the intervention of the Son is unquestionably considered as so much His own act, that He appears thereby as directly equal to God, just as with Paul. This appears to be the case, if not only the world has its subsistence in the Son, as § 103, b, but if the divine almighty word is ascribed to the Son just as to God Himself (xi. 3),—that almighty word by which He, as the image of God, essentially equal to Him, continuously upholds the universe, and by His own power maintains its stability (i. 3); from which, finally, it is clear, that any identification of the Son with the Logos cannot even be thought of. Finally, just as from His Lordship over the world in the end, the inference is drawn back to its creation and subsistence through the Son, so the Son, who is set as the Messianic Lord over the house of the perfected theocracy (iii. 6), appears at the same time as He who, at the beginning, prepared the house of the theocracy (ver. 3; comp. § 117, a); but thereby it is explicitly replied, ver. 4, that this as little excludes the absolute supremacy of God in the last instance, as the independent action of the Son in the creation of the world excludes the tracing of it back to God.10

Testament, as the xúpios, in Ps. cii. 26-28, would not be applied to Christ (i. 10) had it not been a fixed conviction with the author that the creation of the world was by Him, as he elsewhere often enough understands the xúpios of the Old Testament to be Jehovah; yet only this passage treating of Him refers to Christ, and from the context not merely on account of this, but on account of the expressions contained in vv. 11, 12. Finally, one cannot borrow the idea of our author from the Pauline, as it is shown, § 97, c, 103, b, to be otherwise essentially reached, and the mediatorial position of the Son in the work of creation is held more simply. Gess himself, p. 485, here has recourse to a deduction back from the government of the world on the part of Him who is after, although, remarkably enough, he derives the latter idea from Matt. xxviii. 18.

10 On these expressions, which may appear stronger regarding the action of Christ as an action effective by His own power than with Paul, Beyschlag's attempt is irredeemably wrecked, to understand the pre-existence of Christ as that of an impersonal principle (pp. 190-200); an attempt which, springing, moreover, simply from dogmatic considerations, was supported by an identification of the image of God with the archetypal image of humanity, an idea lying far apart from our Epistle, and which sought an unjustifiable analogy in a transformation of the angelology altogether foreign to the Jewish spirit (comp. § 79, c, footnote 7). It is hence clear that, ii. 12 f., x. 5 f., it is not the pre-existent One who is regarded as speaking in the prophets, as Gess, pp. 428, 449, supposes (comp. on the other hand, § 119, footnotes 1, 3). The activity of Christ in the Old Testament (as Paul sets it forth, § 79, c) forms a parallel to the expres sion in iii. 3, but not such a parallel as would allow us to infer a direct appropriation of Pauline ideas.

§ 119. The Messianic High Priest.

Since the Messiah, that He may fulfil the promise of the New Covenant, must be a high priest, the Son must for a little time be made lower than the angels, and take the flesh and blood of His brethren, and share their temptations (a). He must, at the same time, prove Himself sinless, and perfect His obedience and faith in the greatest trial (b). In room of the priesthood after the order of Aaron, an order which made mortal men priests, Christ is called of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec, i.e. not in virtue of human descent, but in virtue of an endless life, which was in Him on account of His eternal Spirit (c). Thus only could He receive an intransmissible priesthood, as God had assured Him by an inviolable oath, and as fitted Him for the discharge of an abiding priestly intercession (d).

(a) The aspect of the appearance of the Son of God upon the earth, which, from the point of view of His original existence, is designated as an εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον (x. 5),1 is essentially conditioned by the way our author conceives of the Messianic call of Christ. If Christianity is essentially a New Covenant (§ 115, a), it requires also a new Mediator (xii. 24: diabýκns véas μeσíтns; comp. ix. 15, viii. 6). Such will He be pre-eminently by whom God speaks to His people at the expiry of the pre-Messianic age (i. 1), to announce to them the deliverance prepared in the New Covenant (ii. 3). Since all depends essentially in the New Covenant on the provision made for a perfect atoning institute (§ 116, a), to

1 To refer these words to the historical appearance of Christ, the entrance on His public career (Beyschlag, p. 192f.; Schenkel, p. 324), would presuppose that even in our Epistle Christ is regarded as coming as such for the sins of the world, while yet only His destination for Israel is kept steadily prominent (§ 117, a); it does not correspond to the contents of what follows, as the offering of Himself may indeed be regarded as the purpose of His appearing on the earth, but not as the object of His public appearance, and it takes away from the subject named, neither in this nor in the former verse, its more exact definition, which can lie only on the coming into the world (from a higher state of existence), which has reference to Christ alone. The expressions of the passage from the Psalm might equally well apply to the former of these two interpretations; but the reasons brought forward decide for this, that the author in his Messianic application of the Psalm regards the Messiah as Himself speaking, as the prophet had heard Him speak in the spirit at His approaching incarnation.

which belongs a high priest, who, in the room of a people separated from God by sin, can draw near to God and present the sin-offering (viii. 3); the Mediator must also be the High Priest of the New Covenant. The specific contents, therefore, of our confession is not only that Jesus is simply God's messenger (§ 118, a), but that He is at the same time. High Priest (iii. 1; comp. iv. 14). But now, according to v. 1, 2, it is essential and necessary that the high priest be taken from among men, and be a partaker of human infirmity, that he may discharge his office (τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) with an impassionate, and, towards sinners, a mercifully disposed temper (μeтρiоTalŵv) for their good. But this can be done by the Son of God, whose name characterizes Him as a superhuman, Divine Being, exalted above the angels; only if for a short time He be made lower than the angels (ii. 9), and becomes a weak and mere Son of man, as Ps. viii. 5, 6 prophesies (ii. 6, 7). The earthly human life of the Son of God appears therefore as a humiliation laid upon Him by God with a view to His Messianic calling. In consequence of this, the άyıášwv and the dyiałóμevoi have one common origin (ii. 11; comp. § 118, b, footnote 5), as He who sprang from the tribe of Judah (vii. 14), even as the members of the people whose priest He became (ii. 17), belong to the seed of Abraham (ver. 16). In virtue of this common descent, He

2 This idea, most intimately connected with the fundamental view of our Epistle, is altogether peculiar to it. Paul has it not, and that the priesthood of the Logos in Philo, on account of its simply metaphysical speculative significance, is something quite different, Riehm (pp. 662-669) has convincingly established. Only as High Priest can Jesus be the security for the better covenant, which guarantees the fulfilment of the promise given in the covenant relation (vii. 22).

3 Beyschlag, p. 185, wishes to avoid the representation of the incarnation as a humiliation, while he refers the humiliation under the angels to the sufferings, which, however, are expressly distinguished, ver. 9, from His humiliation, and he overlooks the fact that the calling to Jesus as the subject has some argumentative force only in virtue of his distinction between the impersonal pre-existent principle and the person of Jesus; while with us, according to § 118, it is selfevident that the eternal Son of God and the historical Jesus are one identical person. If, moreover, this humiliation is not expressly represented as a voluntary humbling of Himself, as it is with Paul (§ 79, c; 103, c), it is yet settled, ii. 11, explicitly from Old Testament passages, in which the author regards the prophet as speaking in the name of Messiah (vv. 12, 13), that He is not ashamed to call the children of Abraham His brethren, and that in any case proves that He has willingly put Himself in the situation brought about.

had, according to ver. 14, in quite an adequate way (mapaπλŋolws), a share in the flesh and blood common to all the children of Abraham, i.e. in the material substance of their mortal bodies (comp. x. 20). But in order that He may be a sympathizing High Priest, He must in all things (KATÀ TÁVтA) be made like to His brethren (ii. 17); and this could only be, if He was tried in all points κаl' оμоιóтηтα, because thus only could He have sympathy with their weaknesses (iv. 15). This happened by His sufferings (ii. 18), for which His flesh was so susceptible, that in the days of His flesh He could weep with strong crying and tears for deliverance from the death that lay before Him (v. 7).

(b) If the high priest of the Old Covenant was not only liable to temptation, but to the sinful infirmity which underlay the temptations given therewith (v. 2, vii. 28), this enabled him, on the one hand, in quite a special way to have sympathy with the infirmities of his brethren; but it prevented him, on the other hand, from being a perfect priest, according to § 115, C. But in the High Priest of the New Covenant, not only was that sympathy surely provided for by His capacity to suffering and temptation, but He was also holy and undefiled (ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος; comp. ix. 14: ǎμwμos); and by His exaltation to heaven, He is completely separated from sinners and all defilement by their sins, while the separation of the Old Testament high priest from the people remained always external and imperfect (vii. 26). He was tried, but without sin (iv. 15); which means not only that He conquered the temptation, but also that no sinful impulses of His own moved Him (comp. Gess, p. 431). On His entrance into the world He declared it to be the funda

The context shows that it is not in the least important here to describe the extent of the human nature which was peculiar to Him, or to indicate the transition from the (impersonal) pre-existence to the historical existence, as Beyschlag, p. 198, supposes, but simply to note that He has taken this mortal body so as to fulfil the object of His calling, which required death (iva dià Toũ tavátov). On account of the difference of the meaning of rap with Paul, Rom. viii. 3 cannot without more ado be co-ordinated with ii. 14, as Riehm, p. 388, does; and quite as little can iv óμcióμatı åvlpá≈wv (Phil. ii. 7) be co-ordinated with ii. 17, as here complete similarity, i.e. equality (as ix. 21), has to be thought of. But really the cap of Christ is naturally even with Paul subject to suffering and death (§ 78, c). The way in which aby readily stands for death itself (ix. 26, xiii. 12; comp. ii. 9: cò xálnpa toũ laváros) reminds one of Peter (comp. § 49, a).

mental principle of His life to do the will of God (x. 7, 9, after Ps. xl. 8, 9); and although He was the Son, yet has He learned obedience as every man (v. 8), while He withstood. the ever harder trials which suffering imposed on Him (ver. 7). He was faithful to His calling (ii. 17, iii. 2), and trusted in God (ii. 13); for as the Leader in the succession of the company of believers, He has carried faith to perfection in His life, while He endured the actual contradiction of sinners and the shame of the cross (comp. vi. 6, xiii. 12, 13), in view of the joy set before Him (xii. 2, 3: τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸς KaÌ TEλEIWTŃS).5 Thus, it became God to perfect Him through suffering (ii. 10), i.e. to lead Him to that moral perfection which, according to ver 9, procured for Him the heavenly crown. For only after He was perfected by the learning of that obedience, whose crowning-point was the endurance of the death of the cross, could He, as a perfect priest, become the author of eternal redemption (v. 9); while, in contrast to the human priests, compassed with infirmity, He was for ever the perfect Son of God (vii. 28).

5 To be sure, it is, in the first place, the need to show the requisites of a perfect high priest in Christ, which gives occasion to the author to enter upon the earthly human life of Christ in its different bearings. Perhaps the importance of this was to remove the offence which the readers took to the lowly and suffering form of Christ (comp. § 111, a), and by detailing to them the essential requisites for His Messianic calling, to show them the inner necessity of that form. But his expositions on this point show plainly that there existed to him richer materials of suggestive details from the life of Jesus than to the Apostle Paul (§ 78, a), and these he can have drawn only from the traditions of the early apostles. If it is clear, not necessarily from his repeated account of the tempta. tion of Christ, that therewith the history of the temptation from the oldest tradition flitted before his mind, it is also overwhelmingly likely that v. 7 refers to the scene at Gethsemane. It is especially indicated in the repeated reference to His being proved as a pattern in obedience and faith, a proof sinless though carried to perfection, that the proclamation of Jesus' sinlessness by the early apostles, resting on their own intercourse with Him, was present to Him (§ 46, d) otherwise than it was to the Apostle Paul (comp. even the expression xiii. 12 and the passage ii. 9, according to the explanation to be given, § 124, a, footnote 3).

"The perfecting of the sinless Son of God could not naturally consist, as in the case of sinful men (§ 115, c), in a cleansing from the stains of sin, but only in the verification of His moral perfection under the greatest trials. And so a modification of the idea of rasíwas inevitably arises from its different applications, and there is no ground for the objection of Pfleiderer (p. 346, footnote [E. T. ii. 74]). He appears, moreover (p. 344 [E. T. ii. 73]), to apply the idea in the case of Christ, not, as in the case of Christians, exclusively to the future VOL. II. N