.14--17.
Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος,
312
16. ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς
«σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου - 17. " μαρ-Ἀν.6; Ps.
τυρεῖ” γὰρ,
«Ὅτι σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ᾽᾽.
1'T.R, in CcorrDcEK ; σαρκινης in $ABC*D*LP. ΤΙ. with CDcE**KL; µαρτνρειται in SABD*E*P.
κατάδηλον the preposition strengthens. εἰ κατὰ, KT A. “if as is the case” or “since ” (cf. ver. 11) ‘after the likeness of Melchizedek” the κατὰ τ. ταξιν of previous verses changed now into κατὰ Τ. ὁμοιότητα, because attention is directed to the similarity of nature between Mel- chizedek and this new priest.
Ver.16. ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον - - - (ἀκαταλύτου, “who has become such not after the law of a fleshen ordinance but after the power of an indissoluble life”. This relative clause defines the ‘“jkeness to Melchizedek,” and brings -out a double contrast between the new priest and the Levitical—the Levitical priesthood is κατὰ νόμον, the other κατὰ «δύναμιν, the one is dependent on what is σαρκίνη, the other on what belongs to ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος. These contrasts are significant. The Levitical priesthood rested on law, on a regulation that those should be priests who were born of -certain parents. This was an outward νόμος, a thing outside of the men them- selves, and moreover it was a νόμος -σαρκίνης ἐντολῆς; regulating the priest- hood not in relation to spiritual fitness but in accordance with fleshly descent. No matter what the man’s nature is nor how ill-suited and reluctant he is to the office, he becomes a priest because his fleshly pedigree is right. Thenew priest on the contrary did what He did, not because any official necessity was laid upon Him, but because there was a power in His own nature compelling and enabling Him, the power of a life which death did not dissolve. The contrast is between the official and the personal or real. All that is merely professional must be dispossessed by what is real. Hereditary kings gave way to Cromwell. The Marshals of France put their batons in their pockets when Joan of Arc ap- peared. For the difference between :σάρκινος and σαρκικός see Trench, Syn- onyms, 257, who quotes the reason as- signed by Erasmus for the use of the former in 2 Cor, iii. 3, ‘‘ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem”’. The enact- ment was σαρκίνη inasmuch as it took to do only with the flesh. It caused the
priesthood to be implicated with and dependent on fleshly descent. Opposed to this was the inherent energy and potentiality of an indissoluble or inde- structible life. The life of the new priest is indissoluble, not as eternally existing in the Son, but as existing in Him Incarnate and fulfilling priestly func- tions. The term itself ‘ indestructible” used in place of “eternal,” directs the thought to the death of Jesus which might naturally seem to have threatened it with destruction. His survival of death was needful to the fulfilment of His functions as priest (see ver. 25). The meaning and reference of the term is brought out by the contrast of ver. 25 between ‘men who have weakness”’ and υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον. '' Un- questionably that which enables the Son to be Messianic King and High Priest of men is His rank as Son. But it is true on the other hand that it is as Son come in the flesh that He is King and Priest. And the expression ‘ hath become priest’ (ver. 16) points to a historical event. It is, therefore, probable that indissoluble life is attributed to Him not in general as the eternal Son, but as the Son made man.”
Ver. 17. That Jesus carries on His work perennially is proved by Scripture. ‘“‘For it is witnessed Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” not merely as in ver. 11, κατὰ τ. τάξιν M., although this itself involves the per- petuity of the priesthood, but expressly and emphatically eis τὸν αἰῶνα. Vv. τὸ and 19 taking up the idea of ver. 16 affirm the negative and positive result of the superseding of the fleshly ordinance by the power of an indestructible life. On the one hand there is an ἀθέτησις προαγούσης ἐντολῆς, “a setting aside of a foregoing enactment,” that namely which is referred to in ver. 17, and on the other hand, there is ‘ta further bringing in of a better hope”. ἐπεισαγωγὴ κρείττονος ἐλπ- ίδος, the ἐπί in ἐπεισαγωγή balances προαγούσης, and indicates that the better hope was introduced over and above all that had already been done in the same