V. Covenant, Sanctuary, And Sacrifice (8:1-10:18)
IV. THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK (7:1-28)
A. MELCHIZEDEK THE PRIEST-KING (7:1-3)
1 It was this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High,1 who came to meet2 Abraham when he was returning from the slaughter of the kings3 and gave him his blessing.4
2 It was he to whom Abraham apportioned one tenth of everything.5 His name is to be interpreted first of all as "king of righteousness, " and then also6 "king of peace. "
1-2 In order to draw out the significance of Christ's being acclaimed as perpetual high priest "after the order of Melchizedek," our author goes back from his text, Ps. 110:4, to the only other place in the Bible where Melchizedek appears, the story of Abraham's rout of the four invading kings from the east (Gen. 14). From the part played by Melchizedek in that narrative, it will be shown how aptly he prefigures the high priesthood of Christ.
According to that narrative (which belongs, as archaeological evidence indicates, to the Middle Bronze Age), Chedorlaomer, an Elamite king, with three allied rulers, raided Transjordan and the Negeb, defeated the city-states of the "circuit of Jordan"-Sodom and her neighbors-and carried off a large number of captives, including Lot, Abraham's nephew. When news of this came to Abraham at Mamre, near Hebron, he armed his own retainers, enlisted the aid of his neighbors, and set off in pursuit of the invaders. He overtook them near Damascus, launched a surprise attack on them, put them to flight, and recovered the captives and the plunder. On his homeward progress he was met by the grateful king of Sodom, who proposed that Abraham should return the captives to him but retain the material plunder as his proper spoils of war. Abraham declined to retain anything because of an oath he had just sworn to "God Most High, maker of heaven and earth."8 For, immediately before the king of Sodom made his proposal to Abraham, Abraham had been greeted by another local ruler, Melchizedek.
This is all that the Genesis narrative has to say about Melchizedek, but it is enough for our author; more would have been superfluous. He finds as much significance in what is not said about Melchizedek as he does in what is said about him. It is indeed noteworthy that one of the things which is said about Melchizedek in the Genesis narrative is passed over by our author without mention-his bringing forth bread and wine for Abraham's refreshment.'° Few typologists of early Christian or more recent days could have resisted so tempting an opportunity of drawing a eucharistic inference from these words! 11
Philo's treatment of the Melchizedek story presents points of comparison, but even more markedly points of contrast, with the treatment here. He contrasts Melchizedek's provision of bread and wine with the refusal of the Ammonites and Moabites (the descendants of Lot) to supply Israel in the wilderness with bread and water:12 "but let Melchizedek bring forth wine instead of water, let him give souls unmixed wine to drink, that they may be seized by a divine intoxication which is more sober than sobriety itself; for he is a priest, even Reason (logos), and has as his portion the Existing One."13
The difference between Philo's allegorization and our author's typological exegesis is plain. The only substantial coincidence between their accounts of Melchizedek lies in their both pointing out the etymological sense of his name and title: "God has made him king of peace," says Philo, "for that is how `Salem' is to be interpreted, and his own priest. He did not fashion any work of his beforehand, but made him from the first a king of this character, both peaceful and worthy of his own priesthood, for he is called `righteous king."114 Both authors, that is to say, connect zedek, the second element in Melchizedek's name, with the Hebrew word commonly translated "righteousness";15 and both relate the name of his city to Hebrew shalom, "peace."16 There is a fitness in this collocation of righteousness and peace both in the natural order and preeminently in our author's explanation of Melchizedek in terms of the gospel, where peace with God is based upon the righteousness of God.17
3 The words which follow present an outstanding example of the argument from silence in a typological setting.18 When Melchizedek is described as having "neither father nor mother,19 without a genealogy," and having "neither beginning of days nor end of life," it is not suggested that he was a biological anomaly, or an angel in human guise.20 Historically Mel chizedek appears to have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors. If this point had been put to our author, he would have agreed at once, no doubt; but this consideration was foreign to his purpose. The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides of Melchizedek-Gen. 14:18-20-nothing is said of his parentage, nothing is said of his ancestry21 or progeny, nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death. He appears as a living man, king of Salem and priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this-in the silences as well as in the statements-he is a fitting type of Christ; in fact, the record by the things it says of him and by the things it does not say has assimilated him to the Son of God. It is the eternal being of the Son of God that is here in view; not his human life. Our author has no docetic view of Christ; he knows that "our Lord has sprung from Judah" (v. 14). But in his eternal being the Son of God has really, as Melchizedek has typically, "neither beginning of days nor end of life"; and more especially now, exalted at the right hand of God, he "remains a priest in perpetuity." Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative; but in the antitype Christ remains a priest continually without qualification. And it is not the type which determines the antitype, but the antitype which determines the type; Jesus is not portrayed after the pattern of Melchizedek, but Melchizedek is "made conformable to the Son of God."22
B. THE GREATNESS OF MELCHIZEDEK (7:4-10)
4 See how great this man23 is! To the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.
5 Now those descendants of Levi who receive the priesthood are entitled according to the law to be paid tithes by the people-that is, their own brothers-although they too are Abraham's offspring.
6 But Melchizedek, who does not belong to their genealogy, has been paid tithes by Abraham, and has bestowed his blessing on the recipient of the promises.
7 Beyond all dispute it is the inferior who is blessed by the superior.
8 Again, in our situation it is mortal human beings who are paid tithes, but in that situation they are paid to one who is attested as being alive.
9 One might almost say that,25 by the agency of Abraham, Levi, who is paid tithes, paid tithes to Melchizedek,
10 for he was still in his forefather's body when Melchizedek came to meet him.
4 The surpassing dignity of Melchizedek's priestly order will be appreciated the more if one considers the tokens of Melchizedek's greatness. Abraham was a great man indeed-"a prince of God" to his neighbors, called "my friend" by God himself-but in the account of his interview with Melchizedek, it is Melchizedek who appears as the greater of the two.26 And if Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, his priesthood (our author argues) must be greater than a priesthood which traces its descent from Abraham. The superior greatness of Melchizedek appears in two important respects: he accepted tithes from Abraham and bestowed his blessing on Abraham.
5-6a The tithes which he received from Abraham evidently amounted to one tenth of all the spoils of war27 which Abraham had recovered from the invading kings. The dedication of one tenth of the spoils of war to a deity (on whose behalf his priest acted) was practiced among the Greeks and other nations,28 but is not attested for Israel. As far as the institution of the "holy war" in Israel was concerned, it was not one tenth only, but all that was captured, which was devoted to God according to the law of the herem or "ban."29 In Israel agricultural produce was tithed year by year and the tithe was allocated to the tribe of Levi "for an inheritance" (Lev. 18:21, the "commandment" of v. 5), and one tenth of that tithe was further earmarked for the priesthood (Num. 18:26).30 In Nehemiah's time the Levites received the tithes under the supervision of the priests and brought the "tithe of the tithes" to the temple to be handed over to the priests (Neh. 10:38f.). By the first century A.D., however, there is reason to think that the administration of the tithes was carried out by the priests.31 It may have been knowledge of the actual practice at that time that led our author to say that it was "those descendants of Levi who receive the priesthood" who tithed the people in accordance with the commandment-although in general his description of the laws relating to the priesthood and sanctuary is based on the Pentateuch and not on contemporary custom.
Our author's argument, however, does not rest upon the details of the administration of the tithe according to the Old Testament law, but on the fact that whereas the members of the tribe of Levi received tithes from their fellow-Israelites, who were children of Abraham like themselves, Abraham-ancestor alike of the Levites and of their kinsfolk who paid them tithes-recognized the superiority of Melchizedek by paying tithes to him. The priesthood of Melchizedek's order is thus shown to enjoy higher status than the Levitical priesthood;32 Melchizedek, like Christ, who has been acclaimed high priest after his order, does not have his genealogy reckoned among the sons of Levi.
6b-7 Moreover, great as Abraham's privileges were by virtue of the promises which he received from God, he recognized the superiority of Melchizedek by accepting a blessing at his hands-"and beyond all dispute the lesser is always blessed by the greater" (NEB).
8 Another token of Melchizedek's superiority to the Levitical priesthood is this: nowhere is it related that Melchizedek lost his priestly office by death, whereas we have the record, generation after generation, of Levitical priests who died and had to hand on their dignity and duty to their heirs. The tithe prescribed by Israelite law is paid to mortal men; the tithe which Abraham gave Melchizedek was received by one who, as far as the record goes, has no "end of life." As far as the record goes, for our author is not interested in anything that might be known or inferred about Melchizedek outside the biblical narrative. But what was true of Melchizedek in this limited and "literary" sense is true absolutely of him who serves his people as high priest in the presence of God. Melchizedek "is attested as being alive" in the sense that we never read of him otherwise than as a living man; Christ can be said to live in the sense that, having died once for all and risen from the dead, he is alive forevermore (cf. v. 16 below; Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:18). The practical implications of this are drawn out more fully in vv. 23-25 of the present chapter.
9-10 Reverting for a moment to the tithe-receiving tribe of Levi, our author points out that Levi, the ancestor of that priestly tribe and the embodiment of its corporate personality, may be said himself to have paid tithes to Melchizedek (thus conceding the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood) in the person of his ancestor Abraham. Levi was Abraham's great-grandson, and was yet unborn when Abraham met Melchizedek; but an ancestor is regarded in biblical thought as containing within himself all his descendants.33 That Levi may be thought of thus as paying tithes to Melchizedek is an afterthought to what has already been said about the significance of this particular payment of tithes; lest it should be criticized as farfetched, our author qualifies it with the phrase "one might almost say" ("it might even be said," NEB).34
C. IMPERFECTION OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (7:11-14)
11 Now if perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood35 (under which the people have received the law),36 what further need would there be for another priest to arise after Melchizedek's order, instead of being called after Aaron's?
12 With the change of priesthood, of course, there takes place necessariiy37 a change38 of law also.
13 The man with a view to whom these things are said belongs to39 another tribe, from which no one ever ministered40 at the altar.
14 It is known to a1141 that our Lord has sprung42 from Judah, a tribe of which Moses said nothing in connection with priests.43
11 It could not be argued that the later priesthood (of Aaron) superseded the earlier (of Melchizedek),44 for the priesthood of Aaron was already well established when the divine oracle was uttered which hailed the Messiah of David's line as "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." What the oracle implies, our author argues, is that the Aaronic priesthood did not exhaust the mediatorial functions which, in God's purpose, were to be discharged between him and the human race. If God had intended the Aaronic priesthood to inaugurate the age of perfection, the time when men and women would enjoy unimpeded access to him, why should he have conferred on the Messiah a priestly dignity of his own-different45 from Aaron's and by implication superior to Aaron's? In fact, as is argued below in manifold detail, the Aaronic priesthood was neither designed nor competent to inaugurate the age of fulfilment; that age must be marked by the rise of another priest, whose priesthood was of a different order and character from Aaron's. Some phases of Jewish expectation did look forward to a new age-the age of restoration-when a worthy priest would preside over the state;46 but this coming priest of the tribe of Levi could at best be actually what the Aaronic high priest was ideally and could not bring in perfection in the sense intended by our author. For that, another priest of a different kind was called for.
The words "Now if perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood" have a bearing on the class of readers at whom our author's argument was aimed. If they were Gentile converts, in danger of abandoning their Christian faith, their only response to these words would have been: "We never thought there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood"they certainly never thought so in their pagan days and they would have received no encouragement to think so in their Christian days. But if they were Jews by birth, now in danger of giving up the distinctive features of their Christian confession and merging once more in their former Jewish environment, the situation was quite different. Before their conversion they had envisaged no priesthood beyond the Levitical priesthood; even if they looked for a new priest to arise in the age to come, he was still a Levitical priest. Their Christian teachers would have encouraged them to think of the Levitical priesthood as something belonging to the age of preparation, which had now given way to the age of fulfilment; but they were in danger of concluding that, after all, the old order (including the Levitical priesthood and everything else that went with it) had still much to be said in its favor. To such people our author's assurance that the supersession of the Levitical priesthood by another had been decreed by God long before would have had practical relevance.
12 Nor is it only the Aaronic priesthood which must be superseded. That priesthood was instituted under the Mosaic law, and was so integral to it that a change in the priesthood carries with it inevitably a change in the law. If the Aaronic priesthood was instituted for a temporary purpose, to be brought to an end when the age of fulfilment dawned, the same must be true of the law under which that priesthood was introduced. So by his own independent line of argument our author reaches the same conclusion as Paul: the law was a temporary provision, "our custodian until Christ came" (Gal. 3:24). Paul, indeed, thinks of the law as an institution designed to arouse men and women's awareness of sin and not (as he had once believed) to promote their justification before God, whereas our author thinks rather of the sacrificial cultus as something which could never effectively remove sin.47 If we like, we may say that Paul has the moral law mainly in mind, whereas the author of Hebrews is concerned more with the ceremonial law-although the distinction between the moral and ceremonial law is one drawn by Christian theologians, not by those who accepted the whole law as the will of God, nor yet by the New Testament writers.48 But in principle Paul and our author are agreed that the law was a temporary dispensation of God, valid only until Christ came to inaugurate the age of perfection. Its supersession is here seen to be implied in the acclamation of Messiah as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
13-14 How radical is the change in the law which is involved in the announcement of a priesthood after Melchizedek's order may be appreciated when it is considered that the person to whom this announcement refers has nothing to do with the tribe of Levi, to which the priesthood was restricted by the law. It is a matter of common knowledge that our Lord belonged to the tribe of Judah. This, it may be remarked, could be a matter of common knowledge only if it was generally accepted that he was born of the royal line of David-that he was so born was a commonplace of primitive Christian preaching and confession.49 But whatever hopes and promises were attached in the Pentateuch to the tribe of Judah, priestly service found no place among them.5° No member of the tribe of Judah was appointed to officiate at the altar.51 The attempts which were made at a later date to justify the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ by providing him with a Levitical lineage52 would have been dismissed by our author (had he known anything about them) not only as irrelevant but as perverse, because they blunted the point of his argument-the calculated supersession of the Levitical priesthood by one of a different kind. Nor would he have looked with any greater favor on attempts to establish a new earthly priesthood to be exercised by members of the holy family,53 although the holy family undoubtedly belonged to the tribe of Judah. The priesthood in which he is interested is different not only because it is exercised by one who came from another tribe than Levi, but also because it is not exercised on earth: it belongs to the eternal order, not to the material world.
D. SUPERIORITY OF THE NEW PRIESTHOOD (7:15-19)
15 Our argument is clearer still, if another priest is to arise after the fashion of Melchizedek,
17 For God's testimony is:
18 Here we have the cancellation56 of the previous commandment, because it was weak and unprofitable
19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and the introduction57 of a better hope, by which we approach God.
15-17 A further token of the imperfection of the old priesthood and the superiority of the new lies on the face of our author's Old Testament text, "You are a priest for ever." These words are quite inapplicable to the old order; no priest of Aaron's line could have been described as "a priest for ever,"58 for the simple reason that each one of them died in due course. But the Christians' high priest is immortal; having died once for all and risen from the dead, he discharges his ministry on his people's behalf in the power of a life which can never be destroyed. The law which established the Aaronic priesthood is called a "carnal commandment" (AV/KJV, ERV/ARV) because it is "a system of earth-bound rules" (NEB); it is concerned with the externalities of religion-the physical descent of the priests,59 a material shrine, animal sacrifices, and so forth. Like everything else in the Levitical regime, the Aaronic order of priesthood was marked by transience; it stands thus in contrast to the permanence and effectiveness of the priestly office of Christ.
18-19 The declaration "You area priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek" thus announces the abrogation of the earlier law which instituted the Aaronic order. It was inevitable that the earlier law should be abrogated sooner or later; for all the impressive solemnity of the sacrificial ritual and the sacerdotal ministry, no real peace of conscience was procured thereby, no immediate access to God. That is not to say that faithful men and women in Old Testament times did not enjoy peace of conscience and a sense of nearness to God; the Psalter provides evidence enough that they did. The psalmist who cried, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered; blessed is the man to whom Yahweh imputes no iniquity" (Ps. 32: if.), knew the blessedness of a peaceful conscience; and his colleague who said, "it is good for me to be near God" (Ps. 73:28), knew that access to the divine presence was always available to the man or woman of faith. But these experiences had nothing to do with the Levitical ritual or the Aaronic priesthood. The whole apparatus of worship associated with that ritual and priesthood was calculated rather to keep people at a distance from God than to bring them near. But the "hope set before us" in the gospel is better because it accomplishes this very thing which was impossible under the old ceremonial; it enables Christians to "draw near to God." How it enables them to do so is explained in greater detail later on;60 but the fact that the gospel, unlike the law, has opened up a way of free access to God is our author's ground for claiming that the gospel has achieved that perfection which the law could never bring about.
E. SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF THE DIVINE OATH (7:20-22)
insofar as the new priesthood is not unaccompanied by the swearing of an oath6l (for those of the Levitical order have been made62 priests without the swearing of an oath,
this one with the swearing of an oath by63 him who says to him,64
22 to that extent also Jesus has become guarantor of a better covenant.
20-21 Our author continues to examine his text, so as to extract from it its last degree of significance for the character of the new priesthood. He now draws his readers' attention to the fact that the acclamation of Messiah as a perpetual priest was confirmed by a divine oath: "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: `You are a priest for ever."' What he has said about God's oath to Abraham in 6:13ff.66 is equally true about God's oath here. The bare word of God is assurance enough, but God, "desiring to show even more clearly ... how unchanging was his purpose, guaranteed it by oath" (6:17, NEB). The inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood rested on a divine command: "bring near to you Aaron your brother," said God to Moses, "and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests" (Ex. 28:1). But there is no mention of a divine oath in the record of their appointment as there is in Ps. 110:4, where a new priest "after the order of Melchizedek" is introduced. This suggests the superior dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood.67
22 And since it is Jesus who is acclaimed as priest after the order of Melchizedek, it is Jesus whose superior dignity is thus confirmed. Our author emphasizes this by arranging the construction of this long sentence,68 vv. 2022, so that the weight of the argument falls on its last word, "Jesus." And when he does so, he introduces a further aspect of the priesthood of Jesus which will be developed in the following chapters-Jesus' role as guarantor and mediator of a covenant which is as much superior to the covenant of the ancien regime as his priesthood is superior to that of Aaron. This is the first occurrence of the term "covenant" in this epistle, but the term is about to play such a central part in the argument to follow that the whole epistle has been described as "The Epistle of the Diatheke."69 For the moment, however, the designation of Jesus as "the guarantor70 of a better covenant" prepares the reader for what is to come; there are still two further tokens of the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood which must be mentioned.
F. SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF ITS PERMANENCE (7:23-25)
23 Again, those high priests have been7l many in number because death prevented them from continuing,
24 but this one, because he continues "for ever, " has a priesthood72 which is untransferable.73
25 Therefore indeed he is able to bring complete and final salvation to those who approach God through him, since he lives continuously to intercede for them.
23 It has already been pointed out (vv. 16f.) that our Lord's indissoluble life makes it possible for him to fulfil to the letter the words "You are a priest for ever." If these words were applied to a dynasty of priests, "for ever" could be understood only of a hereditary succession of indefinite duration.74 The Aaronic priests were indeed appointed on the hereditary principle (not, of course, on the basis of Ps. 110:4); but none of them could enjoy the priestly dignity in perpetuity. Aaron, the first of the line, served his people in the high priesthood throughout the wilderness wanderings; but the day came when Aaron and his son Eleazar were taken by Moses to the summit of Mount Hor. There "Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain" (Num. 20:28). Later, after the settlement in the land of Canaan, Eleazar died in his turn (Josh. 24:33) and was succeeded by his son Phinehas; and so the tale went on. In generation after generation the high priest died and his office passed to another, until in all (so Josephus reckons75) eighty-three high priests officiated from Aaron to the fall of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Our author has good reason for what he here says of them: "Those other priests are appointed in numerous succession, because they are prevented by death from continuing in office" (NEB).
Here no high allegorical interpretation of the mortality of Old Testa ment priests is offered such as we find in Philo. According to him, the death of the high priest means the departure of "the most sacred Logos" from the soul of man, in consequence of which all kinds of inadvertent errors find an entrance there.77 But to our author the death of the high priest (or of any other priest) means that he is no longer available to those who counted upon him to intercede for them with God. Of course, as long as the old order endured, a new priest was always at hand to step into the place of his predecessor, but people might feel that because of certain personal qualities which he possessed over and above the sacredness of his office, the late priest was a more effective intercessor with God than his successor could ever be. No such misgivings could be entertained with regard to the high priesthood of Christ, however. He would never have to hand it over to someone less well qualified to discharge its mediatorial functions. Those who entrusted their cause to him knew therefore that it was permanently secure in his hands.
25 Those who have Christ as their high priest and mediator with God have in him a Savior whose saving power is available without end,78 not liable to the mischances of mortal life. He lives eternally, eternally engaged to bless and protect those who have committed themselves to him. The way of approach to God through him is a way which is always open, because in the presence of God he represents his people as "a priest for ever." He is no mediator in the ordinary sense, a go-between who places his good offices at the disposal of two parties in the hope of bringing them to agreement. He is the unique Mediator between God and mankind because he combines Godhead and manhood perfectly in his own person; in him God draws near to men and women and in him men and women may draw near to God, with the assurance of constant and immediate access.
What is our Lord's special function as his people's high priest with God, apart from ensuring their never-failing acceptance before God? In 2:17f. we have been told that he became high priest to make atonement for his people's sins and strengthen them in temptation; in 4:15f. we have been told that he sympathizes with their weakness and supplies the mercy and grace to help them in time of need. Here his high-priestly function is summed up in terms of intercession: "he lives continuously to intercede for them." The intercessory work of Christ at the right hand of God is not a doctrine peculiar to our author; it appears in one of Paul's great lyric outbursts:
In these words we may trace the echo of an early Christian confession of faith, which, in addition to acknowledging the death, resurrection, and enthronement of Christ, made mention also of his intercessory ministry. We may also trace the echo of the fourth Servant Song, where the Servant of the LORD, once humbled and put to shame but now highly exalted, is said to have made, or to be making, "intercession for the transgressors."79 This is one of the statements about the Servant which indicate that his ministry is priestly, as well as prophetic and royal.
But the teaching and action of Jesus on earth must have encouraged his disciples to recognize in him their all-prevailing intercessor. "I have prayed for you," he said to Simon Peter at the Last Supper, "that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32). If it be asked what form his heavenly intercession takes, what better answer can be given than that he still does for his people at the right hand of God what he did for Peter on earth? And the prayer recorded in John 17, also belonging to the same night in which he was betrayed, is well called (after David Chytraeus) his high-priestly prayer, and (such is the affinity of mind between the Fourth Evangelist and our present author) a careful study of John 17 will help us considerably to understand what is intended here when our Lord is described as making intercession for those who come to God through him.
But our Lord's life in heaven is the life of one who has been brought back from the death which he endured when he gave himself as a sacrifice for his people's sins. In the language of the Apocalypse, it is as the Lamb once slain that he exercises world dominion from the heavenly throne (Rev. 5:6-14). The appearance in God's presence of the Crucified One constitutes his perpetual and prevalent intercession. His once-completed self-offering is utterly acceptable and efficacious; his contact with the Father is immediate and unbroken; his priestly ministry on his people's behalf is never ending, and therefore the salvation which he secures to them is absolute.
G. SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER OF JESUS (7:26-28)
27 He is under no daily necessity, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people: he did the latter once for a1182 when he offered up himself.
28 The law appoints as high priests83 men who are subject to frailty, but the sworn word which was spoken after the law appoints one who is Son, one who has been made perfect for ever.
26 But whatever other reasons may be adduced to demonstrate the superiority of the new priesthood, there is one final argument. The new priesthood is better because the new priest is Jesus. Jesus, who endured sore temptations on earth; Jesus, who poured out his heart in earnest prayer to God; Jesus, who learned by suffering how hard the way of obedience could be; Jesus, who interceded for his disciples that their faith might not fail when the hour of testing came; Jesus, who offered up his life to God as a sin offering on their behalf-this same Jesus is the unchanging high priest and helper of all who come to God through him. "Such a high priest does indeed fit our condition" (NEB). He has the unique qualification of having experienced the full force of temptation without once yielding to it. There is no question of his fitness to appear in the presence of God; he is the Holy84 One of God, free from all guile85 and defilement. Philo can speak of the Logos as the ideal high priest, free from all defilement;86 but Christians have as their high priest one who does not remain in the realm of ideas but is the incarnate Logos, one who preserved his purity while treading the common ways of this world and sharing our human lot. Although he came to earth "in the likeness of sinful flesh,"87 lived among sinners, received sinners, ate with sinners, was known as the friend of sinners, yet he is set apart from sinners,88 "in a different class from sinful men";89 and is now exalted above all the heavens to share the throne of God.
27 Aaron and his successors, before they presented a sin offering on behalf of the people, had to present one for themselves. This was preeminently true on the annual Day of Atonement: before the ritual of the two goats was enacted, to cleanse the nation from the accumulated sin of the past twelve months, the direction ran: "Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house" (Lev. 16:6). But there were other occasions on which a similar atonement had to be made: "if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer for the sin which he has committed a young bull without blemish to Yahweh for a sin offering" (Lev. 4:3). This occasional sin offering may have been in our author's mind when he used the expression "daily" in this connection. There is indeed no explicit command for a daily sin offering to be presented by the high priest on his own account; but inadvertent sinning, of the kind provided for in Lev. 4:1ff., could well have been a daily hazard. And the high priest occupied a special position; an inadvertent sin on his part brought guilt on the people. It was wise therefore to take precautions against the very possibility of his having committed an inadvertent sin. According to Philo, "the high priest ... day by day offers prayers and sacrifices and asks for blessings ... that every age and every part of the nation, as of a single body, may be joined harmoniously into one and same fellowship, having peace and good order as their aim."91 But these daily or occasional sacrifices, whether offered for his own sins or for those of the people, were summed up and "raised, so to speak, to a higher power"92 by the special ceremonies of the Day of Atonement.
90. Cf. 9:7 (pp. 206-08).
But Jesus has no need to present a daily sacrifice-or, for that matter, a yearly sacrifice-for his people's sins. He presented a permanently valid sin offering on their behalf when he offered up his own life-an offering so perfect and efficacious that it needs no repetition. Still less has he any need to present such a sacrifice for himself; he is "holy, free from guile and defilement." For all the completeness of his identification with his people and his sympathetic entering into their trials and sufferings, he is personally free from the _link_ guilt and _link_ tyranny of _link_ sin, and for that very reason is the more able to be their effective high priest. We have already been told that he "made purification for sins" (1:3), that he was appointed "to make atonement for the people's sins" (2:17), since it is the function of every high priest to "offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (5:1). But now we are told expressly the nature of the sacrifice which our Lord offered: "he offered up himself." There is an Old Testament adumbration of such a self-offering in the portrayal of the Suffering Servant who "makes himself an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10).93 The martyrs of Maccabaean days yielded up their lives with the confidence that they would be accepted as an atonement on their fellow-Israelites' behalf (2 Macc. 7:37f.; 4 Macc. 6:27ff.; 17:22; 18:4);94 and it was similarly the belief of the Qumran sectaries that their piety and privations would make expiation for the land of Israel.95 But there is no need for our author to look for precedents to enable him to interpret the death of Jesus in terms of a voluntary sin offering; this was how Jesus himself envisaged his death. When he said that the Son of Man had come "to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) and spoke of his covenant blood as "poured out for many" (Mark 14:24), he indicated clearly that he was presenting himself to God as a sacri fice for others. And when the hour came and he was stretched upon the cross, instead of having his heart filled with bitter resentment against his executioners or with feelings of reproach against God for allowing this to happen to him, he offered up his life to God as a sin offering in his people's stead. How acceptable to God this sacrifice was, or how effective in the purifying of heart and life, let those bear witness who have found through faith in him that peace with God and release from sin which nothing else could have brought about.96
28 Under the ancient law, as we have already been told, the high priest is "beset by frailty, because of which he must bring a sin offering for himself as well as for the people" (5:2f.). But the divine acclamation, given under oath, of a new and perpetual priesthood after Melchizedek's order, was designed to supersede the earlier priesthood established by the law. This supersession came into effect when the Messiah appeared and vindicated his high-priestly title on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. Fully equipped to discharge an intercessory ministry at the right hand of God, this is no high priest subject to all the conditions of earthly frailty; this is the one whom God addresses as Son, whose high priesthood is absolutely efficacious97 and eternally suited to meet his people's need.98
HEBREWS 8