PERSON OP CHRIST

Priest of humanity. Nevertlieless, He does not, as man, gain His perfect unity witli God's will, but is represented as bringing it with Him into the world (10*-'). Life on earth, although an imperfect medium of His higher nature, is a humiliation demanded by His office or vocation as the Sanctifler of sinners. He assumed flesh, not merely to make Himself apprehen-sible, but in order to suffer, by tasting death for every man; and to the bitterness and shame of death for Jesus there are pathetic allusions (5'- * 13'*).

2. In spite of all this vivid portraiture of the humanity of Jesus, the writer well-nigh outstrips Paul in the lofti-ness of his Christology. As with other NT believers, his mind starts from the Exalted One (cf. 9^*), whom he conceives habitually as High Priest within the veil, but a Priest who has sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (8'); and from this Messianic dignity he argues back to Jesus' original nature. In 12 Christ is announced as the 'Son'; and statements are made regarding the Son which imply that He is more than man (!', where He is plainly addressed as God), eternal both before and after (7*), and tran-scendently related to God (l'). Thus eternal and Divine, He was made a little lower than the angels (2»); and it touches the writer's heart to think that in coming into the world the Son did not stop short of a genuine participation in the flesh and blood we mortals wear (2"-i8). It has been justly pointed out that in Hebrews a certain metaphysical colour has been added to the ethical sense in which the term ' Son' occurs in other Apostolic writings; although we ought to take this distinction of metaphysical and ethical with great caution. Still, a proof of the primitive feeling which underlies the whole is given in the fact that in Hebrews, precisely as in the Synoptics, the Sonship of Christ is looked upon as the basis of His Messiahship, for it is to fulfil the Messianic function of salvation that the Son comes into the world.

3. A very difficult question is whether in this Epistle 'Son' is applied to the pre-incarnate One, or to the incarnate Christ only. The passage chiefly in dispute is l'-*. No one can doubt that the writer's mind starts from Christ the Son, a,s known in history and in His exaltation, and holds these revealing facts steadily in the foreground of his thought ; but does he go further back, and carry this Sonship into the pre-existeut state? A. B. Davidson says, 'Son is His characteristic name, describing His essential relation to God, a relation unaffected by change of state'; and A. B. Bruce urges that the interest of magnifying Christ's sacrifice re-quires His Sonship to be of older date than the life on earth. In favour of this view, despite weighty argu-ments against it, is the fact that throughout the three stages of His existence Christ is represented as per-sonally identical. It is prima fade as Son that He is said to have acted as agent of God in the creation of the worlds (l^), or to have built the 'house' of the OT dispensation (3'). But probably the point is one which exegesis by itself cannot decide; and we ought to note that a similar unavoidable ambiguity obtains in what are more or less parallel passages — Col l'^ and Jn 1".

But, at all events, it is clear that Hebrews teaches the real pre-existence of Christ, whether or not the pre-existent One is designated by the title ' Son.' It was the reproach of Christ that Moses bore (11*); as Lord, He laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning 1'°); He came into the world with the conscious pur-pose of sacrificing Himself (lO*). Little is said about the pre-existing state, yet it occupies more space than in any other NT Epistle. But the writer offers no rationale of the Incarnation; there is no passage comparable with Ph 2=-"; although in one place it is pointed out how close the Son came to men in taking fiesh and blood (2U-16). The supernatural character of His being .is insisted on: 'He did not come out of humanity. He

PERSON OF CHRIST

came into it.' At the same time, all docetism is ex-cluded; for not only is suffering and death represented as the aim of His entrance upon human life, but the experience of His passion still remains as the ground on which He is resorted to by men as the great High Priest, who has learned sympathy through sufferings (2i»)._

It is in His capacity as Son that the priestly work of Christ, in which, dying as a man, He offers Himself in and after death, is accomplished. So again, it is the essential being of the Son that is indicated when, in a striking expression (9»), it is said that He offered Himself unto God 'through an eternal spirit'; for the words mean that the Spirit which was in Him, and constituted His personal being, was indestructible by death, and enabled Him to pursue His high-priestly vocation in the heavenly sanctuary. Once more, strong emphasis is laid on the activity of Christ the Son for us in heaven, particularly as Intercessor (7^ ga 414 138); jt ig as Son that He sits down at God's right hand, the heir of all things, and Messianic King; as Son that He carries His offering before the face of God for us, and enters the holy place. In a word, the Sonship of Christ is the central thought of Hebrews; it supplies the ground and precondition of His being a perfect Surety of the eternal covenant.

4. A brief comparison with the Christology of St. Paul is not without interest. In both there is a distinct assertion of Christ's pre-temporal being, and His activity in creation; the argument going back from His present exaltation to His original nature. In both Christ reaches His throne, far above the angels, by way of the cross; and the idea is suggested that at the Hesur-rection or Ascension Christ first attained in status what He had always possessed by nature. In both real Divinity is combined with as distinct subordination; thus in Hebrews not Christ, but God, is Judge, and the Son's place is not on, but on the right hand of, the throne of God (8' 12^). On the other hand, certain slight features of difference may be noted. In Hebrews, as contrasted with St. Paul, Christ is definitely represented as having taken flesh and blood with a view to suffering; the earthly Jesus, rather than the pre-existing One or the glorified Lord, is viewed as our example; the exaltation becomes slightly more prominent than the resurrection; the high-priestly activity in heaven fills a large place; the mystical strain of reciprocal unity with Christ is absent; nor is there any suggestion, as in 1 Co 15"-", of a time yet to be when the reign of Christ shall close, and be merged in some final dispensation.

It is not improbable that the writer of Hebrews had felt the influence of the cultivated Jewish thought of Alexandria, that crucible of all the creeds. But while the system of Philo may have partially supplied him with a vocabulary, what appears to be certain is that this did not dictate his use of it. Thus the term 'Logos' is nowhere employed in the Philonic sense, nor is Christ called 'Logos ; His regular designation rather, we have seen, is ' Son,' as given by the (JT and Christian usage. What finally puts out of court the identification of the Son with the Logos of Philo is that the Son participates in a redeeming history, which is unthinkable for the other. Nor is there anything in Philo that could properly be compared with the High Priesthood of Christ.

V. The Apocalypse. — The Christology of the Apoca-lypse presents a rather perplexing problem to the histori-cal critic. Whatever be the sources that lie behind the book, most scholars now regard it as a character-istic product of intensely Jewish Christianity; and OT and Jewish conceptions of the Messiah are certainly the foundation upon which its view of Christ is built up. Yet, on the other hand, its Christology is 'ap-parently the most advanced in all the NT' (Bousset), and seems at a few points to pass beyond the limits of Paulinism.

1. Although the book represents the heavenly rather than the earthly life of Christ, yet the personal, historic

709