(c) As a second necessity for the high-priesthood, the author mentions, that one must not take this honour to oneself, but must be called thereto, as was Aaron (v. 4). For, conformably with this, the Levitical priesthood was called Kaτà Tηv Táğı 'Aapúv (vii. 11). Even so, Christ did not raise Himself to this honour--to be called a high priest-by His own power, but by God Himself, who had declared Him to be His Son, and worthy of the honour appropriate to the Son, was He expressly called in the (Messianic, as formerly pointed out) Psalm cx. (ver. 4) to be High Priest, after the order of Melchisedec (v. 5, 6), and as such was He greeted (ver. 10). There is then taken into view, for the Messianic age, a change of the former priestly order (vii. 11, 12); for Jesus is not sprung from the tribe of Levi (and so not called Kaτà Tηv Táğı 'Aapáv), but from the tribe of Judah, to which the Mosiac law ascribed no priestly prerogative (vv. 13, 14). There is, however, in this no encroachment on the part of the tribe of Judah on the rights of the tribe of Levi; for Jesus is called not as a descendant of Judah's, but after the order of Melchisedec. There was rather thereby removed the imperfection which clung to the Aaronic priesthood, so far as it rested on a carnal commandment (ver. 16), i.e. connected the priesthood with natural descent, and thus constituted mortal men priests (§ 115, c). For as Melchisedec, who, in the scriptural account, has neither father nor mother, nor, generally, any genealogy (ver. 3: ȧyévea λóynтos), did not become a priest in virtue of the rule of a carnal commandment (ver. 16: οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης), which in dožáka, an application for which none of the three passages gives any occasion. In particular, the riλuwesis (v. 9) cannot take up the siraxovaesis (ver. 7), as the latter refers not at all to the resurrection (comp. Gess, p. 432), but can only indicate the result of His learning obedience (ver. 8); and vii. 28, the contrast to the oliva shows that it is the conquering of every temptation resulting from human weakness which is referred to, which works the abiding condition of a perfection raised above such weakness. But to include the moral perfection, and the exaltation in the idea, as Riehm, p. 432 f., and Gess, p. 435, do, seems to me quite inadmissible.

7

7 That this is a higher order of priesthood is clear from this, that Melchisedec received tithes from Abraham himself, while the Levitical priests receive tithes only from Abraham's descendants (vii. 4–7), and being mortal men only during their lifetime (ver. 8), and that even Melchisedec in Abraham, whose son Levi was, in a way tithed the receiver of tithes (ver. 9), as the latter was then in the loins of his father.

some way connected the priesthood with his family; so Christ also is a priest of a different order, Kaтà тην óμolóτnta Μελχισεδέκ, just on this account, that He became so κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, ό.. in virtue of an endless life (vv. 15, 16). Such a priesthood, to be sure, Jesus had not in virtue of His original nature, as, according to note a, He was made like His brethren, and had received their mortal body; but in virtue of the πveûμa aiúviov, which was in His flesh (ix. 14), and communicated to Him that indestructible life which enabled Him in His high-priestly calling to suffer death, and yet to live on as the eternal High Priest.s

(d) As the Old Covenant set up mortal priests, the priesthood must have been constantly changing, passing from one to another (vii. 23). This imperfection, too, which clung to the Levitical priesthood, is removed in the New Covenant, as Melchisedec, in the typical representation of Scripture, which speaks neither of the end of his life, nor the termination of his priesthood, lives (vii. 8) and abides a priest eis Tò dinvekés (ver. 3); so also the Messianic High Priest (Ps. cx. 4), corresponding to this order of Melchisedec, is designated as iepeùs eis Tòv aiŵva (vii. 17, vi. 20). He has therefore the priesthood as one, which passes no more from one to another (vii. 24: ȧжapáßaтov). The passage from the Psalm shows ἀπαράβατον). this also in this way, that God confirmed the priesthood to Him with an oath, such as does not occur in the case of the Levitical high priest (vv. 20, 21; comp. ver. 28); and this oath shows, according to its nature (comp. vi. 16, 17), the divine purpose, which sets up the High Priest of the New

Here, therefore, as in the preaching of the early apostles (§ 48, c) and in Paul (§ 78, d), the higher side of Christ's Being in His earthly human life, in virtue of which He did not enter by death into the shadowy life of Hades, but by the resurrection (xiii. 20) into the eternal heavenly life, is the eternal, and therefore the Divine Spirit, by which it is not clear whether it was received by Him at His baptism, or is regarded as a constitutive factor of His Being. To be sure, the Spirit (ix. 14) is designated not as the Spirit of God, but only as eternal according to its (divine) quality; but to think thereby, with Riehm (p. 526), of a human μa, which carries in itself the divine attribute of eternity, corresponds, no doubt, with the dogmatic idea of a divine human nature of Christ, but scarcely with the mode of thought in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Against the misconstruction of von Hofmann, according to which the indissoluble life and the eternal Spirit are to be spoken of the exalted Christ, comp. Gess, p. 446 f.

Covenant as an unchangeable one; therefore the covenant, whose surety He has become, must be unchangeable, and hence better than the old, which has to be in the end removed as insufficient (vii. 22). But His sinlessness also (note b) fits Him for uninterrupted priestly functions, in so far as He is never required on account of His own sins to interrupt the discharge of His duties for others, in order just to exercise them in His own behalf, and it guarantees Him a continuous, and, so far, an unchangeable priesthood (vii. 26-28). But, above all, by means of His eternally abiding priesthood, He is enabled thoroughly to deliver us, because He ever lives to make intercession for us (ver. 25). The intercession of Christ (comp. Rom. viii. 34) is here, therefore, conformably with the fundamental idea of the author, regarded as a priestly function, by which He mediates continuously for us access to God (τοὺς προσερχομένους δι' avτoû), and presents continuously our thankofferings before God (xiii. 15 : δι ̓ αὐτοῦ ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως).

§ 120. The High Priest in the Holiest.

By His exaltation to heaven, Christ has perfected the specific high-priestly function, while He has entered into the archetypal Holiest of all (a). Dwelling there with the angels in the heavenly city of God, as the Ruler of the Messianic world, He is raised infinitely above them, as the ministering servants of the pre-Messianic age (b). In this His heavenly exaltation Christ is an eternal King, although to our author His kingly activity ever runs back into His priestly (c). Yet this kingly activity, although it corresponds with His original divine nature, is regarded as a trust committed to Him by God (d).

(a) Although in the passages looked at, § 119, regarding the priesthood of Christ, He is already repeatedly designated High Priest, there yet lies nothing in them specifically to qualify Him as High Priest. That is to say, what specifically distinguishes the high priest of the Old Covenant from the other Levitical priests, is that he alone goes once a year into the Holiest, in order to effect the purification of the people (ix. 6, 7; comp. ver. 25). If Jesus has become a real High

Priest, and not a priest only, He too must have gone into the Holiest (εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος: vi. 19, 20). But the Holiest of the tabernacle was not the dwelling-place of God Himself, but only, according to Ex. xxv. 40 (comp. Acts vii. 44), a copy of God's heavenly dwelling, which He had shown to Moses on the Mount (viii. 5; comp. ix. 23: тà Vπоδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς); and it is shown from this side that the Old Testament priestly service, which was consecrated for this, could be but an imperfect and shadowy service (comp. § 115, c). But Christ, forasmuch as He, according to § 118, a, sits on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, is now XeToupyós in the heavenly Holiest (ver. 2), is gone into heaven itself (ix. 24), where He is now a greater Priest, who has been set over the house of God (x. 21: èπì TOV OLKOV TOû coû). Hence, that this exaltation to heaven, which moreover need not, ix. 12, be regarded as the visible ascension, as Riehm (p. 347) supposes, inasmuch as it is there represented as an entrance once for all into the Holiest, designates Christ perfectly as a High Priest, it is made clear why, in the method of teaching in our Epistle, conversely with Paul's practice, the resurrection of Christ, mentioned only xiii. 20, recedes so much behind His exaltation to heaven. By that is perfectly proved for the first time His equality with, and also His superiority to, the high priest of the Old Covenant, in contradistinction to the priests generally.?

1 According to Old Testament representation, heaven is God's very dwelling (Ps. xi. 4, xviii. 7, xxix. 9; Mic. i. 2; Heb. ii. 20), or, according to the idea of several heavens (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 10, and, along with these, § 103, d, footnote 7), the heavenly Holiest above all heavens, which form, as it were, His Holy Place and the Holiest of all. These lower heavenly spaces which Christ passed through at His exaltation (iv. 14), and in comparison with which He has become inλórspos (vii. 26), are expressly designated (ix. 11) as the greater and more perfect tabernacle (Holy Place) not made with hands, which does not even belong to this earthly creation (où raúrns rñs xriosws). On the contrary, the highest heaven is itself (ver. 24) put in opposition to the Holiest made with hands (rà äyı« in an imminent sense, as ix. 8, and oftener), and this latter is spoken of only as ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν (ἁγίων, comp. ver. 12), and, ver. 1, rò äyıov xoxov, while the heavenly Holy Place and the real σnnvά God Himself, and not man, set up (viii. 2). This real Old Testament representation also has throughout nothing to do with the Alexandrian xéoμos vontós (Pfleiderer, p. 328 [E. T. ii. 55]).

2 Riehm has rightly rejected the view represented yet by Messner (pp. 297, 299, 302) and Schenkel (p. 335), according to which Christ's high-priesthood

(b) By His entrance into the Holiest, the Mediator of the New Covenant (xii. 24) has become a dweller in the heavenly city of God (ver. 22; comp. § 117, d), in which is the heavenly Holiest, as the earthly was in the earthly Jerusalem. There dwell with Him the myriads, i.e. the innumerable festal company of the angels, praising God with eternal joy. (xii. 22, 23). But as His namе Tрwтóтокоs or viós already of itself indicates, that according to His nature He is raised far above these His fellows (i. 4-6; comp. § 118, b), so has He also by His sitting at the right hand of God attained a position of dignity infinitely above them (vv. 3, 4), as the first apostles (§ 50, a; comp. § 19, d), agreeing with Paul (§ 104, a), teach. While He has attained to equal honour and dominion with God, the angels are servants (Necroupyoí), whom God uses in His activities in nature, while He turns them into winds and flames of fire (ver. 7, after Ps. civ. 4). They are ministering spirits (πνεύματα λειτουργικά), but their highest end consists in this, that they serve God in that work of His that has the deliverance of men for its end (ver. 14). In this service they have already mediated the giving of the law (ii. 2; comp. § 115, b), and in ii. 5 one may find the idea. current in Palestinian theology set forth (comp. Riehm, p. 656), that the pre-Messianic ages, which had for their purpose the begins with His entrance into the Holiest (comp. also Gess, p. 460). The passage viii. 4, 5 says only that the typical Holy Place on the earth has its own priests, and therefore Christ could exercise His functions only in another, the heavenly (ver. 2); but it does not exclude the idea that He already executed priestly, nay, even high-priestly, functions outside the Holy Place. His entrance into the Holiest of all is only that high-priestly function of Christ by which His high-priesthood as such is definitely proved; but He is essentially constituted a high priest (v. 4-6), and as such He has already exercised its functions in the offering of Himself (comp. Riehm, p. 477). It is, on the other hand, a mistake when Riehm asserts that He first became a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (p. 479) by His exaltation. There is nothing in the typical Melchisedec which refers to an entrance into the Holiest, and therefore to the high-priesthood, in contradistinction to the priesthood; and therefore the ispus, in the passage from the Psalm (ex. 4), is to be taken in different applications. The point of an indissoluble life, and of the possibility thereby of an eternal priesthood, borrowed, according to § 119, c, from the figure of Melchisedec, would require only the resurrection, not the ascension to heaven. But the raws (v. 9, vii. 28) has nothing whatever to do either with the Melchisedec priesthood or with the ascension to heaven (comp. § 119, b, footnote 6).

If Beyschlag, p. 197, draws conclusions from this as to the impersonal