wards from the Messianic exaltation of Jesus to the original nature of Him, whom God made to be Messiah, lies very evidently at the basis of the weighty christological statements of our author (i. 3). That is to say, the subject of this relative sentence is not a pre-existent divine intermediate Being, like the Logos, but the Son, in whom God has spoken at the end of the pre-Messianic age (ver. 1), i.e. He who in His historical manifestation was chosen to be the Messiah, who, after He had finished His work (os . . . кalaρισμòv καθαρισμὸν Tоinσáμevos), has sat down at the right hand of the Majesty. The reason for these statements about the final exaltation of the Son is now to be given by means of an inserted participial clause, forasmuch as it is clear from it, how the original nature of Him must have existed, who could be exalted to a position of such divine honour. That is to say, He must be regarded, on the one hand, as a perfectly Divine Being; and yet, on the other hand, He must be so regarded, that no prejudice be given thereby to Monotheism. But this can be the case only if the Son, as respects His original nature, can be so regarded, that the splendour streaming out from the divine glory is concentrated in a second Being, as it were, of equal glory, in whom that glory is seen, as in its effulgence (àπaúγασμα τῆς δόξης), and that the whole divine nature is perfectly

is drawn from the Logos doctrine of Philo, and therefore that the idea of an intermediate Being conceived of à priori is transferred to Jesus, is therefore in the highest degree unlikely, because the Logos is called no doubt by Philo xpwróyovos vios; but He appears to be different as to His nature neither from the world as the νεώτερος υἱός, nor from the angels, with whom He, as ὁ πρεσβύτατος (ἀρχάγγελος), is co-ordinated (Riehm, p. 416 f.). But it is completely excluded for this reason, that, throughout, the historical fact of the exaltation of Jesus to a position of divine honour is the starting-point, and this therefore Pfleiderer, p. 335 [E. T. ii. 63], must declare to be irreconcilable with the former supposition (strictly— a contradiction). Comp. on the other hand, Gess, p. 487 f.; Schenkel, p. 323. 7 The figurativeness of this expression, evident from the change of figure in the parallel expression, forbids the supposition entirely that God is to be considered as light in the proper sense, or that doğa is to be taken in the Pauline sense of a luminous light-substance, in which God reveals Himself (§ 76, d). Rather doğa designates everywhere else in the Epistle, where it does not mean simply honour (ii. 7, 9, iii. 3, xiii. 21), only the divine majesty and glory (ix. 5); and if it is presented to the view of the sons of God at the final consummation (ii. 10), it is so only in the general sense, as by Peter (§ 50, c, footnote 5), but not at all in the specific sense, as by Paul (§ 97, c). Hence the expression in i. 3 has nothing whatever to do with the Pauline sixàv ro ess, though Riehm, p. 386, compares it with that, as the latter refers to the divine glory of

imprinted on it (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). If in this attempt to characterize the nature of the Son of God, which goes beyond Paul, one may see the beginning of a line of speculation allied to the Alexandrian, it is yet by no means clear that the expressions here used are borrowed from it.

(d) As in i. 3 the exaltation of the Son is accounted for by a reference to His original nature, even so, ver. 2, His elevation to be heir of all (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων) is accounted for in this way, that it is He by whom God made the alaves, i.e. the whole of them, which make up the periods of the world. As the elevation of Jesus to divine rule over the universe has become in apostolic preaching in any case a matter of first importance, the propriety for effecting the creation of the world by Him, expressed by the raí, can have been but to furnish a reason for the latter fact, a reason from which the former idea was formed. He, who was made Lord over all, must have had à priori a relation to that all. It is true that here too it is God ultimately by whom all things were created (ii. 10), and who has perfected the work of creation by the Son (i. 2); but if, according to Ps. cii. 26, Christ has Himself founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of His hands (i. 10), then the exalted Christ (comp. 76, d; 103, d); and naturally it is quite impossible linguistically to find, with Gess, p. 437, in the independence of the exalted One, whose divine nature gives in the divine doğa its manifestation. Paul, too, draws conclusions from the exaltation of Christ as to His original nature, although he proceeds not so much from the position of the dignity of the exalted One (comp. also footnote 2), as rather from the inheritance of the divine doğa which He has received (§ 79, b); but he has nowhere reflected on the origin of this nature. The way in which our author does this proves that the idea of a generation by God was far enough from his mind (comp. footnote 5).

* Moreover, the most closely related are the expressions about the divine copía, which occur in the Book of Wisdom (vii. 25, 26). The comparison by Philo of the Logos with images of the sun, which, arising from reflections of the sun (comp. Riehm, p. 413), lacks on that account any resemblance, because the idea of a reflection does not lie in the word àzaiyacμa. But if the human soul, with Philo, has been stamped with the seal of God, whose xapaxrip the eternal Logos is, and if, in virtue of this relationship, it is called an ἀπαύγασμα τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως (comp. Riehm, pp. 413, 414), it is clear from this that the analogous idea, which is thereby won for the Logos, does not express His peerless nature. Riehm, p. 409, has, moreover, produced analogies from the Palestinian theology.

9 That in this combination Philo's doctrine of the Logos has not been regu lative, xi. 3 proves, by which it yet remains, conformably with Gen. i. 3, Ps. xxxiii. 6, that the world was put into its finished condition by the creative word of God, and therefore the Son is by no means identified as the agent of the creative word in this passage. Quite as little is that idea drawn from the Old

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 xúpos 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: Siα0ýкns véas μeoítns; 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. 192 f.; 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 ἁγιάζων and the ἁγιαζόμενοι 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.