> ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎Chapter 7‎ > ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9‎ > ‎Chapter 10‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ >   

 

 

Chapter 5: Christ's Priesthood compared with that of Melchisedek:

Summary of 5. 1-14

A high priest is taken from among men, and is appointed for the
sake of humans in their responsibility to God, so that he may offer
gifts and sacrifices for sins. He needs to be able to deal in
considerate way with the ignorant and with those who err, since he
himself knows he is frail. As a result of this frailty, even he has
to bring a sin offering for himself as well as for the people.

No one has a right to take this office on himself - it is for those
called by God, as Aaron was.

Not even Christ exalted Himself to this dignity of the high
priesthood. He was raised to it by the One who said to Him: "You
are my Son, today have I begotten you". God also in another place
said of Him: "You are a priest forever, in the line of
Melchizedek".

[Just as ordinary priests make an offering for themselves, so
Christ, though He had no need of a sin offering for himself] did
make prayers and loud petitions with tears, to Him who could save
Him from death. He was heard because of His reverence to the
Father.

And even though He was the Father's Son, He still learned obedience
by suffering. Then, after being made perfect, He became the source
of eternal salvation to those who follow Him, He who was appointed
by God as high priest in the line of Melchizedek.

There are many things to say about this Melchizedek, much of which
is hard to understand, for you have become sluggish. Really, by now
you ought to be able to be teachers, yet, you are not able, for you
still need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's
words all over again. You have become such as to need milk, not
solid food. Now anyone who is fed on milk is not trained in the
matter of what is right, so he is an infant. Solid food is for
those who are mature, who by practice have had their senses trained
to tell good from evil.

Comments on Chapter 5

At the end of the previous chapter, the author said we could have
confidence to come before God's merciful throne, because we have a
great Mediator. Now He expands on that Mediator, and contrasts Him
with earlier priests.

All priests are taken from humanity, and given the assignment of
offerings gifts and sacrifices to God for men. From the later part
of this chapter we gather than the author has in mind especially
the sin offering that had to be made for the Day of Atonement - a
most important things, so much so that in Talmud Berachoth 1. 1, we
read that for three days before that offering, the high priest had
to be secluded, so that he might not even inadvertently incur
levitical impurity, and so be unable to officiate.

These ancient priests had to be able to sympathize with those who
sin, since they themselves were sinful, to such an extent that they
had to make a sin offering for themselves as well as for the
people. Historically, from the fall of the house of Zadok when
Onias was killed in 171 BC, there were few high priests who showed
these personal qualities. This was especially the case when men
like Alexander Jannaeus, who was both king and high priest 103-76
BC held the office.

The old high priest had to make offering for those who sinned in
ignorance (cf. Leviticus, chapter 4 and our comments about on
Hebrews 2. 10) - for, as we see in Hebrews 9. 7, there were no
sacrifices provided for sins committed be yad ramah,"with a high
hand."

But just as the ancient priests needed a divine call, like Aaron,
Christ Himself, even though He was Son, did not take the dignity
upon Himself: it was given Him by the Father who said: "You are my
Son... . you are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek." Here
Psalm 110. 4 is applied to Jesus. So far as we know, this is the
first time that Jesus who was called the messiah from David in
Psalm 2. 7 was also called high priest in the line of Melchizedek.
Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14. 18 as king of Salem which was
traditionally, and probably correctly, identified with Jerusalem.
He was called a priest of El elyon, the most high God. In Gen 14.
22 El elyon is identified with Yahweh. It seems that since David
took Jerusalem, his line inherited the priesthood of Melchizedek,
in perhaps a titular way, since the priesthood of Jerusalem later
was from the family of Zadok, which seems distinct from the Davidic
line. Both Jews and Christians did much speculation on Melchizedek.
Yet Jewish unhappiness about the Christian use of this thought led
them to take in time a less favorable view of Melchizedek in
Talmud, Nedarim 32a, where it is said that since Melchizedek in
Genesis 14. 19-20 blessed Abraham before he blessed God, therefore
the priesthood was taken from Melchizedek (he remained a priest,
but his sons would not be priests) and given to Abraham. Thus they
wanted to counter the claim that Christ was a priest in the line of
Melchizedek by claiming that there was no priesthood of the line of
Melchizedek.

Really, putting the blessing of God in last place proves nothing.
In a liturgical procession, the highest authority always walks in
last position.

Such Jewish twisting to counter Christian claims is known
elsewhere, and is even admitted by some major Jewish scholars,
especially in commenting on a tendency to change the Targum of
Isaiah 53, making the meek lamb into an arrogant conqueror, and
attributing atoning efficacy to the binding of Isaac: cf. H. J.
Schoeps, Paul, Westminster, 1961, p. 29; Jacob Neusner, Messiah in
Context, Fortress, Phila. 1984. p. 190, and Samson Levey, The
Messiah, An Aramaic Interpretation , Hebrew Union College,
Cincinnati 1974, p. 152 and note 10.

Now a puzzling line: this high priest Jesus did offer loud prayers
and tears to the Father who could save Him from death. Obviously
true. We think of His anguished cry in Gethsemani: "Father, it is
be possible, let this chalice pass from me." But what then of the
following words, saying his prayer was heard because of His
reverence? But He was not saved from death.

The answer is that He went willingly to death. Strictly speaking,
as the Eastern Fathers of the Church understood so well, even the
first moment of the incarnation was infinitely meritorious and
infinite in giving satisfaction. Hence they spoke of physical
mystical solidarity: all humanity formed a unit, a solidarity. The
humanity of Jesus became part of that solidarity. But in Him, the
humanity was joined in the unity of one Person to the divinity. So
a power or force spread out from the divinity, through His
humanity, and healed the rest of humanity.

That being the case, it would have been possible for the chalice to
pass from Him. For He had already many times over provided infinite
merit and satisfaction. Yet He obeyed the Father in His reverence.
Already at His baptism by John (Mt. 3. 115) He had said that "it is
right to do all that God requires".

The Father willed that He go beyond a deathless prayer - which He
could have said during His brief stay in the world, and would have
sufficed infinitely. The Father willed that instead of an
incarnation in a palace to the stable and to the cross. Such was
the Father's love of all that is morally right -for that is what
the title Holy really means, and such was the Father's love of us
humans, that as long as anything still richer could be found, He
would not omit to provide it.

He was, then, heard, in His exaltation, as we find in Philippians
2:5-10: "He did not consider equality with God something to be held
onto, but He emptied Himself, took on the form of a slave, and
became obedient to death, even to death on the cross. Therefore the
Father highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name that is above
every name."

What of the words saying that He learned obedience from the things
He suffered? It surely could not mean He was in any way deficient
in obedience before that point. The whole theme of His life,
expressed in Hebrews 10. 7 was: "Behold, I come to do your will O
God." And as He Himself said in John 4. 34,"my food is to do the
will of Him who sent me." We think of the great Greek Tragedian,
Aeschylus, who wrote (Agamemnon 176ff), pathei mathos -- "by
suffering comes learning". But more than that, let us think of a
man who all his life has been most devoted to the will of God, but
has never yet had the experience of severe illness. Suddenly he
does fall into that physical suffering. It takes some doing for Him
to learn to acquiesce, as it were, to settle down

in pain. His will was always in accord with the will of God - but
His bodily side had to learn to settle down in suffering.

Jesus then, made perfect by suffering is specially fitted to be the
source of eternal salvation to those who obey Him, in the
"obedience of faith" (Romans 1. 5). He was of course perfect from
the beginning, being the divine son. But He acquired a special
addition to that perfection by the learning that came from
suffering. He won salvation by obeying, and so it is right that
those who are to obtain salvation should follow Him in the
obedience that faith is (cf. Rom 1. 5).

Our epistle adds that there is much to say about this. That word
could mean about Jesus or about Melchizedek or about their
relation. But he does not present it at once since they have become
sluggish. They should have advanced enough to be teachers by this
point, but have not done so: instead, they still need babyfood,
milk. Solid food is for the mature. You do not know the "word of
justice". Perhaps this means the way to reach justification taught
by Jesus.