<- Previous   First   Next ->

God) in Apo c. 5.12f.; 7:12; ( b ) to men, whether it be given ( a ) by God (Christ): Gal. 3:14; Rom. 15:29; Eph. 1:3 (comp. 1 Cor. 10:16; 1 Peter 3:9); or ( b ) by man: Heb. 12:17; and ( c ) to an impersonal object: Heb. 6:7. And ‘the blessing’ includes both the implied promise and that which is the substance of the promise, since from the divine side promise and fulfilment are one.

The word occurs also in a wider sense of that generosity which realises the divine purpose of wealth: 2 Cor. 9:5 f.; Rom. 16:18 (comp. LXX. Gen. 33:11; Josh. 15:19; Judg. 1:15; 1 Sam. 25:27); and again quite generally, James 3:10.

Eujloghtov" is used (seven times) of God only, and oJ eujloghtov" in Mark 14:61 as the title of God (comp. Ign. Eph. 1; Mart. Pol. 14). By this limitation it is distinguished from eujloghmevno" which is used of ‘Him that cometh’ (Ps. 118:26 [117:26]; Matt. 21:9; 23:39 and parallels [in John 12:13 D reads eujloghtov" ]), of the Mother of the Lord and her Son (Luke 1:42); of ‘the nations on the King's right hand’ (Matt. 25:34); and of ‘the kingdom of David’ (Mark 11:10).

In classical writers eujlogei'n , which is rare in early prose, is simply ‘to speak well of,’ ‘to praise,’ without any of the deeper thoughts which spring from the Jewish conception of the divine order and essence of things. Even in Philo and Josephus the full religious sense is comparatively rare; and Loesner remarks (on Eph. 1:3) that when the LXX. uses eujlogiva , Philo often introduces eujchv or e[paino" .

In the Christian Church the use of ‘Benedictions’ obtained a very wide extension, but these lie outside our present scope (see the article Benedictions in D. C. A. by Rev. R. Sinker). One detail in liturgical practice may be named. In the Eastern services the response to the call for a blessing is not unfrequently and characteristically an ascription of blessing to God, where in the Western it is a direct invocation of blessing on men (Sinker l.c. p.
197).

Additional Note on Hebrews 7:28. The superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ to the Levitical High-priesthood.

It is worth while to enumerate distinctly the points in which the writer of the Epistle marks the superiority of the High-priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron. He has already shewn that Christ possesses the qualifications of High- priesthood in ideal perfection, sympathy (2:17 f.; 4:15; 5:8; 7:26), and divine appointment (5:5). And more than this he places His preeminence in a clear light by a detailed comparison as to

( a ) the form of His appointment (7:21), by an oath (promise) and not as dependent on the fulfilment of a covenant;

( b ) the rule of His priesthood (7:16), ‘the power of an indissoluble life’ and not ‘a law of carnal commandment’;

( c ) its duration (7:23 f.), unchangeable without succession; ( d ) its nature (7:28) as of a son made perfect, and not of a weak man; ( e ) the scene of His service (8:2; 9:11), heaven not earth; and ( f ) the character (9:12) and
(
g ) completeness (7:27; 10:5 ff.) of His offering, consummated alike in life and death.


<- Previous   First   Next ->