聖書注解書

キリストの祭司職の教理はそれ自体がすぐれており、キリスト教信仰の不可欠の部分であるので、使徒はそれについて論じることを喜ぶ。レビ的配剤にユダヤ人が執着したのは、その祭司職に対する高い評価があったゆえにほかならない。そしてそれは確かに神聖で最もすぐれた制度であった。ユダヤ人に対して宣告された非常に厳しい脅し（ホセア3:4）があった。「イスラエルの子らは多くの日のあいだ、君も祭司も、いけにえも、エポデも、テラピムもなしに住むであろう」。さて使徒は、主イエスを受けることによって、彼らがはるかに優れた大いなる大祭司を持ち、より高い位の祭司職、それゆえにより良い配剤あるいは契約、より良い律法と約束を持つことになると保証する。これを彼はこの章で示す。ここで、I. メルキゼデクについてのより詳しい説明がある（ヘブル7:1-3）。II. アロンの祭司職に対するその優越性（ヘブル7:4-10）。III. すべてをキリストに当てはめ、その位格、職務、契約のすぐれたことを示す（ヘブル7:11-28）。

章の分析

Hebrews 5:10-11において、使徒はメルキゼデクの名を導入し、キリストが彼と同じ位に従って大祭司とされたと言った。彼は、彼について語るべきことが多くあるが、彼らは当時、それを受け入れ、理解する心の状態になかったと付け加えた。それから彼はHebrews 5:12-14で、キリスト教の知識においてほとんど進歩していないことを彼らを責め、前進してより高い到達を遂げるように勧め（Hebrews 6:1-3）、背教の危険に対して警告しHebrews 7:4-8、神の契約への真実を考慮して、信仰と望みを終わりまでしっかり保つように励ましHebrews 7:9-20、今や論じている主題——「キリストの大祭司職」——に戻る。彼の目的は、キリストがユダヤの大祭司に勝ることを示すことであり、この目的のために、彼とメルキゼデクとの間に比較を設ける。「論法」は次のとおりである。

一. メルキゼデクの高められた位、およびユダヤの祭司職と共同体全体の先祖——アブラハム——が彼を自分より優れた者と認め、彼に十分の一を納めたという事実から引き出される論法。しかしキリストはメルキゼデクの位に属しており、それゆえ使徒は、キリストがユダヤの祭司職に勝ることを推論するHebrews 7:1-10。この論法を進める中で、使徒は「メルキゼデク」という名の意味を詳しく論じHebrews 7:1-2、彼が知られた先祖も系図もなく、聖なる記録の頁の上にただ一人で立っており、それゆえ、同様の卓越性を持つ神の子と比較されるに値することを述べHebrews 7:3、ユダヤの共同体と祭司職全体の先祖であるアブラハムさえも彼に十分の一を納め、こうして自分の劣っていることを認めたという考察を促しHebrews 7:4、祝福を受ける者は、それを受ける者に勝るに違いないことを示しHebrews 7:6-7、さらに、レビの祭司職全体の先祖であるレビさえ、アブラハムのうちに十分の一を納めたと言うことができ、こうしてメルキゼデクに、それゆえ彼の「位」に属する神の子に、劣っていることを認めたことを示すHebrews 7:9-10。

二. 使徒は、「完全」はレビの祭司職からは生じ得ず、完全な状態をもたらす祭司職は勝るに違いないことを示すHebrews 7:11-19。この論法を進める中で、彼は、ヘブルの体制の下では完全に達することができず、別の位の祭司職が立てられる必要があったことHebrews 7:11、祭司職の変更は必然的に律法あるいは行政の変更を伴うことHebrews 7:12、律法の変更の必要性は、大いなる大祭司が今やレビの部族とは別の部族の出であるという事実からも従うことHeb 7:13-14、キリスト教の大祭司は、肉に関わり、変わりやすい命令に従ってでなく、「朽ちることのないいのちの力に従って」——決して変わることも終わることもないいのちに適合して——任職されたことHebrews 7:15-17、それゆえ、弱く益にならないために、以前の命令は廃止されたことHebrews 7:18、また、古い律法は「何ものも」完全にせず、新しい取り決めによって、全き永遠の完全の体系が導入されたことを述べるHebrews 7:19。

三. 使徒は、キリスト教の体系の大いなる大祭司が誓いの厳粛さをもって任職されたという事実から、ユダヤの体系の祭司職に対するキリストの祭司職の優位を示す。ユダヤの祭司職はそうではなかったHebrews 7:20-22。それゆえ彼の祭司職は、誓いが命令に勝るのと同じほど、より重要で厳粛なものであり、彼の保証は、誓いが単純な約束に勝るのと同じほど、より確かなものとなったHebrews 7:22。

四. キリストの祭司職の優位はさらに、以前の摂理の時代の下では「多くの」祭司がいたが、ここにはただ「一人」しかいなかったという事実から示される。そこでは、彼らは短い期間しか生きず、その後は後継者に道を譲った。しかしここでは、死による除きはなく、継承はなく、不変の祭司職があったHebrews 7:23-24。それゆえ彼は推論するHebrews 7:25、キリスト教の大祭司は、彼を通して父に来るすべての人を極みまで救うことができる。彼はいつも生きていて、とりなしをされるからである。

五. 最後の論法は、レビの祭司職の下では、祭司は民の罪のためだけでなく、自分の罪のためにもいけにえをささげることが必要であったということである。しかし、キリスト教の体系の大祭司に関しては、そのような必要は存在しなかった。彼は聖なる方、悪のない方、汚れのない方であり、自分の罪のためにいけにえをささげる必要はなく、この点において、キリスト教の祭司職はユダヤのそれに大いに勝っていたHebrews 7:26-28。これらの諸々の論法の力は、解説を進めるにつれて評価できるようになろう。

Concerning the greatness of Melchisedec, after whose order Christ is a high priest, Hebrews 7:1-4. The Levites had authority to take tithes of the people; yet Abraham, their representative, paid tithes to Melchisedec, Hebrews 7:5-10. Perfection cannot come by the Mosaic law, else there could be no need for another priest after the order of Melchisedec, according to the prediction of David in Psalm 110:1-7, which priest is sprung from a tribe to which the priesthood, according to the law, did not appertain; but Christ is a priest for ever, not according to the law, but after the order of an endless life, Hebrews 7:11-17. The law, therefore, is disannulled, because of its unprofitableness and imperfection; and Christ has an unchangeable priesthood, Hebrews 7:18-24. He is therefore able always to save them that come unto him, being in every respect a suitable Savior; and he has offered up himself for the sins of the people, Hebrews 7:25-27. The law makes those priests who have infirmity; but he who is consecrated by the oath is perfect, and endures for ever, Hebrews 7:28.

INTRODUCTION TO Hebrews 7

The apostle having made mention of Melchizedek in the latter part of the preceding chapter, proceeds in this to give some account of him, and of the excellency of his priesthood, and to show that Christ is a priest of his order, and is superior to Aaron and his sons. He first declares what Melchizedek was, that he was both king and priest; he names the place he was king of, and tells whose priest he was, even the priest of the most high God; and goes on to observe what he did, that he met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, that he blessed him, and took tithes of him, Hebrews 7:1 and then interprets his name, and royal title, the one signifying king of righteousness, the other king of peace; that for anything that can be learned from the Scriptures, it is not known who was his father or his mother; what his lineage and descent; when he was born, or when he died; and that he is like to the Son of God, and continues a priest, Hebrews 7:2 upon which the apostle calls upon the Hebrews to consider the greatness of his person; and as it appears from that single instance of his receiving tithes from the patriarch Abraham, Hebrews 7:4 by which it is evident, that he is greater than the Levites; and which is demonstrated in the following particulars: the Levites received tithes of their brethren that came out of Abraham's loins, as they did, but Melchizedek, whose descent was not from them, received tithes from Abraham himself, and besides blessed him; and it is a clear case, that the lesser is blessed of the greater, Hebrews 7:5 the Levites were mortal men that received tithes, but a testimony is bore to Melchizedek, that he lives, Hebrews 6:8 yea, Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek, since he was in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him, and took tithes of him; and therefore must be greater than Levi, Hebrews 7:9. And next the apostle proves the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood from this consideration, that there is another priest risen up, not of the order of Aaron, but of the order of Melchizedek, of which there would have been no need, if the Levitical priesthood had been perfect; nor would it have been changed, as it is, and which has also made a change of the law, by which it is established, necessary, Hebrews 7:11 that the priest that is risen up is not of the order of Aaron, is clear, because he is of another tribe, even of the tribe of Judah, to which the priesthood did not belong, Hebrews 7:13, and that he is of the order of Melchizedek, and so not according to the ceremonial law, but after the power of an endless life, is manifest from the testimony of the sacred Scripture, Hebrews 7:15 which lies in Psalm 110:4 and that the ceremonial law, on which the Levitical priesthood stood, is changed and abrogated, is strongly asserted, and the reasons of it given, because it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect; and this was disannulled by Christ, the better hope brought in, who has made something perfect, and through whom we have access to God, Hebrews 7:18. Moreover, the superior excellency of Christ's priesthood to the Levitical one is shown in several particulars; the priests of Aaron's order were made without an oath; Christ was made with one, as is evident from the above cited testimony, Hebrews 7:20 they were many, he but one; they were mortal, and did not continue, he continues ever, having an unchangeable priesthood, Hebrews 7:23 wherefore, as they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, their priesthood was ineffectual; they could not take away sin, and save sinners; but Christ is able to save to the uttermost all that draw nigh to God by him, as a priest, and that because he ever lives to complete his office by intercession, Hebrews 7:25 wherefore such an high priest as he is, must become men, and be suitable to them, especially since he is pure and holy, and in such an exalted state, Hebrews 7:26 and this is another difference between him and the priests under the law; they were men that had infirmity, and were guilty of sins themselves, and so had need to offer for their own sins, and then for the sins of others; but Christ, the Son of God, who was consecrated a priest for evermore, by the word of the oath, had no sin of his own to offer sacrifice for, only the sins of his people, which he did once, when he offered himself, Hebrews 7:27.

Ch. 7. Christ, as an eternal High Priest after the order of Melchisedek, is superior to the Levitic High Priest

Historic reference to Melchisedek (1–4). His Priesthood typically superior to that of Aaron in seven particulars, i. Because even Abraham gave him tithes (4–7). ii. Because he blessed Abraham (7). iii. Because he is the type of an undying Priest (8). iv. Because even the yet unborn Levi paid him tithes, in the person of Abraham (9, 10). v. Because the permanence of his Priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the whole Levitic Law (11–19). vi. Because it was founded on the swearing of an oath (20–23). vii. Because it is intransmissible, never being vacated by death (23, 24). Summary and conclusion (25–28).

The subject of Christ’s priesthood is resumed; the interpolated admonition (Hebrews 5:11 to Hebrews 6:20) having been skilfully brought round to a second mention of Melchizedek. The chief reason for introducing the priesthood of Melchizedek as the type of Christ’s priesthood was that it was “for ever”. The Aaronic priesthood was successional, this single; and in this sense “for ever”. There were, however, other reasons. The first question with a Jew who was enjoined to trust to Christ’s priestly mediation, would be, What are His orders? He belonged to a tribe “of which Moses had spoken nothing concerning priesthood”. He might or might not be the true heir to David’s throne; but if He was, did not this very circumstance exclude him from the priestly office? Was it credible that the nation had been encouraged rigorously to exclude from the priesthood every interloper, only in order that at last this rigidly preserved order should be entirely disregarded? This writer seizes upon the fact that there was a greater priest than Aaron mentioned in Scripture—a priest more worthy to be the type of the Messianic priesthood, because he was himself a king, and especially because he belonged to no successional priestly order but was himself the entire order. This idea of a priesthood superseding that of Levi’s sons found its way into Scripture through the hymn (Psalms 110) which celebrated the dignity (as priest-king) of Simon the Maccabee. Bickell has shown that the first four verses of the Psalm are an acrostic on the name Simon, שׁמען. When the Maccabees displaced the Aaronic priesthood, they found their Justification in the priestly dignity of Melchizedek, and assumed his style, calling themselves “priests of the Most High God”. Cf. Charles, Book of Jubilees, pp. lix. and 191. The chapter may be divided thus:—

I.  Characteristics of Melchizedek, 1–10.

1.  In himself as depicted in Scripture, 1–3.

2.  In his relation to Levi and his line, 4–10.

II.  Inadequacy of Levitical priesthood in comparison with the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, 11–25.

1.  Levi being provisional, Melchizedek being permanent, 11–14.

2.  Official and hereditary: personal and eternal, 15–19.

3.  Without oath: with oath, therefore final, 20–22.

4.  Plural and successional: singular and enduring, 23–25.

III.  Summary of the merits of the new Melchizedek Priest, Jesus.

CHAPTER 7

Hebrews 7:1. Instead of τοῦ ὑψίστου, Elz. has only ὑψίστου. Against A B C D E K L א, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. mult.

ὁ συναντήσας] Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) D E K א, 17, 117, al.: ὃς συναντήσας. Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle.

Hebrews 7:4. Instead of the Recepta ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely ᾧ δεκάτην. Certainly καί is not indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from Hebrews 7:2. But with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the author himself, the words of Hebrews 7:2 being still present to his mind. It is therefore, since it has in its favour the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K L א, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidov. and Harlej.), Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained.

Hebrews 7:6. The article τόν before Ἀβραάμ is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford, after B C D* א* 23, 57, 109, al. In favour of the omission pleads the very sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the article as a rule being placed only where, as in Hebrews 11:17, the perspicuity of the discourse imperatively demanded it.

Hebrews 7:9. In place of the received Λευΐ we have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Λευΐς, after A (λευις) B C* א*** (λευεις). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Λευείς.

Hebrews 7:10. Elz.: ὁ Μελχισεδέκ. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* א, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: Μελχισεδέκ. The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds as in Hebrews 7:6.

Hebrews 7:11. The Recepta ἐπʼ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο (defended by Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of ἐπʼ αὐτῇ is ἐπʼ αὐτῆς (approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* א, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead of νενομοθέτητο is νενομοθέτηται (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* א, 17, 47, 73, al., Cyril.

Hebrews 7:13. προσέσχηκεν] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: προσέσχεν. Commended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the Recepta προσέσχηκεν. In favour of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attestation (B D E K L א, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with μετέσχηκεν, consonant with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:14. Elz.: οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης. But A B C* D* E א, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt, Sahid. Arm. Cyr. Chrys. (codd.) have: περὶ ἱερέων οὐδέν. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. περὶ ἱερωσύνης is a glossematic elucidation.

Hebrews 7:16. Instead of the Recepta σαρκικῆς, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted σαρκίνης, after A B C* D* L א (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. Rightly. σαρκίνης might easily be changed into σαρκικῆς by transcribers, since σαρκικός is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., σάρκινος a rare one.

Hebrews 7:17. μαρτυρεῖται] Elz.: μαρτυρεῖ. Against preponderating testimony (A B D* E* א, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl.).

Hebrews 7:21. After αἰῶνα Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Reiche add once more: κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. Deleted by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are found in A D E K L א*** It. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the same (Hebrews 7:22) the discourse is continued afresh with κατά; the eye of the transcriber might thus easily wander from the first κατά to the second κατά. Also for א* there was found in the twofold κατά the occasion for overlooking not only κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, but in addition to this likewise εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Hebrews 7:22. τοσοῦτον] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty authority of A B C D* א* Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favour of the form of the word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, τοσοῦτο.

Hebrews 7:23. Recepta: γεγονότες ἱερεῖς. So also Tisch. 2, 7, and 8. As better attested, however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and Alford.

Hebrews 7:26. Elz.: ἔπρεπεν. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb.: καὶ ἔπρεπεν.