“‘My Son, You Are Priest’: The Filial Context of the Cultic Motif in Hebrews”

“A great high priest has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (Heb 4:14)

INTRODUCTION

Hebrews 4:14 succinctly articulates the two dominant themes of Hebrews’

Christology.1 Jesus is Son and Priest. Interpreters cannot help but to acknowledge the

presence of these dominant themes, but are far from an interpretive consensus concerning

their relationship. To put the matter starkly, is it the case—as Deborah Rooke argues—

that Jesus, like other kings “was a priest forever, whether he liked it or not, because of the

sonship granted to him by the deity,”2 or, conversely, is it the case—as David Moffitt

states—that “Jesus’ role as priest here seems therefore to be distinct from —i.e. not

predicated upon—his status as Son”?3 Moreover, Moffitt argues that Jesus’ sonship is not

just distinct from his priesthood but also that the proclamation of Jesus’ sonship—and

therefore, kingship—conflicts with the assertion of his priesthood for audience members

1

1“Son” and “Priest” do not exhaust the descriptions of Jesus in Hebrews, but interpreters agree they represent two dominant Christological foci. William R. G. Loader divides his analysis of the letter according to this schema (Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes [WMANT 53; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1981]). Mikeal Parsons calls these “the two predominant titles found in Hebrews” which “serve to surface the major thrust of the christological arguments found in Hebrews” (“Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews,” EQ 60 (1988): 195-216.) So also Harold W. Attridge, “The citation of the two texts [Ps 2:7 and Ps 109:4 LXX] serves to link the key Christological motifs of Son and High Priest” (The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989], 146), and Paul Ellingworth, “It is highly probable that the author’s thinking about Christ revolves around the two poles represented by the titles ‘Son’ (1:2) and ‘high priest’ (2:17)” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1993], 67).

2“Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Hebrews 7,” Biblica 81 (2000): 81–94, here 83.

3Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2011), 202.

who know and respect the Mosaic law.4 In other words, does the genealogy of Jesus

automatically entail his priesthood or does it conflict with his priesthood? Is Jesus priest

because he is Son or in spite of the fact that he is Son?

Despite the last question’s clarity, the “Son/Priest” conundrum is not so easily

divisible, chiefly because the terms “Son” and “Priest” are multivalent in Hebrews. In

calling Jesus “Son” the author denotes both his relationship to God and his relationship to

humanity; he is Son of God and son of man. Similarly, in calling Jesus priest, the author

locates Jesus in relationship to different priestly orders. He shares similarities with the

Levitical priests (4:14–5:7) but stands in the priestly order of Melchizedek (5:6; 6:20;

7:17, 21). Knowing which filial relationship and which priestly order is in play in each

instance determines the particular relationship between the two identities. Despite the

complexity, I do think it valuable and possible to map out the author’s schema for the

relationship between the two primary identities of Christ.

On the one hand, I would agree with Moffitt and others who argue that Jesus’

priesthood is not “implicit in his status as royal Son.”5 His high priesthood is not

automatic to his Sonship; instead, he must become qualified for it. On the other hand, I

would disagree that the author treats Jesus’ lineage only as problem to be solved when he

is arguing for his priesthood. The author realizes that Jesus’ lineage bars him from the

Levitical priesthood, but also recognizes that it serves as a qualification for the

2

4See especially his essay, “Jesus the High Priest and the Mosaic Law: Reassessing the Appeal to the Heavenly Realm in the letter ‘To the Hebrews’,” in Problems in Translating Texts about Jesus: Proceedings from the International Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2008 (ed. Mishael Caspi and John T. Greene; Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2011), 195–232.

5Atonement, 201.

Melchizedekian one. That is to say, the author of Hebrews does not view the two

dominant roles of Christ running along on two parallel or even clashing tracks. Instead,

he describes Jesus’ Sonship and priesthood as reciprocal identities both located within

and existing because of the paternal actions of God.

How does the author show the identities of Christ embedded in the Fatherhood of

God? Initially, he shows that it is God the Father who calls Jesus to the priesthood. As a

compliment to that call, he emphasizes Jesus’ sonship as a qualification to stand in the

line of Melchizedek. Then, he shows how the pedagogy and inheritance of God qualifies

Jesus for his priesthood, and finally, he shows how Jesus’ priestly actions secure the

possession of his inheritance. All four moves highlight God’s actions as Father in the

Son’s enactment of his vocation as high priest.

Description of the Filial/Cultic Overlap

The author’s explication of Jesus’ priesthood becomes a dominant theme in the

central section of the letter (4:14–10:25), and aspects associated with Jesus’ priesthood

continue to feature until the closing section (12:2, 24; 13:12). Even as he describes the

nature of Jesus’ priesthood, however, the author frequently integrates it with assertions of

Jesus’ sonship. In ch. 3, Jesus is both high priest (3:1) and Son (3:6) over the οἶκος of

God, a term used for the tabernacle/temple (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Deut 23:19; Judges 18:31; 2

Sam 12:20; 1 Kings 5:17, 19; 8:17, 20; 1 Chron 6:33; 9:11, 13, 26), but employed in

Hebrews predominantly as a reference to a family/household (3:2, 5, 6; 8:8, 10; 11:7).

The author employs both cultic and filial titles again in 4:14. In ch. 5, the author connects

God’s pronouncement about Christ’s priesthood with God’s declaration of his status as

3

Son (5:6). In ch. 7, the absence of any mention of Melchizedek’s lineage indicates that he

is like the Son of God (7:3). At the close of ch. 7, unlike the law that appoints weak men,

the word of the oath appoints, strikingly, not a perfected ἄνθρωπος, but a perfected υἱός

as High Priest (7:28). In the summarizing statement at the beginning of ch. 8, Jesus is the

high priest who is in the place God has invited him to sit as his royal Son (8:1). So also in

ch. 10, Jesus is the priest who, after presenting his one offering, is seated at God’s right

hand awaiting the subjection of his enemies—a portion of his inheritance—under his feet

(10:13). Finally, the author asserts that Jesus is a great priest over God’s house/household

(10:21). Hence, when the author discusses the priesthood of Jesus, he does so with

continuing emphasis upon Jesus’ status as God’s Son. The consistent linkage between the

familial and the cultic motifs demonstrates the familial dynamic between God and Jesus

integral to Jesus’ status as God’s final High Priest.

THE CALL OF THE FATHER

Following the first extended exhortational section (3:7–4:13), the author of Hebrews

returns in earnest to a discussion of Jesus’ priesthood. In this pericope, the author crafts his

description in such a way that it is clear to his audience that God the Father appoints Jesus to the

priesthood. His citation of Ps 109:4 LXX, his prefacing of that citation with Ps 2:7 LXX, and his

appeal to honor and glory demonstrate the paternal instigation of Jesus’ appointment.

Honor and Glory

The author lays the ground work for the paternal call to the priesthood with the

statements that preface that call. Before God’s speech of the psalm texts, the author asserts that

4

Christ did not take this honor (τιµή) for himself (Heb 5:4) and that he did not glorify (δοξάζω)

himself (Heb 5:5). The previous time these two terms appear together occurs in 3:3. In this verse,

it is Jesus’ status as Son over the house of God that gives him more glory (δόξα) than Moses, just

as the builder of the house has more honor (τιµή) than the structure itself. God, as the builder of

all things (3:4) has great honor. Because the author depicts God building a household in this

pericope, his honor is, consequently, associated with his role as the Father of that oἶκoς.

Similarly, the glory that Jesus receives is that of a Son over a servant (3:6). These connections

show that the author associates glory and honor with God’s honor as a Father and Jesus’ glory as

a Son. This association is also present in 2:7–9, the other occurrence in the letter of both terms

(δόξα and τιµή) together. God’s crowning of Jesus with glory and honor is directly linked to his

appointment as heir of all things (2:8). When the author asserts that Jesus did not honor or

glorify himself, it follows that it was God who did so. The author has already established that

honor and glory are qualities present within God’s familial relationship with Jesus.6

The Royal Appointment: Ps 109:4 LXX

The sketch of Jesus and the other High Priests presented in Heb 4:14–5:4 arrives at

similarity that all priests share, namely the call of God. The author of Hebrews supports his

5

6This is an affirmation of David DeSilva’s work in which he asserts that honor is a vitally important concept in Hebrews (See his overview of this theme in the letter on pp 5–6 in Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews [SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995]. See also Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000]). At the same time, it is a critique of the context in which DeSilva locates the author’s discussion of honor. The author never associates God’s glory and honor with that of a Benefactor or Patron. Instead, God’s glory and honor are that of a Father that he imparts to his Son.

canonically unique7 declaration that Jesus is a priest by citing Ps 109 LXX, a Psalm that had

come to be associated with Jesus the Messiah8 and one from which he has already quoted in the

first chapter (1:13). In the same proclamation in which God establishes the authority and

dominance of the king—whom the author designates as Jesus (Ps 109:1//Heb 1:13)—God also

establishes the king’s eternal priesthood. God’s unchanging oath to the king is this: “You will be

a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 109:4 LXX).

Ps 109 LXX emphasizes the filial status of its addressee in two ways. First, it addresses

the king. The prescript denotes that it pertains to David, and the content of the psalm describes

6

7No other author of the New Testament attributes to Jesus the title of ἀρχιερεύς, or even ἱερεύς. This is the distinctive mark of the author’s Christology. Expressions of the uniqueness of this theme are found in Ellingworth (Hebrews, 67), Johnson (Hebrews, 49), Craig R. Koester (Hebrews [AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001], 109), William L. Lane (Hebrews [2 vols.; WBC 47; Dallas: Word Books, 1991], 1:cxl–cxli), Ceslas Spicq (L’épitre aux Hébreux [EBib; 2 vols.; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952–53], 1.301), and Ben Witherington, III (Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007], 59).

8Matt 22:44; Mark 15:29; Luke 20:42), Acts (2:34), and 1 Cor (15:25). Allusions to it appear in other letters as well (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1).

the powerful rule of the addressee. Because the king of Israel was thought of as the son of God,9

this psalm fits in with the royal sonship motif. God is appointing the king, his Son, to the

priesthood. Second, in Ps 109:3 LXX, the Lord asserts, “From the womb, before the morning

star, I begot you.”10 While the mention of a womb suggests that God might be serving an

assisting role in the birth of this ruler, God’s use of a first person assertion, ἐξεγέννησά σε,

evokes God’s parental role, particularly in the context of Heb 5 in which Ps 2:7 appears (ἐγὼ

σήµερον γεγέννηκά σε). The entirety of the psalm, and particularly its third verse, suggests that

God appoints one whom he has established as his Son to the eternal priesthood in the order of

Melchizedek.

The Reiteration of the Familial Relationship: Ps 2:7 LXX

7

9In Israel’s Scriptures, it is only the King who is singled out and explicitly called God’s Son. Ps 2 refers to the King as the Son and heir of God (2:7–8). The psalms extol David as the firstborn (Ps 88:28 LXX) and the one begotten of God (Ps 109:3 LXX). In the historical books, God makes a promise through Nathan to David that he will take on David’s heir as his own son (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:13; 22:10; 28:6).

Israel was not alone in ascribing a familial relationship to God and the king. The Egyptian king Thutmose III recounts when Amon-Re addressed him as his son. The same claim is made for Amen-hotep III as well (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969], 374–75). Canaanite literature and art depict the king as the son of El (Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1966], 11–12). Despite this correspondence, it does not seem that Israel made a similar move in deifying the King. The literature of Israel ascribed to the King the great honor of being God’s Son, and hence, asserted God’s intimate involvement with the people of Israel through the representative person of their King. Nevertheless, they did not elevate this position of honor to one in which the King was equated with God. The King did not become another Deity equal to the Lord God (Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 113; repr. of Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [trans. John McHugh; London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961]; trans. of Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament [2 vols.; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1958, 1960]; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship [Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 58; repr. of The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, with forward by James Crenshaw; New York: Abingdon, 1962]).

10This reading is unique to the LXX. The MT seems to highlight the youth of the addressee, although the precise meaning of the Hebrew is quite difficult to ascertain (William P. Brown, “A Royal Performance: Critical Notes on Psalm 110:3ag-b,” JBL 117 (1998): 93–96).

In addition to drawing upon the latent familial theme of Ps 109, the author of Hebrews

emphasizes the familial context of the address by prefacing Ps 109:4 LXX with Ps 2:7. He

introduces the citations in this way: “The one who said this statement to Christ, also, in another

place, said this statement.” In this way, before introducing Ps 110:4, the author has God articulate

a citation that he has already presented as the speech of God in the first chapter. Ps 109:1 LXX

would have worked well here for several reasons. First, the author quoted this citation in the first

chapter and placed it as the final climactic citation of the catena.11 Second, as a widely used

psalm it is likely that this verse would have provided a safe ground for agreement from his

listeners.12 Finally, Ps 109:1 is from the same psalm as that of the second citation. If the hearers

agreed with the author that God had commanded Christ to sit at his right hand, it would not be a

difficult jump to agree that God also called Christ to be a priest because this call was preserved

in the same psalm in the same conversation with the same κύριοs.13

This, however, is not the move the author makes. Instead, he chooses to preface God’s

appointment of Jesus to the priesthood with another quotation. In so doing, he goes outside of Ps

109 to repeat God’s citation of Ps 2:7. The appeal to this particular psalm is understandable

because Ps 2 shares important similarities with Ps 109 LXX. First, the Psalms are easily

associated because the author has already established in the first chapter that they both pertain to

8

11Johnson, Hebrews, 81; Lane, Hebrews, 1.32; Peter T. O’Brien The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 65.

12Koester argues, “Once the ‘lord’ from Ps 110:1 is identified with Christ—as was common in early Christianity—it is but a small step to identify Christ as the priest like Melchizedek mentioned in Ps 110:4” (Hebrews, 109).

13Similarly Koester states, “He could have observed that if Ps 110:1 refers to the exalted Jesus, then Ps 110:4 also applies to him: You are a priest forever according to the type of Melchizedek” (Ibid., 298).

Jesus. In the author’s presentation, he is the “you” addressed by the psalm. Moreover, these are

both royal psalms describing God’s chosen ruler of his people. Finally, both Ps 2 and Ps 109 are

psalms in which God speaks directly to the king. Moreover, God speaks to him as his Son.14

Psalm 2 and Ps 109, in both their original contexts and in their presentation in Hebrews, record

words between God and his Son, the King. In these ways, Ps 2 is a fitting preface to Ps 109.

Nevertheless, by quoting from Ps 2 rather than from an earlier verse of Ps 109, either Ps

109:3 or Ps 109:1, the author makes his starting point a verse in which God explicitly and clearly

establishes the paternal/filial relationship between himself and Jesus. The author asserts that one

and the same speaker utters these statements to one and the same addressee. By putting the

quotation from Ps 2 first, the “he” that is the subject of the λέγει that introduces Ps 110:4 in Heb

5:6 is the one who has, in the immediately previous clause, begotten a Son. Thus, the One that

speaks Ps 110:4 has just articulated his status as a Father. God calls Jesus to the priesthood just

like God called Aaron and the high priests who followed in his line. Distinct from the call of

Aaron, however, Jesus’ call comes from the God who begot Jesus.

By reviving this particular quote from the first chapter, the author emphasizes at the

beginning of his explication of Jesus’ priesthood that it was God the Father of Jesus who

bestowed this honor and glory on him. Prefacing Ps 109 with the possibly unexpected choice of

Ps 2 highlights the Father/Son relational context for the priestly call of Jesus.15 God’s speech to

Jesus in Heb 5:6 continues to be what God’s conversation with Jesus has been in Hebrews up to

9

14Of the royal psalms, only Ps 131 and Ps 89:5 are similar in this respect.

15Note the comment of Attridge: “Ps 2:7 appears again at Heb 5:5, linking the theme of Christ’s sonship to the claim that he is a priest. However Hebrews understands the claim; it insists on the fundamental importance of Christ’s sonship” (“The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament [ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; New York: T&T Clark, 2004], 197–212, here 200).

this point—the speech of a Father to his Son. Hence, the paternal/filial relationship is the

relationship out of which Christ’s priestly call arises.

THE WORD OF THE OATH APPOINTS A SON:HEBREWS 7:1-10, 28

Having established that Jesus’ call comes from God the Father in ch. 5, the author

adds the complement that it is Jesus the Son who serves as priest in the next section of the

letter. He does so by repeating the oaths God speaks to Jesus (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 21)

a member of the tribe of Judah (7:14), emphasizing genealogy in his presentation of the

story of Melchizedek (7:1-10), and concluding this section with the assertion that God

appoints a Son as High Priest (7:28).

The Oath

As noted above, Jesus becomes high priest because God said so. He spoke to him,

saying, “You are Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 109:4 LXX;

Heb 5:6). After this initial presentation of God’s word, the author of Hebrews emphasizes

the importance of oaths in chs. 6 and 7. The brief excursus on oaths in 6:13–18

demonstrates the faithfulness of God. When God makes a promise to Abraham, he swears

on himself because there is nothing greater upon which he can swear. It is no surprise,

then, that Abraham obtained the promises (6:15) because God had promised and sworn,

both founded upon and demonstrating his trustworthy character. Just as Abraham saw the

promises of God fulfilled so too will Jesus.

As the author emphasizes the differences between Jesus’ priesthood and the

priesthood of Aaron’s order, he presents God’s oath to Jesus two more times (7:17, 21),

10

noting that the Aaronic priests can appeal to no such divine oath (7:20b). The oath spoken

by God provides one of the foundational planks upon which the author builds his

argument for Jesus’ priesthood.

When the author invokes this oath multiple times does he also call forth its

background, namely that it was interpreted as a psalm spoken to the descendant of

David?16 His consistent appeal to the first verse of the psalm,17 a verse other early

believers frequently interpreted as applying to Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of David,18

makes his knowledge of the psalm’s background more likely. Moreover, because he

acknowledges his awareness (and his audience’s as well) that Jesus arose from the tribe

of Judah (7:14)—in other words, David’s tribe (1 Chron 2), the tribe from which a

descendent of David would have to come—in between the first and second appearance of

the oath, his knowledge of the genealogy of the psalm’s addressee increases the

likelihood that the he was aware of the messianic connotations of this verse. Jesus is

qualified for this priesthood because God says so in an oath, specifically in an oath that

11

16Evangelia C. Dafni concludes, “It is obvious that the LXX understands the psalm in a messianic sense” (“Psalm 109(110):1–3 in the Septuagint: Its Translation-Critical, Tradition-Historical, and Theological Setting” in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception [LHB/OTS 527; ed. Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn; New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 241–259, here 248). Don Juel, summarizing the findings of Hay, concludes, “... in the first century the verses in question could be read as part of the constellation of biblical passages referring to the one coming from the line of David. Extant Jewish tradition permits us to say at least that much. The ‘Son of David’ passage in the Synoptics presumes that the scribes understood the psalm verse as a reference to the Messiah,” Messianic Exegesis, 141.

17The author quotes from Ps 110:1 in Heb 1:13. There are allusions to it in Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.

18Quotations of Ps 110 appear in the Gospels (Matt 22:44; Mark 15:29; Luke 20:42), Acts (2:34), and 1 Cor (15:25). Allusions to it appear in other letters as well (Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1). For an analysis of this text by early believers in Jesus, see David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) and Don Juel, “Christ at the Right Hand: The Use of Psalm 110 in the New Testament” in Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 135–150.

was interpreted as spoken to a son of David, which Jesus is as a member of the tribe of

Judah. Hence, Jesus’ sonship, particularly his status as a son of Judah, qualifies him as an

addressee of Ps 110.

Melchizedek

At the beginning of ch. 7, the author turns his attention to the only other mention

of Melchizedek in Israel’s scriptures, found in Gen 14:17–20. Through the retelling of

this story, the author establishes, among other things, that Melchizedek the priest stands

outside the priestly line of Levi.

The author’s discussion of Melchizedek emphasizes the genealogical differences

between Melchizedek on the one hand and the Levitical priests on the other. He

designates Abraham as the patriarch (7:4) and the priests as the sons of Levi (7:4). They

have come out of the loins of Abraham and therefore those from whom they extract a

tithe are their brothers (7:5). Abraham is the one who has the promise (7:6), which in 6:13

is a promise related to his status as a father, the promise that he will be blessed and

multiplied. It can be said that Levi pays a tithe to Melchizedek because he was in the

loins of his father (7:10). Conversely, Melchizedek is the one who does not share the

same genealogy as that of the priests (7:6). In fact, there is no mention of the ancestry of

this King of Righteousness and King of Peace, leading the author to conclude that

Melchizedek has no mother, no father, and no genealogy (Heb 7:3).

In the author’s reading of Gen 14, ancestry contributes to the greatness of

Melchizedek over the Levitical priests. The Levites have the great honor of claiming

Abraham the patriarch—the one to whom God made his enduring promise—as their

12

father. This great honor is a detriment, however, in their “meeting” with Melchizedek. As

the sons of Abraham, residing in the loins of their father, they play the same role that he

does in the story, namely, the position of the inferior. The Levitical priests take the place

of inferiority—as evidenced by their act of paying the tithe and by being blessed—

because they, as descendants, participate in the actions of their father Abraham.

For the author of Hebrews the story in Genesis 14 Melchizedek’s act of blessing

and reception of the tithe displays his greatness (πηλίκος, 7:4). If these acts are the

evidence of his superiority, what is the cause? In other words, what factor distinguishes

him from and elevates him above the other priests? The author foreshadows his following

argument (7:23–25) by asserting twice that Melchizedek lives eternally and the other

priests do not. He has no end of life allowing him to abide forever as priest (7:3), and in

contrast with the priests who die, he lives (7:8).19 Moffitt concludes, “Melchizedek—

being without father, without mother, that is, without a genealogy and without beginning

or end of days—is not a priest because of his lineage (he has none, cf. 7:6), but because

he ‘remains’ (µένει, 7:3) or ‘lives’ (ζῇ, 7:8).”

While agreeing that it is life that distinguishes Melchizedek from priests who die,

I would counter that Melchizedek is this kind of abiding priest because of his lack of

human lineage. In other words, the author of Hebrews associates Melchizedek’s abiding

nature with his familial status. His extension into eternity future corresponds to his

extension into eternity past. He has no human ancestry because he lacks father, mother,

and consequently, any genealogical record, and he has no human ancestry, and no end of

13

19Moffitt, Atonement, 202.

life, because he is similar to the Son of God. By using this filial title and by attending to

genealogical issues throughout this section, the author suggests in this passage that the

greatness of Melchizedek, evident in the story in Genesis, arises from his likeness to the

Son of God. In other words, he is immortally great because his lack of human ancestry

shows him to be similar to the one who has a divine ancestry.

Lest I attribute too much greatness to Melchizedek—for I do not think the author

of Hebrews imagines the priest from Genesis as another Son of God alongside Jesus—let

me assert that he plays primarily a literary role.20 The author notices that he stands

outside the Levitical line, and in this outside place, he is the greater one. What is true of

Melchizedek—that he is superior to the Levitical priests—is also true of Jesus because

Jesus is a priest in his order. When the author maps this exchange onto the characters with

whom he is most concerned—Jesus and other priests—Jesus stands in the place of

Melchizedek as the Levitical priests stand in the place of Abraham. As the Son of God,

Jesus similarly stands also outside the Levitical ancestry just as Melchizedek does. His

status as Son of God, outside the Levitical line, puts him in the superior position, just like

Melchizedek.

In this liminal place outside the boundaries of genealogy, Jesus cannot be a priest

according to the law (7:11, 12, 16), in other words, according to the words of Moses

14

20Gareth Cockerill describes Melchizedek’s function for the author of Hebrews: “He abruptly appears in the narrative unannounced by genealogy or family connection. He dispenses and reconfirms God’s blessing on Abraham, receives Abrahams’ homage, and then, just as abruptly, disappears from the text.... Thus the pastor is able to discern in the unique role played by this character a foreshadowing of the eternal being of the Son. The pastor’s commitment to a literal encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek and his concomitant assumption of Melchizedek’s humanity frees him to use Melchizedek without fear that Melchizedek might become the Son’s rival. Thus we have a Melchizedek adequate to foreshadow but unable to compete with the Son” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 306.

(7:14). Hence, this is certainly a difficulty to acknowledge for Jesus’ priesthood. The

author acknowledges that Jesus could not serve on earth (8:4). If the audience of

Hebrews, like the Qumran community21 or the authors of the Testament of Judah22 did

not believe that a king should also be a priest, they would also have a hard time accepting

that Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, a Son of David, could be a priest.

While the author acknowledges this in 7:13–14, he shapes this fact not just as a

difficulty to overcome, but as a blessing to celebrate. Being outside the line of Aaron

excludes Jesus from the priesthood that is based on Levitical descent (7:16). The way in

which the author contrasts this priesthood with the Melchizedekian one reveals which

order he thinks more valuable. As opposed to a system built on descent,23 the order of

Melchizedek arises from indestructible life. Moreover the Levitical priesthood preforms

functions that have proven to be weak and ineffective (7:18, 19). This system has now

been nullified (7:18).24 Jesus’ lineage as the Son of God places him outside the Levitical

line, just as Melchizedek was. God’s placement of Jesus in the order of Melchizedek,

whose descent comes from God rather than Levi disqualifies him from a priesthood that

15

211QS 9.11. James H. Charlesworh, et al, eds. Rule of the Community and Related Documents (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations; PTSDSSP 1; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 40.

22T.Jud. 21:1–5. See Moffitt’s description of these texts in “Jesus the High Priest,” 198.

23The adjective σαρκίνης also carries the negative connotation of being external, impermanent, and corruptible. Harold Attridge cites evidence from Paul, Ps.Democritus, Sib. Or. and Philo for these connotations of the term (The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 202.

24Moffitt argues that the law has been nullified in the sense that it does not apply to Jesus who is in heaven (“Jesus the High Priest,” 229) rather than understanding that the author says is has been abrogated presently on earth (Attridge, Hebrews, 203). In either case, it seems that Jesus’ lineage outside the line of Levi keeps him outside of a system that is not the ultimate reality, whether or not it continues to function on earth.

served God’s people for a time, but that ultimately proved insufficient to bring full

cleansing. This placement makes him inadequate for an inadequate priesthood, and as the

author of Hebrews sees the salvific plan of God developing, that cannot be a bad thing.

The Oath Appoints a Son

The final contrast between Jesus and other priests in 7:28 provides the strongest

support for the argument that Jesus’ sonship supports rather than complicates his standing

as priest in the order of Melchizedek. In the concluding verse of ch 7, the author presents

a comparison between Jesus and the other High Priests delineated in the chart below:

Levitical Priests JesusLaw word of the oath that comes after the law

appoints as High Priests

[appoints as the High Priest]

Men Son

who have weakness who has been perfected

Forever

Whereas the law appoints to the priesthood men, the word of the oath which came after

the law (i. e. spoken not to Moses but to David’s heir) appoints a Son. The other priests

are, of course, sons, namely sons of Abraham and Levi as the author has just belabored.

Similarly, this Son is also an ἄνθρωπος, as the author has boldly proclaimed in chs. 2 and

4. To state the contrast in this way—a Son vs. men—highlights that Jesus is a Son in a

way the other high priests are not.

In Hebrews, as stated, Jesus’ status as Son is a complicated one. As I’ve argued, he

is Son of God and that puts him outside the line of Abraham in a way foreshadowed by

the character of Melchizedek in the story of Gen 14. At the same time, Jesus is also a son

16

of Judah, putting him inside the lineage of the addressee of the oath of Ps 109:4. These

two sonships create a logical problem. Is he inside the line of Abraham or not? The

author, in my opinion, plays upon Jesus’ dual Sonship as Son of God and son of man—so

fully developed and articulated in the first two chapters, in his reference to Jesus as the

Son whom the oath appoints in 7:28.

The word of the oath appoints a son who has been perfected forever (7:28). In other

words, in order for Jesus to be the rightful recipient of this oath, he had to remain forever

and he had to be a son. Moffitt’s arguments for the necessity of Jesus’ resurrected life for

his priesthood provide an instructive and helpful parallel. In order to be high priest in the

order of Melchizedek, in order for the word of the oath to apply to him, he argues, Jesus

must possess eternal, abiding, forever life.25 Similarly, in order for him to be high priest

in the order of Melchizedek, in order for the oath to apply to him, he must be a son—a

son of Judah to whom the oath is spoken and a Son of God who stands outside the

Levitical line. Jesus stands outside the Levitical order and inside the Melchizedekian one

because he is God’s son, whom God made to be a son of man. He could not be this final

High Priest were he not this Son.

THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SON

Although the author of Hebrews views Jesus’ filial identity as integral to his

priesthood, he does not present his priesthood automatically entailed in his identity as

Son. Instead, he shows how Jesus is qualified to become the final High Priest because he

17

25Atonement, 208.

experiences all the complexity his filial role entails. Jesus meets some of the basic

requirements for the priesthood, namely being taken from among men and having

something to offer to God (5:1), because God the Father trains him unto perfection. By

calling him to experience the human condition, including its suffering even to the point of

death, God ensures that Jesus is qualified to become High Priest. He also meets the

requirements for his eternal priesthood because he has been perfected by his Father

thereby performing his priestly ministry in the presence of God forever. Because Jesus is

God’s Son and experiences the suffering and the exaltation that is entailed in this

relationship, he becomes qualified to be the High Priest that he is.

Suffering

In the penultimate verse of Heb 2—ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁµοιωθῆναι

—the author succinctly states that Jesus is made like his brothers and sisters in all ways (Heb

2:17).26 In the preceding verses, the author sketches out what “all ways” entails. The brothers and

sisters of Jesus share in flesh and blood (2:14), and they anticipate death with fear (2:15).

Consequently, his participation in flesh and blood and his facing the reality of death make it

evident that Jesus became completely human. Moreover, in light of the author’s depictions of

God’s action in the chapter in lowering Jesus to the state of humanity (2:8–9) and in perfecting

18

26The close connection between Jesus’ grasp of the seed of Abraham and his becoming like his siblings suggests that reading ἐπιλαµβάνεται in light of the incarnation, which many patristic interpreters did (Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret), fits well within the context of the passage (Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 117–19; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], 102; Moffitt, Atonement, 182, n. 229). This nuance of the word does not appear in other literature. Therefore, this meaning is suggested by the context, not bound in the word itself.

him through death (2:10), the passive of ὁµοιόω is best read as a divine passive.27 It is God who

made Jesus like his brothers and sisters in all ways, and because He did so, Jesus became a

merciful and faithful High Priest (2:17).

Similarly, right after the declaration of Jesus’ preistly role, the author asserts that suffered

in the midst of temptation. In other words, in that which he suffered, he was being tested.28

Because of the connection between suffering and testing in 2:18, and because it is God who

submits his Son to suffering (2:10), it is best to view God as the agent of πειρασθείς as well.29

God tests Jesus’ obedience in regard to death, as he does with Abraham in 11:17). God presented

him with the opportunity to experience death. Consequently, because he was tested by God his

Father and obeyed by experiencing the fullness of humanity in death, he is the great High Priest

that he is.

A resonate theme appears when the author returns to his discussion of the priesthood at

the end of ch. 4. The second statement about their great High Priest is that he has been tested in

every way (πεπειρασµένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα, 4:15). This portrayal of Jesus the High Priest evokes

his participation in every aspect of humanity (2:17), including the testing experienced in

suffering (2:18). Because his testing is related to what he suffered (2:18), and his suffering

culminates in his human experience of death (2:9), then the range of his testing encompasses the

19

27This reading finds support, for example, in Lane (Hebrews, 64), Otto Michel (Der Brief an die Hebräer [8th ed.; KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949], 87), and Vanhoye (Situation du Christ, 368).

28So also Attridge, “… [Hebrews] refers to the fact that Christ in his suffering was tested” (Hebrews, 96).

29Koester, Hebrews, 242.

audience’s temptations and extends even farther. The difference between his testing and theirs is

that he has faced the test of death.30 His sympathy for them arises from his total human journey.31

The great High Priest to whom he and his audience appeal is able to sympathize (συµπαθέω)

with their weaknesses, not because he himself is weak, but because he is strong. He was tested in

the full range of human experience including death, yet he did not succumb to sin. In other

words, his experience of human nature—taking on flesh and blood and dying—allowed him to

become the merciful High Priest

The brief mentions of Jesus’ the Son’s suffering and his priesthood in chs. 2 and 4 lay the

ground work for one of the most dramatic portrayals of Christ’s humanity in ch. 5,32 where the

author of Hebrews asserts again that Jesus’ humanity and death—willed by God his Father—

result in his installment as High Priest.

Verse seven locates the actions of Christ and God that follow in “the days of his flesh.”33

This phrase refers to the time when Jesus participated with humanity in flesh and blood (2:14)

20

30According to the author, they have not yet faced this particular test (12:4).

31The other priests, on the other hand, moderate (µετριοπαθέω) toward those who are ignorant and deceived. In literature contemporary with Hebrews (Attridge lists Philo, Leg. all. 3.129, 132-34; Spec. leg. 3.96; Plutarch, Frat. am. 18 (489C); Coh. ir. 10 (458C); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 8.61; Ep. Arist. 256; Josephus, Ant. 12.3.2 § 128, Hebrews, 143), metriopaqe,w is typically used as an indication of moderating the emotion of anger. The comparison indicates a difference of degree between human priests and Christ in their compassion. Christ does not just moderate his feeling toward those who are ignorant—he actively sympathizes with them (So also Attridge, Hebrews, 143–44).

32About v. 7, Bruce L. McCormack states, “we come now to one of the most vivid portrayals of the real humanness of Jesus to be found in the NT” (“‘With Loud Cries and Tears’: The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology [ed. R. Bauckham, D. Driver, and T. Hart; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 37–68, here 64.

33This is widely accepted. For example, Johnson, Hebrews, 145; Lane, Hebrews, 1.109, Moffitt, Atonement, 190–91.

and when he was made like his brothers and sisters in all things so that he could become a high

priest (2:17). In this state of humility, Jesus offers up prayers and supplications to God, the One

who has the power to save him from death (πρὸς τὸν δυνὰµενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου).

Jesus’ attitude is very similar to that which he displayed in ch. 2: he places his trust in God as

made evident by continuing to direct his requests to God. Nevertheless, a striking difference

exists in tone in the attitude of Jesus from that of the second chapter. There, he was singing

praises to God and proclaiming his trust (2:12–13). Here, he is offering up his requests µετὰ

καρυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων.34 The picture of Jesus in v. 7 is of a person praying boldly and

sincerely.35

21

34In his discussion of Esau, the author includes the note about his tears (µετὰ δακρύων) to indicate the seriousness with which he sought a place for repentance (12:17). These two terms (κραυγή and δάκρυ) express the intensity of the priest’s dismay upon Ptolemy’s insistence to enter the inner sanctum of the temple (3 Macc 1:16).

35Attridge calls attention to this phrase as evidence of piety in Jewish sources. He cites Ps 21:24; 114:8; 1 QH 5:12; 2 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc. 5:7, 25; 1 Esdr 5:62; Philo, Det. pot. ins. 92; Leg. all. 3.213; Quaest. in Gen. 4.233; Rer. div. her. 19 (Hebrews, 150–51, f. 171, 172). In 3 Macc. 5:7, Jewish prisoners direct their tearful cries toward God their father.

God honored this honest attitude of trust; Jesus was heard because of his reverence.36 As

those who know the message of salvation (2:3–4), the audience is aware that God did certainly

rescue him from death (13:20). At the same time, they are also aware that God did not rescue him

before death. The author has set up a classical question of theodicy. If God is powerful and good,

will he not prevent death from happening, especially to his Son?37 Verse 8 is the author’s way of

redirecting this expectation.

Verse 8 begins, καίπερ ὤν υἱός: “Even though he was a son,” and continues, “he learned

obedience from what he suffered.” The author’s use of υἱός here must be interpreted in light of

the υἱός of 5:5. Jesus is not just a son, but is God’s own Son. Only in this way does the

exceptional tone of the first phrase of v. 8 make sense. Even though Jesus was God’s own Son

22

36So also Patrick Gray concludes, “εὐλάβεια conveys the idea of healthy caution together with that of reverent attentiveness to the divine will.” (Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition [SBLAcademicBiblica 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 205). An alternative is to interpret this phrase, εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, “he was heard (and therefore delivered) from his fear (of death)” (supported by George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment, and Conclusions [AB 36; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1972], 98, Hugh Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964], 98–99; Windisch, Hebräer, 43) implying that Jesus died without the concomitant fear of death. The other uses of εὐλαβεία in Hebrews (11:7; 12:28), however, indicate that when the author uses the word, he does so in reference not to fear in general, but to a fear of God, or reverence. This definition fits well in this context as a description of the reverence Jesus showed in his prayers toward God. Jesus’ capacity to serve as a sympathetic High Priest (4:15) would be severely limited were his experience of death free of any fear. Consequently, he is heard and delivered not, of course, from his reverence of God, but because of it, another possible translation of ἀπό (as in, for example, Mark 2:4; Luke 19:3; Acts 22:11). The interpretation that Jesus was heard because of his reverence finds support in Attridge (Hebrews, 152), Braun (Hebräer, 152), Ellingworth (Hebrews, 291), Johnson, (Hebrews, 146), Koester, (Hebrews, 289), Lane (Hebrews, 1.109), Thompson (Hebrews, 111), Witherington (Letters and Homilies, 200). Martin Luther describes the interaction in this way, “It is yet natural and in keeping with a father’s love that in spite of our sin he would listen to his Son [pleading] on our behalf. Consequently, set off against our own sin, which would otherwise cause God to deny us everything, is the love which he could not deny his own son” (“Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1517–1518” in Luther: Early Theological Works [LCC; ed. and trans. by James Atkinson; Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1962], 114).

37This is an ancient concern. Thomas Aquinas states, “On the contrary, it seems that He was not heard,… for himself, since the chalice did not pass from Him, which yet he requested” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. by Chrysostom Baer; South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006], 5.1.257).

who reflected God’s glory, was the imprint of God’s being, participated with God in creation, and

would reign with God forever—even though this was all true—through what he suffered he

learned what it meant to obey his Father.38

Jesus’ experiences of humanity and death culminate in him being perfected (τελειωθεὶς).

The passive employed here suggests that God is the one who perfected Jesus. Because Jesus

obeyed the one to whom he was praying, he was perfected by him. Moreover, since he

experienced these things as God’s Son, the implication is that God as his Father used suffering

and death to perfect his Son.

Parallel to the assertion of Jesus’ perfection is a declaration of his priesthood. Having

learned filial obedience through what he suffered, he was appointed High Priest by God

according to the order of Melchizedek (προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπό τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν

Μελχισέδεκ). Jesus’ becoming human and dying and through this becoming perfect—all willed

by his Father—resulted in his placement as High Priest.

Perfection, priesthood, and sonship coalesce again in Hebrews 7:28 and point to Jesus’

experiences as God’s Son that shape his priesthood. There, the author argues that the law

appoints men who have weakness, whereas the word of the oath appoints a Son who has been

perfected.39 His “having been perfected” invokes the aforementioned narrative of Jesus’

perfection. The author’s discussion of Jesus’ perfecting in chs. 2 and 5 suggests that the suffering

of Jesus was not limited to but culminated in death.

23

38So stated by Attridge, “The force of the remark is that Jesus is not an ordinary son, who might indeed be expected to learn from suffering (12:4–11), but the eternal Son” (Hebrews, 152).

39See chart on p. 16.

The author interrupts his discussion of the perfecting of Jesus in the Melchizedekian

priesthood (5:9; 7:28) with his definition of perfection as the result of training (5:11–14) and

thereby provides insight into his argument. Because suffering is the means through which

perfection comes, the law of the Levitical priesthood provides no avenue toward perfection for

the priest himself (cf. 7:19). On the other hand, Jesus is perfect because he completed God’s call

for him to be a priest who offered himself. Jesus has obediently endured the suffering to which

his God appointed him to the end, to death itself (5:8; 12:2). By taking on this role, Jesus learned

to obey God through what he suffered and through his ultimate act of obedience became the

perfected one. Jesus’ obedient trust demonstrated as he is perfected by his Father allows him to

meet the requirements for priesthood.

Exaltation

Jesus becomes qualified for the priesthood because of the suffering he experiences

that was willed by his Father. To be the ultimate and eternal High Priest, however, he

must also receive the reward that comes from his Father, the blessing of exaltation.

This particular filial distinction from the other High Priests appears in the author’s first

statement about their “great High Priest,” namely, that Jesus has passed through the heavens

(4:14). This declaration recalls the exalted place Jesus has taken as God’s Son (1:3, 13; 2:8). The

Levitical priests serve on earth (8:5; 9:6–10), but as the one who is awaiting the realization of

God’s promise to bequeath to him his inheritance of all things (2:8–9), Jesus has passed through

the heavens (4:14; 7:26), gone into the inner sanctum of God’s dwelling place (6:20), and taken

his seat on the right hand of God (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12), serving before the very face of God (8:1;

9:24). The conclusion to ch. 7 reiterates the same idea. By referring to Jesus as the one who has

24

been perfected in Heb 7:28, in addition to referring to the process that qualified him to be High

Priest, the author also evokes the status he holds in his perfection, his status as God’s heir of all

things. His status as God’s perfected and exalted heir places the administration of his priesthood

in the very presence of God in heaven. As the perfected Son of God, he administers his priestly

duties at God’s right hand.

In 4:14 υἱός, even, υἱός τοῦ θεοῦ is a multidimensional title. The Son of God is the one

who became a son of man, experienced death, and subsequently took his place as God’s heir.

Jesus is perfected as priest through the suffering and exaltation willed by his Father. That which

Jesus experiences as God’s Son: becoming human, dying, and being made perfect as God’s heir

allows him to be the High Priest who can both sympathize with the human condition and perform

his priestly duties in God’s presence forever. Because he is the Son who has become the great

High Priest, he has experienced every aspect of the human condition and can sympathize. Even

more impressive, he can do so from the powerful position of God’s right hand.

THE INHERITANCE SECURED BY THE PRIEST

The sovereign place that belongs to Jesus as Son where he sits as High Priest elucidates a

symbiotic element of the relationship between Jesus’ filial and priestly identities. Jesus’

priesthood is possible because of what he experiences as God’s Son, but it is also true that his

priestly acts are the means through which he secures his inheritance, an inheritance of all things

which includes God’s many sons and daughters. His priestly service supports the attainment of

his inheritance in two ways. First, his priestly offering makes possible his brothers’ and sisters’

inheritance, namely eternal salvation. Second, through his priestly intercession he aids his

25

brothers and sisters so that they can attain their inheritance. By establishing the possibility of

salvation and leading his brothers and sisters into their inherited place in God’s household, he

secures the human portion of his own inheritance.

The Eternal Inheritance

The first way in which Jesus’ priestly ministry secures his inheritance of all things is that

he establishes for God’s many children their own inheritance of salvation. Early in the letter, the

author portrays humanity’s salvation in terms of inheritance.40 Men and women who look

forward to salvation anticipate inheriting this salvation (1:14). In ch. 5, the author connects

Christ’s perfection and his priesthood with the creation of this inheritance given to God’s many

sons and daughters. Because he learns obedience from what he suffers, he becomes perfect. In

this perfect state, he becomes the cause (αἴτιος) of salvation for those who are obedient to him. In

other words, when Jesus is perfected, he establishes the inheritance of the audience.

What is this inheritance of salvation and how does Jesus make it a reality? First, Jesus

can provide the eternal inheritance of salvation because his priestly offering, similar to the

sacrifices of the old covenant,41 removes sin. As a High Priest, God appoints him, as he has

called those before him, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin (5:1). The author employs the

26

40Similarly, Grant Osborne states, “It [the writer’s soteriology] must be understood as the present possession of a future inheritance” (“Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Grace Unlimited [ed. Clark H. Pinnock; Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975], 143–66, here 155). Craig Koester draws attention to the close connection between Jesus’ sonship and his inheritance and the audience’s sonship and its inheritance of salvation (“God’s Purposes anBecause their salvation consists in being cleansed from sin and granted entrance into the presence of God, Jesus’ provision of this salvation brings God’s many children into God’s sovereignty and hence under his authority as well. A brief sketch of Hebrews’ soteriology41 shows that when humanity comes into their inheritance of salvation, Jesus takes possession of his own inheritance. d Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology [ed. Jan G. Van der Watt; Boston: Brill, 2005], 361-387).

41For example, Exod 29:46; Lev 4–5; 9–10; Num 7.

language of purification (1:3), atonement (2:17), sanctification (10:10; 13:12), and perfection

(10:14) to convey what Jesus achieves with his offering.

Beyond its similarity to previous offerings, Jesus’ offering also achieves eternal and

internal cleansing. First, when he offers his singular sacrifice, he secures eternal redemption

(αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν, 9:12). In Israel’s scriptures redemption is associated with a release from

slavery (Ex 6:6; Deut 7:8; 13:5; Mic 6:4). In Hebrews, this redemption implies a redemption

from the enslavement to the fear of death (2:15), and, consequently, this serves as a variation on

the recurrent theme of eternal salvation (1:14; 2:10; 5:9; 7:25).42

It is in ch. 9 that the author discusses the second contrast in earnest. Juxtaposed with

God’s promise to forget sins forever in the New Covenant, the first covenant (9:1) has a

perpetual system to deal with sin. The priests serve the outer tent continually, and the high priest

enters the inner tent once a year (Heb 9:6–7). Nevertheless, even this frequent service is

ineffective. The author asserts that these gifts and sacrifices are not able to perfect the

consciences of the one who worships in this way. Instead, they are acts of justification affecting

only the flesh (9:10).

In great contrast to the offerings that are not able to cleanse the conscience, the priestly

service that Christ renders in which he offers his own blood in the greater and more perfect tent

affects precisely this internal purification (9:14). The author consequently draws a close

connection between Jesus’ priestly offering and the New Covenant. Because Jesus purifies the

conscience, he brings about the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke. Now, in addition to God

forgetting sins, God can also inscribe his laws on the inner parts of his people (10:16-17).

27

42Attridge, Hebrews, 249, n. 65; Johnson, Hebrews, 237.

The author portrays this thorough removal of sin as an inheritance. Hebrews 9:15–17

about the effectiveness of a testament43 makes a vital contribution to this theme. God’s will to

grant the inheritance of eternal salvation was not available until a death occurred (9:15). In other

words, while the testator lives, the covenant is not in force (ἰσχύει). The death that made this

salvation possible is the death of Jesus because Jesus’ death resulted in the redemption of the

transgressions committed under the first covenant. Just as his death released humanity from the

power of the Devil (2:14), so too does it release humanity from the chains of transgression.

When he has dealt with sin, those who are called by God are able to receive the promise of their

eternal inheritance (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονοµίας), or in the words of 5:8, Jesus

allowed them to receive their eternal salvation. Because he offered himself blamelessly, God’s

people can attain their inheritance of eternal salvation/redemption. The author has now made

clear that the inheritance to which they look forward is a salvation both from death and

sin.

Salvation in Hebrews, however, is not only a negative concept. At the close of ch. 9, the

author says that Christ was offered once to remove the sins of many. Having done so, he will

appear a second time to bring salvation to those who are eagerly awaiting him (9:28). He

removed sin; therefore, he can now bring salvation. Hence, those who will inherit salvation are

both “saved from” death and sin and “saved for” participation in the presence of God.

As the author shows how Jesus’ priesthood is different from that prescribed by the law,

the author emphasizes that while the law cannot bring perfection, a better hope has appeared that

allows nearness to God (7:19). It is Jesus, as the abiding priest who never dies, who is able to

28

43Attridge highlights this shift in meaning and the reason for it: “The notion of the inheritance secured by Christ’s death leads to a general principle about what a διαθήκη requires” (Hebrews, 255).

save unto the utmost44 those who are approaching God through him (7:25). His blood and flesh

allows entrance to the holy place inside the veil (10:19). Again, the author defines this entrance

into the presence of God as the inheritance of those who enter. He defines the hope to which he

and his audience flees as that which goes inside the veil (6:19). What provides the hope is God’s

oath issued to the inheritors of the promises (6:17). To be with God is their inheritance of

salvation.

By establishing his brothers and sisters’ eternal salvation in God’s presence, Jesus opens

the door for the final consummation of his own inheritance.45 In other places, the author

describes the destination toward which the people of God are moving as glory (2:10), God’s

house (3:6), and Mount Zion where God dwells (12:22–24). These are different ways of

describing their salvation as entrance into the presence of God. The author also shows that in

these places Jesus reigns over those who dwell there.46 He is the leader of those who are being

led into glory (2:10). He is over the house of God (3:6). He is the mediator who allows entrance

to the mountain (12:24). Because their salvation consists in being cleansed from sin and granted

entrance into the presence of God, Jesus’ provision of this salvation brings God’s many children

29

44 The phrase εἰς τὸ παντελές can indicate both qualitative and quantitative completeness. Both meanings capture what the author portrays about salvation through Jesus (Attridge, Hebrews, 210; Koester, Hebrews, 365; O’Brien, Hebrews, 274).

45Similarly Patrick Gray concludes, “Jesus plays an indispensable role in securing an inheritance for his siblings…. [The audience members] owe their promised inheritance to his offices in both senses of the word, that is, his assistance as well as his ‘official’ capacities as brother and high priest. Apart from the mediation of their devoted sibling, Hebrews describes no other way by which the readers will receive the promises” (“Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” JBL 122 [2003]: 335–51, here 348).

46Koester makes a similar observation: “Hope of entering eternal Sabbath rest means that the readers, like the Son, will experience a life that transcends the mortality of the present and share in the joy of life under Christ’s everlasting reign (Heb 1:9–12),” (“God’s Purposes,” 369).

into God’s sovereignty and hence under his authority as well. This brief sketch of Hebrews’

soteriology shows that when humanity comes into their inheritance of salvation, Jesus takes

possession of his own inheritance.

Intercession

The audience of Hebrews, however, has not yet attained their inheritance of salvation;

they do not yet dwell in the presence of God. Therefore, in order to attain his inheritance, Jesus,

through his priestly intercession, aids his brothers and sisters on their journey to God. The word

for intercession occurs only once (7:25), but the theme of Jesus’ continued priestly service on

behalf of his brothers and sisters figures prominently throughout Hebrews.

This aspect of his priestly ministry first appears after the author’s initial designation of

Jesus as High Priest (2:17–18). The suffering he experienced associated with his testing allows

him to give aid (βοηθῆσαι) to his brothers and sisters who are also tested with the goal that they

will not give up in the pursuit of attaining their inheritance. A similar statement in 4:15–16

advances on the idea of the aid given by Jesus. Because Jesus has been tempted according to all

things, he is able to sympathize with the weaknesses of his siblings. Jesus’ ability to sympathize

propels the author to encourage his readers to approach the throne of grace with boldness.

Because Jesus sits at God’s right hand and can understand their struggles, they have an advocate

in heaven who can provide them with grace and help in their times of need. He can assist them

when they struggle with sin so that they will not be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin

(3:13) and fall short of dwelling in God’s presence.

In ch. 6, the author encourages them to imitate those who inherited the promises of God

(6:12). God’s promises are a sure and firm anchor for their souls. Moreover, those promises are

30

closely related to the person of Jesus.47 He is the one who has gone inside the veil to serve as

priest (6:19–20). Therefore, the priestly service he performs there helps them hold fast to the

promises of their inheritance. In 7:25, the author relates Jesus’ status as the eternal priest and his

ability to save his followers completely and eternally to his continual intercession. Since he is

ever living, he is always able to intercede for his brothers and sisters (7:25). In other words, he is

there to assist them until they reach their final goal: God’s glorious presence (2:10) manifest in

God’s house (3:6). Through his intercession and aid, he helps God’s many children persevere

until they reach their inheritance of salvation.

The end of chapter 9 captures the triple impact of Jesus the Son’s priestly work. At the

time of the author and his readers, Jesus has appeared and in that first appearance he purchased

forgiveness for sin (9:26). When Jesus enters into heaven the true tent to take his place as God’s

Son and heir, he appears before the very face of God (9:24). There, his one offering removes sin

(9:26). He will appear again, and at that time, his purpose will be for salvation: from the

continuing reality of sin and death and into the eternal dwelling with God. That inheritance of

salvation will be revealed to those who, with his aid and intercession, are eagerly awaiting

joining him in God’s house. By establishing their inheritance of salvation and continually living

to aid them on their journey to their attaining salvation, Jesus the Son, in his priestly role,

provides the means through which he will attain his own inheritance.

CONCLUSION

31

47Attridge also concludes, “… the word constitutes a ‘promise’ for Christians because of the status it accords Christ as heavenly intercessor and ‘forerunner.’ … The analogy established between Christ and the anchor of hope is certainly intentional and significant” (Hebrews, 182, 184). Similarly Johnson states, “That his present hearers have this encouragement ‘safe and sure’ is certainly linked not only to God’s speech but also to God’s action in exalting Jesus to his right hand as Lord” (Hebrews, 171).

At the beginning of his treatment of the priesthood of Jesus (4:14), the author proclaims

that Jesus, the Son of God, is High Priest. He is called to the priesthood by his Father. Jesus can

be priest because he is Son of God become a son of man, outside the line of Levi and in the order

of Melchizedek. Before he assumes this post, he faces death and in doing so obediently, he is

perfected by his Father. When he is established as High Priest, he also reigns sovereign over

those whose inheritance of salvation he has established. God his Father prepared him for the

priesthood through suffering so that he might establish the inheritance of salvation for many

others and subsequently attain his own inheritance of all things. Jesus could not be the ultimate

heir were he not high priest, and Jesus would not have been high priest were it not for the call,

suffering, and exaltation he experienced in relationship with God his Father.

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

. “The Psalms in Hebrews.” Pages 197–212 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Chrysostom Baer. South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006.

Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984.

Brown, William P. “A Royal Performance: Critical Notes on Psalm 110:3ag-b.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 93–96.

Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment, and Conclusions. Anchor Bible 36. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1972.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

Cockerill, Gareth. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testatment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012.

Colijn, Brenda B. “‘Let Us Approach’: Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996): 571–86.

Dafni, Evangelia C. “Psalm 109(110): 1-3 in the Septuagint: Its Translation-Critical, Tradition-Historical, and Theological Setting.” Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 527. Edited by Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. 241-259.

Dahood, Mitchell, S.J. Psalms I. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

DeSilva, David A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

33

De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Reprint of Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1961. Translation of Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. 2 vols. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1958, 1960.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993.

Fuhrmann, Sebastian. “Failures Forgotten: The Soteriology in Hebrews Revisited in the Light of Its Quotation of Jeremiah 38:31–34 [LXX].” Neotestamentica 41 (2007): 295–316.

Gray, Patrick. “Brotherly Love and the Christology of Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122.2 (2003): 335–51.

. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition. Society of Biblical Literature Archeaology and Biblical Studies 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Juel, Don. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Koester, Craig R. “God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews.” Pages 361–87 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt. Boston: Brill, 2005.

. Hebrews. Anchor Bible 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 47. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lidgett, J. Scott. Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1921.

34

Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 53. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1981.

Luther, Martin. “Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1517–1518.” Pages 19–250 in Luther: Early Theological Works. The Library of Christian Classics. Edited and translated by James Atkinson. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1962.

McCruden, Kevin B. “Compassionate Soteriology in Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the Gospel of Mark.” Biblical Research 52 (2007): 41-56.

McCormack, Bruce L. “’With Loud Cries and Tears’: The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 37–68 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by R. Bauckham, D. Driver, and T. Hart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 8th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949.

Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. Sacra Pagina 13. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1989.

Moffitt, David. Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 141. Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2011.

. “Jesus the High Priest and the Mosaic Law: Reassessing the Appeal to the Heavenly Realm in the letter ‘To the Hebrews’.” Problems in Translating Texts about Jesus: Proceedings from the International Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2008. Edited by Mishael Caspi and John T. Greene. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2011. 195-232.

Montefiore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Reprint of The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas, with forward by James Crenshaw. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Hebrews. Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983.

35

Osborne, Grant. “Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 143–66 in Grace Unlimited. Edited by Clark H. Pinnock. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975.

Parsons, Mikeal. “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews.” Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 195-216.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed.;. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Rooke, Deborah W. “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7” Biblica 81 (2000): 81-94.

Spicq, Ceslas. L’épitre aux Hébreux. Etudes bibliques. 2 vols. Paris : Librairie Lecoffre, 1952–53.

Thompson, James W. Hebrews. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Vanhoye, Albert. Situation du Christ: Épître aux Hébreux 1 et 2. Lectio Divina 58. Paris: Cerf, 1969.

Witherington, Ben, III. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007.

36