is content for the present to throw out the remark: ‘This man must have some- thing to offer,’ and to leave his readers
‘for a while to puzzle over the question,
What is 1} With ἀναγκαῖον some have understood ἦν rather than ἐστὶ ‘*necesse fuit habere quod offerret ”’ (Beza) followed by Westcott, etc., on the ground that the reference is to our Lord’s presentation to the Father of His finished sacrifice. But it is better to give the word a merely logical and subjective force; it is a necessary inference that this man, etc. Behind and beyond this lies no doubt the reference to Christ’s sacrifice. As the High Priest could not enter into the Holiest without the blood of the victim (ix. vii.), so must Jesus accomplish His priestly office by offering His own blood (ix. 12). For the words of the former part of the verse see note on vi. 1.
Ver. 4. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ γῆς . . . ‘And indeed if He were on earth He would not even be a priest, since there are those who according to law offer the gifts’’. μὲν οὖν = et quidem (Devarius, p. 125) or, it might be rendered “' If however,”’ see Hermann’ 5 Viger, p. 442. Vaughan says: ‘‘ The οὖν is (as usual) in accord- ance with the above statement ; here, namely, that He must have something to offer’’. The apodosis in ver. 6. νυνι δε. The argument is, given or assumed as already proved that Christ is our High Priest, it must be in Heaven He exer- cises His ministry, for if He were on earth, He would not even be a priest, not to say, a High Priest. [As Bleek has it, “er wtirde nicht einmal Priester sein,— geschweige denn Hohe priester”.] He could not be a priest, because the priestly office on earth is already filled. The law [κατὰ νόμον], which can not be interfered with, regulates all that con- cerns the earthly priesthood (vii. 12), and by this law He is excluded from priestly office, not being of the tribe of Levi (vii. 14). τὰ δῶρα “the gifts” further
21
Exod.