T~v 3,nov o-ov : and Rev. xv. 4-xvi. 5 where take "this he did" ns referring only to the It is applied t.o God as his special 11ttribute, latter part of the preceding clo.nse, while 3-r, µovos 80-ws); Christ was 11ctunlly free lavTov ,rpor1<v<-y1<as Rnswers to the former from evil (li,ccucos) and undefiled ( 6.µiav· part; or as implying genemll;, "did oll -ros) by any contact of sin ; and as such thnt we.s needed for atonement.' he bas pnssed t.o God's actunl presenee (cf. Ver. 28.-For the Law maketh men high ~rfAtA68ora ToVs oUpa.voVs, eh. iv. 14), se• priests, hRviug infirmity; but the word of pnrte<l for ever from the world of sinners. the oe.th, whioh we.a after the Le.w, maketb Ver. 27.-Who needeth not daily, as those the Son, perfeoted for evermore. With men high priests, to offer up so.orifice, first for his (i.e. a succession of men; cf. ver. 8) hoving own sins, e.nd then :l'or the people's : :l'or this infirmity is contrasted the one SoN, for ever he did once for e.11, when he o:ffered up him- perfected. The o.hscnce of the article before self. The expression "daily" (,caB' 71µ,pav) vibs does not imply the meaning "a son;" is not in strictness applicable to the high the title denotes here, os throughout the priest, who did not offer the daily sacrifice. Epistle, the peculinr SoN of prophecy (see Tl.te reference throughout what follows being under eh. i. 1). There is here no denie.l of to the high priest's peculiar functions on bis complete humanity, though he is plainly the Day of Atonement., ,ca-r' lv,avTov might regnrded as more tho.n man. Nor is hie have been expected. There are two tenable participation in hum11n lirrB,v,ia, in the sense solutions: (1) that the daily offerings of explained under eh. v., denied. His implied the priests o.re regarded as made by the freedom from it may mean either that he high priest, who represented the whole never ha.d any inherent in himself, none due priesthood, on the principle, qui facit per to personal imperfection, or that now, in his alios jacit per se; (2) that 1<aB' 11µlpav (e.s exalted state, be is altogether removed from is suggested by its position in the sentence) it. In both these senses the implication ie belongs not to oi "PX"P•is, but only t.o true; and both may be understood; but Christ: "wlw has no need d.aily, as the high -r,n>..«wµlvov being here opposed to (xovTas priests have yearly : " for his intercession lio-8,11•la11 (as v1011 to a.vBpcl,n-ovs), the latter being- perpetual, an offeTing on his part sense may be conceived to have been espe- would be needed daily, if needed at all. cially in the writer's mind. It is, in fact, our This view is supported by the fact that the ever-living High Priest, interceding for ue d.aily 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 our view. It is to Did what? Offer for his own sins as well be observed, lastly, that TET<>..«wµ,vo11 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, the special sense noted under eh. priest's offering for himself might have its v. 9, and ijtrenuously maintained by Jackson, counterpart in the agony, the Sinless One and hence to be not incorrectly rendered by cannot be said to have offered for sins of "consecrated" in the A.V.; and this not- his own. And, besides, he having offered withstanding Alford's protest against thia himBelf ( ,a11Tov a.v,v.-y,cas), the offering could rendering as "obliterating both sense and not be for himself. We m11St, therefore, analogy with eh. ii. 10 and v. l."
HOMILETICS. Vers. 1-10.-Melchizedek. The anthor here returns from his long dig~eseion, ancl enters upon the central theme of the treatise. I. WHAT WE KNOW AIIOUT MELCHIZEDEK. (Vere. 1-3.) 1. .As a man. (1) From Scripture statements. (Vers. 1, 2.) All that the sacred historian rcc~rds of him is contained in three verses (Gen. xiv. 18-20). Yet we read m these, a~ 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 Abrah~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 recurd of a supernatural r~velat10n, _but, alo_ngs1de of. that-, to 0uLject individual pasoages, as we have opportumty, to m1croscop1c an_alys1s •. 'lhe ornbsious about Melchizedek are so important that ver. 3 reads almost hke a riddle. CH, VII, 1-28.) THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 18'.l