T~v 3u,ov uou: and Rev. :r:v. 4-xvi. 5 where take "this he did" ns referring only to the It is applied to God as his special stt'.ribute, latter part of tho preceding elo.nse, while 3-r, µ&vos 3uws); Christ was acturilly free iau..-ov "'pou,vl-y,caf answers to the former from evil (IIKcucos) ancl. undefiled (dµfav- part; or as implying genemllf, '' dicl all .,.o,) by auy contact of sin; and as such that wa.s needed for atonement.' he has passed t.o God's acturil presence (cf. Ver. 28.-For the Law maketh men high ~if"-EA6eoTa. -roOs 0Upa.11o~s, eh. iv. 14), se- prieats, having infirmity; but the word of partecl for ever from the 'l\'orld of sinners. the oath, whioh was after the Law, mo.keth Ver. 2i.-Who needeth not daily, as those the Son, perfected for evermore. With men high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his (i.e. a succession of men; cf. ver. 8) having own sins, and then for the people's : for this infirmity is contrasted the one SoN, for ever he did once for all, when he offered up him- perfected. The o.hscnce of t!Jo article before self. The expression "daily" (KaB' -f,µ,pav) u/~s does not imply the meaning "a son;" is not in strictness applicable tn the high the title denotes here, os throughout the priest, who did not offer the daily sacrifice. Epistle, tho peouli1u SON of prophecy (see Tbe reference throughout what follows being under eh. i. 1). There is here no denial of to the high priest's peculiar functions on his complete humanity, though he is plainly the Day of Atonement, Ka-r' lv,au-r&v might regarded BB more than man. Nor is hie have been expected. There a.re two tenable participation in human lr.u8,v<1a, in the sense l!Olutions: (1) that the do.ily offerings of explained under eh. v., denied. His implied the priests a.re regarded BB made by the freedom from it mo.y mean either that he high priest, who represented the whole never had any inherent in himself, none due priesthood, on the principle, qui facit per to personal imperfection, or that now, in his aJ.ios facit per se; (2) that Ka9' -f,µepav (e.s exalted state, he is altogether removed from is suggested by its position in the sentence) it. In both these senses the implication is belongs not to o/ il.px«piis, but only to true; and both may be understood; but Chri1!t: "who has no need daily, as the high TfT<Aecwµlvov being here opposed to txovTar priests ha11e yearly : " for his intercession il.u9evdav (as u1ov to il.v9pwrrous), the latter bein~ perpetual, an offering on his part sense mo.y be conceived to have been espe• would be needed daily, if needed at all. oially in the writer's mind. It is, in fact, our This view i1! supported by the fact that the ever-living High Priest, interceding for us daily sacrifices are not spoken of in the Law above, after passing through human experi- as including a special one in the first place ence, and after atonement completed, that is for the priest"s own sin. "This he did." now being presented to onr view. It is to Did who.t? Offer for his own sins as well be observed, lastly, that TETEA«wµ,vov in this as for the people's? No; for, though it has verse may be intended to bear, or at any rate been seen above (eh. v. 7) how the high t.o suggest, tbP. special sense noted under oh. priest's offering for himself might have its v. 9, and strenuously mo.intained by Jackson, connterpart in the agony, the Sinless One and hence to ho not incorrectly reudered by cannot be said to have offered for sins of "consecrated" in the A.V.; and this not- his own. An<l, besides, he having offered withstanding Alford's protest age.inst this himself ( .a11Tov il.vev.-y,cas), tbe offering could rendering as "obliterating both sense and not be /0'1' himself. We must. therefore, analogy with eh. ii. 10 and v. 1."
HOMILETICS. Vers. 1-10.-Melchizedek. The author here returns from his long dig~ession, and enters upon the central theme of the treatise. I. WHAT WE KNOW AllOUT MELCHIZEDEK. (Vere. 1-3.) 1. As a man. (1) From Scripture &tatement&. (Vers. 1, 2.) All that the sacred historian rcc~rds of him is contained in three verses (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Yet ".l'e read m these,~ m the passage before us, of Melchizedek's illustrious personality, his twofold office, his double desig- nation, his sudden appearance, his priestly blessing, and of A_brah~m's acknowledgm_ent of his dignity. (2) From Scripture silence. (Ver. 3.). ~t is evident ~hat the wr1t~r believed the Old Testament to be inspired, not merely m its general dnft, but also m its minutest details. He is persuaded that even the omissions from the narrative had been arranged by the Holy Spirit. From this passage, therefore, we learn ou_r duty, not only to survey the Bible in its broad landscapes of tru_th, and to stu~y its general structure as the literary record of a supernatural r~velat10n, _but, a\0!1gs1de of_ that,, to buLject individual passages, as we have opportumty, to m1croscop1c an_alys1s •. 'lhe umissions about Melchizedek arc so imrJortant that vcr. 3 reads almost hke a riddle. CH, VII, 1-28.] THE EPISTLE TO 'l'HE HEBREWS. 18'.J