صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

hath given me." These passages must have been applied by those to whom this writer addressed himself, to the Messiah, or they could have no force in this argument, and they are brought forward as conclusive, to prove that he was to be a man. He then goes on to state the reasons why he was a man. "Forasmuch then, as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the powers of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he did not undertake the cause of angels, but the seed of Abraham, wherefore, in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Here, it is pleasing to see, that this writer, though he could run such an ingenious parallel, and in some respects fanciful, between Christianity and Judaism, had at the bottom the same views of Christ's mission, sufferings, and death, as we all entertain;-that he came to sanctify us, to deliver us from sin, and give us a sure hope of immortality.

The next thesis, that Christ was superior to Moses, he despatches in few words. The argument here

turns upon the distinction between son and servant, and in and over. God, on the occurrence of the quarrel of Aaron and Miriam with Moses, calls Moses his servant: "My servant Moses is not so." But the Messiah is called God's son, "Wherefore," he proceeds, "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus Christ, who was faithful unto him that appointed him, even as Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house." The word house is ambiguous, signifying both house and family. "For every house is builded by some one, but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;" so as to give assurance that he gave truly the oracles of God. "But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." If Moses was a servant, then he only belonged to the family of God. But if Christ was a son, then he was over the family of God, to which family all true Christians belong, if they persevere and do not apostatize from the faith.

The remainder of this chapter and the next, is taken up with the exhortation founded upon the

superiority of Christ to Moses, which he considers himself to have proved. If Christ be greater than Moses, then rebellion against his authority must be much more atrocious than the rebellion of the Israelites against Moses in the wilderness, for which they were rejected by God and condemned to leave their bones in the desert. He goes on to argue from the Old Testament that there is still a rest for the people of God, to which Christ is leading them; for it is said in the Psalms, "To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation in the wilderness." Now this was long after the Israelites had taken possession of their rest in the land of Canaan. So there must still be rest for the people of God, to which Christ is leading us. Take heed therefore, says he, lest any of you come short.

The third thesis is, that Jesus the Messiah is greater than Aaron, and the order of the Jewish hierarchy. The skill and ingenuity with which this is proved is worthy of all admiration. It was the most important to his whole purpose, because the danger of their relapse into Judaism arose mainly from the imposing nature of the priesthood, the services and the temple at Jerusalem. The difficulty of proving Jesus to be a priest at all was not inconsiderable, for he was of the tribe of Judah and not of Levi. He officiated in no temple, he belonged to no succession, he performed no priestly rite. The most that

could be said of it was, that his death bore some distant analogy to a sacrifice, not literally indeed, for then it would have been the most shocking thought that could enter the human mind, that God could be pleased by a human sacrifice, and propitiated by the most inhuman murder. The cross would have been the altar, and the brutal soldiers the priests. But there was a figurative sense, and that a most important one, in which Christ sacrificed himself for the salvation of man, inasmuch as death was incidental to his office, and overtook him in consequence of its faithful performance. Accordingly this analogy is often used by the other writers of the New Testament. But this is not the view of the subject taken by the author of this Epistle. The scene of his offering is not laid on earth, but in heaven itself.

There was an idea of the Jews, founded on the fortieth verse of the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, that their tabernacle and afterwards the temple, was made after the model of heaven itself; for God there says to Moses, "Look that thou make them after their pattern which was shown unto thee in the mount." The Rabbins who invented, refined upon this idea, and made Jerusalem itself an image of heaven, to which there are frequent allusions in the New Testament under the title of the heavenly Jerusalem, &c. They even went so far as to compare the three apartments of their temple to the three

heavens. The outer court or court of the Gentiles, corresponded to the lowest heavens, between the earth and the skies; the second or court of Israel, with the second heavens, between the sky and the stars; the third apartment or the holy of holies, to the third heavens, the immediate residence of God himself. There, it was supposed, was an altar and other things like the furniture of the temple, of more magnificent proportions and exquisite materials. This was the temple into which Christ entered when he ascended to heaven.

The attempt to prove Jesus to have been greater than Aaron, and the Levitical priesthood, or even a priest at all, was a task somewhat difficult. But there was a passage in one of the Psalms, which the Jews thought applicable to the Messiah, which was precisely to his purpose. It is the one hundred and tenth, and as far as can be collected from the Psalm itself, was composed by one of the subjects of David on the occasion of his taking Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and making it the capital of his kingdom; a city which was once the seat of that king and priest, Melchisedek, in whom, as in early times, the two offices were united. The composer of the Psalm seems to celebrate David as his successor, and to transfer to him the dignity of his priestly office. God had promised David that he would establish his throne forever. Combining the two ideas, the writer

« السابقةمتابعة »