the literal sense. Milligan does not notice the of much force, for he says: "But what so great diffi- Godet, howculty is there in preserving the literal sense of yap? ever, preserves All that is needed is to connect it with the words 'in remembrance of Me.' 'If JESUS so expressed Himself, it is because in fact the action you perform every time you celebrate the Supper is a memorial of His Person, for the meaning of the action is to show His Death!'"'* That is to say, he considers a memorial of His Person" equivalent to to show His Death." Milligan, however, says: "In the LORD'S Death, therefore, which we proclaim in the Sacrament of Communion, we proclaim not only JESUS on the Cross, but the LORD exalted in heaven." He makes no reference to the interpretation of" for," but simply makes the assertion that "the LORD'S Death" does not mean only the death of "JESUS on the Cross," but "the LORD exalted in heaven;" a method of interpretation by which almost any results could be obtained, and which is too unreasonable to be worthy of further notice. force of γάρ, but extends the remembrance exaltation in to our LORD'S heaven. whether the reference is to our LORD'S historical event. Death as an He cites the Liturgies as commemor Mr. Brightman then goes on to say that, admitting Mr. Brightman that the LORD'S Death is shown forth in the Eucharistic questions Sacrifice, the question is in what order it is shown forth; whether primarily, as an historical event, or as existing in His Person perfected through suffering. In support of the second alternative he quotes from the Liturgies, which "make an addition to S. Paul's words, and say not only, 'ye do shew the LORD'S Death,' but, 'ye do shew the LORD'S Death, and confess His Resurrection,' and sometimes, also, and His Ascension,' and Ascension. 'till He come.'"' To this it may be replied, that the very fact that the Liturgies add to the words "ye do shew the LORD'S Death" the further expression “and * Godet, 1 Cor., vol. ii., p. 161. † Milligan, The Resurrection, p. 299. ating the Resurrection The method of interpretation popular, but vicious. confess His Resurrection," and sometimes, also, "and His Ascension," seems to show that these latter events are not contained in the first phrase, since, if they were, why should the Liturgies add, "and confess His Resurrection," and sometimes, "and His Ascension"? Again, if we are to interpret S. Paul's definite expression, " "For as often as ye eat, ye do shew the LORD'S Death," as referring, not to an historical event in our LORD's life, but to something quite different, we are clearly pursuing a method of interpretation most popular indeed in the present day among higher critics, who first say what they think the author ought to have meant, and then interpret his words in the light of this assumption; but one indeed from which no trustworthy results can be obtained, and which must be emphatically rejected by those who do not accept the canons of higher criticism. To be told that when S. Paul speaks of our LORD'S Death, which all knew to have taken place upon the Cross, he is not referring It would never to that event only, but to His life at the right hand of the FATHER in glory, is most unsatisfactory, since S. Paul certainly knew the meaning of words; and, except to support an a priori theory, no one would argue that by the word "death" he meant "life." have been thought of ex cept to support an "a priori" theory. No Father or Church commentator has advanced this The fact that no Father, or commentator of the Church until this modern theory was started, has ever understood the words of S. Paul in this sense, is also interpretation. strong evidence against this interpretation.* 2. The Epistle the battle 2. The real battle-ground of these two views is the to the Hebrews Epistle to the Hebrews, for the Modern view in its application of other passages of Holy Scripture reads into them (as we have already seen in regard to the ground of the two views. * It may be observed that all the persons quoted in its favour are modern schismatics. 1 words of Institution) an a priori theory which is certainly not suggested by them, but which the writers of this school think they are justified in assuming from certain passages in the Epistle. Before considering i. A sketch of the purpose these passages, therefore, it may be well to give a and argument slight sketch of the purpose and argument of this of the Epistle. Epistle as it has been understood by all commentators before the sixteenth century, and by all who have written on the subject since then, with the exception of Socinus and those who hold the Modern view. The Epistle, as its title indicates, was written to Jews, and its chief purpose, like that of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, was to show that the Ancient Covenant, as represented by the Law with its priesthood and sacrifices, had but "a shadow of the good things to come," and was unable to make perfect them that drew nigh." * And further, it showed that this Law, priesthood, and sacrifice, was abrogated when the New Covenant in CHRIST'S Blood took its place, which not only fulfilled all that by type and ceremony had been foreshadowed, but far excelled in dignity, scope, and power the brightest hopes of Judaism. Taking up the two questions of priesthood and sacri- From Melchisfice, the Epistle shows that the Priesthood of our LORD was foreshadowed in the priesthood of Melchisedec before the legal Covenant had any existence. From this the writer draws a contrast between the universal and eternal nature of CHRIST'S Priesthood, and the local and transitory character of the Levitical priesthood. He contrasts, too, the sacrifices which were offered daily that of the by the Levitical priests, and yearly by the high priest, and which by their very reiteration implied their imperfection, with the One "full, perfect, and sufficient * Heb. x. I. edec the writer contrasts the universal and eternal nature Priesthood with the local and transitory character of of CHRIST'S Jews. The two main points in re gard to the S. offered once for all, and that its effects, or Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction" once offered by our LORD upon the Cross" for the sins of the whole world." The two points upon which the writer of the Epistle especially dwells with regard to the Sacrifice are: first, are, that it was that it was once for all, and, being perfect, in that it effected its purpose it needs not to be repeated; and, second, that its effects, or merits, live on in heaven in merits, live on the great Mediatorial work of CHRIST upon His Throne of Glory. This is illustrated in the Epistle by reference to the function of the high priest on the great Day of Atonement. in our LORD'S Mediatorial work. Thus far both views accord, but here they divide. The Catholics teach that the S. was com pleted on the Cross, and that in heaven our LORD pleads only the merits of this S. The Modern into different camps, the more radical Thus far both views are practically in agreement. But here they part company. The Catholic school, with all writers before Socinus, teaches that the Sacrifice was offered once for all, completed and finished upon the Cross, that is, before the Ascension into heaven, and that in heaven our LORD presents Himself" before the face of GOD for us," pleading the merits of His Sacrifice, offering, if you will, a virtual Sacrifice, but not an actual Sacrifice, or Sacrifice properly so called, inasmuch as He performs no sacrificial. action in connection with His great Intercession. The Modern school, on the other hand, puts forth school are split several theories. Its more advanced representatives, like Mr. Brightman, place our LORD's sacrificial act, the presentation of the Blood, after the Ascension into heaven, and thus implicitly deny that the Sacrifice was completed and finished upon the Cross. Others, while fully holding that the Sacrifice was complete on the Cross, either try to find some sacrificial action in our LORD'S Mediatorial work, or teach, with Bishop Forbes, LORD'S Medi- the perfectly unobjectionable doctrine that in speaking atorial work, of our LORD's Sacrifice in heaven, the word "sacri denying that the S. was completed on the Cross, others trying to find some sacrificial action in our fice" is to be understood, not in an active, but in a or taking passive sense. They point out that He is in heaven With this introduction we shall proceed to an examination of the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews bearing upon the subject. They fall practically into two divisions: those which refer to the Priesthood of our LORD as typified by Melchisedec, and those which exhibit it as fulfilling the typical functions of the high priest on the great Day of Atonement. Thus regarded, they yield the following analysis: * The ruling thought of the whole Epistle is, CHRIST'S High-Priesthood. It is indicated in the opening verses, where the culminating characteristic of the SON is that "after He had Himself made purification of sins," He sat down on the Right Hand of the Majesty on high." Here the priestly and royal offices of CHRIST are placed together in the closest connection, and the whole Epistle is the development of this thought. the word only in a passive sense. The passages in the Epistle fall into two divisions: Priesthood as typified by on this subject our LORD'S Melchisedec, or in the Day of Atonement. The ruling thought is High-Priest CHRIST'S hood. (1) Chaps. ii., iii., and iv. give a prefatory treatment of the subject and show the In chapters ii., iii., and iv. we have a preparatory treatment of the subject. First the foundation of CHRIST'S High-Priesthood is shown to be in the Incarnation (ii. 17, 18); then follows an exhortation to a careful study of this aspect of our LORD's work (iii. 1, 2); and, finally, we have a recapitulation of this introductory argument, showing that CHRIST is a High Priest Who has fulfilled the conditions of His Office, and there- tion (ii. 17, 18) fore can feel with men, and is alike able and ready to succour them (iv. 14-16). foundation of CHRIST'S Priesthood in the Incarna * Cf. Westcott on Heb., pp. 70, 71. † Heb. i. 3. |