was the priest who, in eternal high- priestly purity, gave himself as an offering. His ac- tions and his sufferings cannot be divided. He did not make an offering of himself suddenly, ex dbrupto, with no connection with his previous life. On the contrary, his priestly, holy life brought him to his death. Thus was his offering a priestly one.
From the death of Christ the crown of thorns is in- eepaiable. So from the crown of thorns the crown of kingly dignity and power is inseparable. When, in the days of his humiliation, he was recognised and pro- claim^ as the promised **Son of David,'* the expected '"Meesiah-king," he accepted the title (Matt, ix, 27; xviii, 30; xv, 22 ; zii, 28; xxi, 9). But the fulfilment of his kingly mission took place in a manner entirely opposite to that which the people had expected. His Idngly mission culminated at the very moment when he declared unto Pilate that he was king, and there- upon received the crown of thorns (John xviii, 87, and xix, 2, comp. with verses 12-16 and verse 21). Here the kingly ofllce became closely connected with the priestly. As a reward for this royal abnegation he was crowned with the crown of glory (Heb. ii, 9; Phil, ii, 9, 10), became head of the Church (Ephes. i, 22), and Lord over all (f^hes. i, 21). And all who come to him by £uth are given to him as his own (John xvii, 6), and he claims for them a share in his glory (venes 22, 24, 26). The ChristiaifH^hurch is thus fully justified in considering the prayer in John xvii as a troe high-priestly prayer of the priestly king and king- ly priest (Psa. ex, 4) for his pecple, and not merely as th9 intercession of a prophet for his disciples.