<- Previous   First   Next ->

by the legal purity of the Levitical priests; and especially to the symbolic separation of the High Priest who, according to the later ritual, seven days before the great Day of Atonement removed from his own house to a chamber in the sanctuary (Oehler, O. T. Theol. § 140). uJyhl. tw'n oujr. gen. ] having become (v. 9 note)...Both in His Person and in the place of His ministry Christ fulfilled in fact what the Jewish priests presented in type.

Under different aspects Christ may be said (1) to have been taken, or to have entered, ‘into heaven,’ Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10 f.; 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:22; Heb. 9:24; and to be ‘in heaven,’ Eph. 6:9; and also (2) ‘to have passed beyond the heavens’ (Eph. 4:10; Heb. 4:14 note).

The former phrase expresses His reception to the immediate presence of God; the latter His elevation above the limitations of sense.

Heb. 7:27. o}" oujk e[cei kaqj hJmevran ...] The comparison which is instituted here is beset at first sight with a serious difficulty. It seems to be stated that the High-priests are under the daily necessity of offering sacrifice for their own sins and for the sins of the people. This double sacrifice is elsewhere in the Epistle (Heb. 9:7) connected with the great Day of Atonement and the ‘yearly’ work of the High-priest (9:25); nor is it obvious how the language can be properly used of any daily function of the High- priest.

There can be no question that kaqj hJmevran (Latt. quotidie ) means only ‘day by day,’ ‘daily’ (Heb. 10:11). And further ‘to have necessity of sacrificing’ cannot without violence be limited to the meaning of ‘feeling daily the necessity of sacrificing’ from consciousness of sin, though the sacrifice is made only once a year.

Some interpretations therefore which have found favour may be at once set aside.

1. ‘Who hath not necessity, as the High Priests have on each Day of Atonement (or ‘on recurring days,’ ‘one day after another’), to offer sacrifices...’

This interpretation is ingeniously represented by Biesenthal's

conjecture that the (assumed) Aramaic original had amwy amwy , which the

Greek translator misunderstood.

2. ‘Who hath not necessity, as the High Priests daily feel the necessity, to offer...’

At the same time the order of the words must be observed. The writer says o}" oujk e[cei kaqj hJm. ajnavgkhn ... qusiva" ajnafevrein , and not o}" oujk e[cei ajnavgkhn kaqj hJm. q. ajnaf. That is, the necessity is connected with something which is assumed to be done daily.

This peculiarity seems to suggest the true solution of the difficulty. The characteristic High-priestly office of the Lord is fulfilled ‘daily,’ ‘for ever,’ and not only, as that of the Levitical High-priest, on one day in the year. The continuity of His office marks its superiority. But in this daily intercession He requires no daily sacrifice, as those High-priests require a sacrifice on each occasion of their appearance before God in the Holy of Holies.

Thus the kaqj hJmevran belongs only to the description of the Lord's work, and nothing more than ajnavgkhn e[cousin is to be supplied with oiJ ajrcierei'" , the sense being: ‘He hath not daily necessity [in the daily fulfilment of His intercessory work], as the High-priests [have necessity on each


<- Previous   First   Next ->