23---26.
317
AY , δι 3 A ~ Θ ~ ά cal 3 Ν 3 . τους προσερχομένους OL αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγ- ο iv. 14, 15,
Χάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
26. “τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ' ἀρχιερεὺς, εἰ ~ ~ 3 , ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, καὶ ae
et ix. 24;
Rom. viil. sor
i. 4.
1 T.R. in $CKLP it vg. ; insert και before επρεπεν ABDE, Syrutr,
with ” (followed by dative), hence ‘to entreat one to do something” (Plut., Pomp., 55; Ages., 25), and when fol- lowed by περί (Polyb., iv. 76, 9) or by ὑπέρ (Plut., Cato Maj., 9) ‘‘to inter- cede’. (See Liddell and Scott.) It is not the word itself, but the preposition following, that gives the idea of inter- cession. The word with a different pre- position can be used in the sense of appealing against, as in Rom. xi. 2, ὡς ἐντυγ. τ. Θεῷ κατὰ τ. ᾿Ισραήλ, see also 1 Mac. xi. 25. With ὑπέρ it occurs in Rom. viii. 27, 34, and with περί in Acts xxv. 24. Christ, then, treats with God in our behalf; and He lives for this. As His life on earth was spent in the interests of men, so He continues to spend Himself in this same cause. He ever lives, and being “the same yester- day, to-day and for ever” (xiii. 8) His present fulness of life is devoted to those ends which evoked His energies while on earth. He secures that the fulness of Divine resource shall be avail- able for men. ‘All things are ours.” This intercession is not the same as the Atoning sacrifice and its presentation before God, which was accomplished once for all (ix. 26, x. 18); but it is based upon the sacrifice which is also to men the guarantee that His inter- cession is real, and comprehensive of all their needs. [Cf. Sir Walter Raleigh’s Pilgrimage. ]
Vv. 26-28. A summary description of the Melchizedek ideal priest, drawn in contrast to the Levitical High Priest, and realised in the Son who has been perfected as Priest forever. Melchizedek is here dropped, and the priesthood of the Son is now directly contrasted with that of the Aaronic High Priest.
Ver. 26. Τοιοῦτος yap... ἀρχιερεύς. ‘Such seems to refer to the Melchizedek character delineated in the preceding part of the chapter, or to all that was said of the nature and character of the Son from iv. 14 on- ward. The sense will not differ if it be supposed to refer to the epithets and statements that follow, for these but summarise what went before” (David- son and others). But it must not be overlooked that ὃς (ver. 27) is one of
the usual relatives after τοιοῦτος (c/. viii. 1, and Soph., Antig., 691, λόγοις τοιούτοις ols; cf. also Longinus, De Sublim., ix. 2. So that Farrar’s state- ment on chap. viii. 1, “ τοιόσδε is pro- spective, τοιοῦτος is retrospective,” is incorrect), and that the adjectives ὅσιος, κ.τ.λ. prepare for and give the ground of the statement made in the relative clause. The sentence therefore reads : “So great a high priest as need not daily, etc., ... became us,” ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν, not, as in viii. 1, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα (cf. iv. 14, 15), because the writer wishes to draw attention to the needs of those for whom the priest was appointed [ἡμῖν emphatic] and his suitableness to those needs. We, being what we are, sinful and dependent on the mediation of others, need a priest in whom we can wholly trust, because He Himself is holy, separate from sinners, without human weakness. Westcott’s distribution of the terms is neat, although of doubtful validity. “ Christ is personally in Himself holy, in rela- tion to men gutleless, in spite of contact with a sinful world, undefiled. By the issue of His life He has been separated from sinners in regard to the visible order, and, in regard to the invisible world, He has risen above the heavens”’. ὅσιος frequently in the Psalms, where