Hebrews: Exegetical Essay

Hebrews 4:14-5:10
The book of Hebrews, whoever its author or readers might have been, was addressed to people who, having professed faith in Jesus as the Christ, were tempted to return to Judaism. Therefore the author sets out to show that Christ is superior to everyone and everything in the O.T. He is greater than angels (1:5-2:9), than Moses and the Law (3:1-6), than Joshua (4:1-10) and the aaronic priesthood (4:14-7:28), and that the New Covenant which he has initiated is greater than the first one initiated by Moses (8:1-10:18).
In all this Christ is not something new, but rather is the fulfillment of all the Scriptures of the O.T. which pointed to his coming, person and work in all that they said. So Christianity is not a new religion, rather it is the continuation of the faith of the patriarchs (11:1-39), without which they would not be perfected without us (11:40).
Interspersed throughout this argument are passages warning of the consequences of abandoning the new faith for the old (2:1-4; 3:7-19; 5:11-14; 6:4-8; 10:26-31;12:14-29). These often break up the argument of the epistle so that it is necessary to remember where it left off.
This is so in the case of one of the central themes of the book, that of priesthood. Hebrews is the only book in the N.T. which explicitly calls Christ a priest, though obviously there are many references to the nature of his death as a sacrifice. The central theme of the Christology of Hebrews is that Christ is high priest. The priesthood of the O.T. was only a shadow of the reality and could not solve the problem of sin. By his death Christ solved this problem. So, to apostatize from Christ means death, because there is no other solution.

There is an allusion to this idea already in 1:3, but it becomes clear in 2:17-3:1 which speak of him as ‘merciful and faithful’ and ‘able to help those who are being tempted’. The theme is then set aside, this time not due to a warning passage, but rather to a comparison with Moses (3:1-6), which leads to the second warning passage (3:7-19) and in turn to a consideration of the Israelites in the wilderness (4:1-10) as a further warning. The theme of priesthood is then resumed (4:14-5:10), only to be interrupted again because the readers are not mature enough to understand it (5:11-6:3). There then follows another warning passage (6:4-8) and it is only in 6:20 that the author returns to the theme in order to finally show that Christ has a higher order of priesthood than that of Aaron, the Order of Melchizedek.
However it is the passage from 4:14 to 5:10 which we wish to examine as this shows the writers understanding of priesthood generally (5:1-4), which he shared with the Jews of the period of the Second Temple. Having established this he then goes on to argue that Jesus is a high priest in his own right, although not descended from Aaron.
TEXTUAL PROBLEMS
Whilst there are various problems of translation in this passage the only textual problem is in 5:6 where P46 has ‘ἐπεύξ, “precentor,” a leader of prayer and praise, for ἱερεύς, “priest”’ (Lane 1991 110 note r). However, since this is in a quotation from Ps 110:4 it is obviously a mistake. The conjectural emendation of Harnack in 5:7 ‘he was not heard’ is generally rejected as not only unnecessary, but ‘actually subversive of the writer’s intention’ (Lane 1998, 110 fn u).

4:14-7:28 THE SUPERIOROTY OF CHRIST OVER THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD

4:14-5:10 QUALIFICATIONS OF A HIGH PRIEST

The exhortation to enter into rest is reinforced by considering the character of the high priest whom we have. ‘Jesus is one with his people and for them he offers the perfect sacrifice. This is seen largely in terms of the Day of Atonement ceremonies in which the role of the high priest (and not simply any priest) was central.’ (Morris, 1999, in loc.).

4:14 This verse serves to introduce the main theme of the letter. - to show the superiority of Christ over the priests of the line of Aaron. It is also a theme to encourage us: he has gone through the heavens. We need not enumerate these as Paul (II Cor 12:2) or the Talmud (Hagigah 12b) do. The plural reflects the Hebrew word, as often in the LXX and N.T. What is emphasized is his transcendence (7:26; cp. Eph 4:10). This is the evidence that his sacrifice was accepted by God. But he also knows our human condition so we may approach him with confidence. Furthermore, we share the access of our high priest (10:19).
The Word ‘great’ puts this high priest above all those of the aaronic order. Jesus is great because of who he is, ‘the Son of God’. But the emphasis is also on the exaltation of Christ (1:3; 7:28). It is not into an earthly tabernacle that our great high priest has entered, but into the presence of God himself (see 9:24). Furthermore this is not a temporary appearance for a short time, as with the aaronic high priest who passed through the veil and entered once a year into the Most Holy Place. He is now resident in heaven and seated there majestic in power and glory (1:3).
‘Jesus’ denotes his humanity (2:9; 3:1) and thus his qualification to be a high priest. It also indicates the salvation which is found in him (Mat 1:21). ‘Jesus’ is not used in 1:1-14 where his glory is under consideration. When the theme is incarnation, suffering, death and consequent empathy with humanity it is used (2:9ff). He could not be in heaven as our great high priest without first having performed his priestly work on earth. But this he has done, and has now entered into his rest
‘The Son of God’ expresses his unique relation with the Father as the Second Person of the Trinity (cp. 1:1-14). This is the first use of this phrase in the epistle, although it is assumed up until now. It ‘is no doubt intentionally introduced here to combine the humanity and divinity of Jesus as the perfect qualifications for a high priest who was to be superior to all others’ (Guthrie, 2003, 121).
The two titles together suggest both sympathy and power
The author maintains his practical interest of exhortation in this theme: Since this is the nature of our high priest we are encouraged to ‘hold firmly to the faith we profess.’ (NIV), or to ‘our confession’ (NASB). The idea is of clinging to something with determination (Guthrie, 2003, 114) and suggests a certain danger of failing to do so. There is a need for public confession at this time of crisis.
Guthrie sees this expression as forming a beginning and an end to this major section (4:14-10:19). Both have the ideas of holding on to our confession and drawing near to God with confidence through a great high priest.
The writer now takes up a number of motifs introduced in 2:17–18: Jesus’ solidarity with the people of God in their trials, his priestly compassion, his experience of testing through the suffering of death, and his ability to help those who are exposed to the ordeal of testing. The formulation of 4:15–16 recalls the announcement of these themes in 2:17–18 and prepares for the exposition of Jesus’ appointment to the high priestly office in 5:1–10 (Lane, 1998, 111)
4:15 The nature of our high priest is next considered. He can ‘sympathize with our weaknesses’ (NIV) or ‘feel our weaknesses with us’ (Lane 1991 114)., because he has suffered all the strength of the enemy and triumphed over his temptations. His humanity means that he experienced the full range of temptation. Thus he can help us (2:17-18).
There is a double negative here (‘we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize’) perhaps to counter an idea that Jesus was too remote from us to understand us fully. Only here and in 10:34 is the word ‘sympathize’ used in the N.T. It has the idea of ‘suffering along with’ others, but also of active help (Lane, 1991, 114). Here it occurs with reference to ‘our weaknesses’ and is in contrast to their absence in his case (cp. 5:2; 7:28 in a contrast between his and Aaron’s priesthoods at just this point). These weaknesses refer to ‘together with external evils, the feelings of the souls such as fear, sorrow, the dread of death, and similar things’ (Calvin, in loc.).
He can do this because he was tempted ‘in every way, just as we are’. He is the same as us so far as concerns temptation. The idea is of exposure to testing. He felt this just as the readers were now feeling it.
‘Without sin’ has been taken by some to mean that Jesus suffered all the kinds of temptation which we suffer except those which come as a result of previous sin on our part (Morris, 1999; Hagner, 1990). But it can also simply mean that he did not succumb to sin as a result of his temptations, as we do.
We may represent the truth to ourselves best by saying that Christ assumed humanity under the conditions of life belonging to man fallen, though not with sinful promptings from within. (Westcott loc cit)

This theme of the sinlessness of Christ is important to the writer of the epistle (7:26ff) as it is in the rest of the N.T. (II Cor 5:21; I Jn 2:9; I Pet 2:22).

4:16 Because he triumphed we can draw near (The present tense gives the idea of continually doing this.) with confidence to God through him. The idea is of freedom of expression and deliverance from fear (Guthrie, 2003, 124).
A throne is a symbol of sovereignty and majesty and should inspire awe, especially as it is understood to be God’s throne. But we are told to approach it (a term from the Temple cultus cp. 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6; Lev. 21:17, 21; 22:3 LXX) with confidence, because for us it is a throne of grace where God dispenses his favour. Perhaps there is an allusion to the ‘atonement cover’ (9:5) (Hagner, 1990, 79; Bruce, 1971, 86). Jesus is seated at the right hand of the throne (8:1; 12:2; cp. 1:3) and so guarantees it as a place of grace. He has brought the sacrifice of himself and now invites us weak and tempted sinners to approach what has thus become a throne of grace. Because of this the right of priestly approach is open to all Christians, a privilege which Israel never enjoyed.
There is thus in this phrase a reference to Jesus as both king and high priest. The mediation of Christ as high priest depends on his relationship not only to God, but also with us, so it was necessary that he was made flesh (2:9-18).
‘Mercy’ and ‘grace’ are what God gives at this throne and they are just what we need.
Man needs mercy for past failure, and grace for present and future work. There is also a difference as to the mode of attainment in each case. Mercy is to be ‘taken’ as it is extended to man in his weakness; grace is to be ‘sought’ by man according to his necessity. (Westcott in loc.)

Mercy is God’s tender compassion; grace is his goodness and love.
Help is timely. It comes not constantly, but rather just when needed. When we approach his throne of grace God will hear and answer for Jesus’ sake.

Now the author shows the nature of the high priestly office and the qualifications for it (5:1-4) and then goes on to show how Christ fulfils these. The qualifications needed by the priests for their work included a relationship with the people they represented, compassion and appointment by God.

Lane (1998, 111) gives the structure of the passage as:
A The old office of high priest (5:1)
B. The solidarity of the high priest with the people (5:2-3)
C. The humility of the high priest (5:4)
C’ The humility of Christ (5:5-6)
B’ The solidarity of Christ with the people (5:7-8)
A’ The new office of high priest (5:9-10)

5:1 Firstly ‘every high priest is selected from among men’, he is one of them, sharing their nature and weaknesses. This was necessary as he had ‘to represent them in matters related to God’. The work of a priest has to do with God and his character and requirements. Its object is to reconcile sinful men to God. There is the idea of positive action here.
He was also ‘appointed’ to his office. (The passive mood suggests that the appointment was made by God.- which in fact was the case in the O.T.) He was essentially a mediator between God and men, not only bringing ‘gifts and sacrifices’ to God on behalf of the people, but also instructing the people regarding God’s will (Mal 2:7). There is no relationship between men and God except through a priest as men are now sinful and need someone to present sacrifices on their behalf.
The work of a priest was to offer ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (see 8:3) to God on behalf of the people. Because of sin in the world there was no other way of access to God. The phrase refers to sacrifices of all kinds, bloody and unbloody, ‘But when ‘gifts’ and ‘sacrifices’ are distinguished the former mark the ‘meal-offering’ … and the latter the bloody offerings. Comp. 8:3; 9:9.’ (Westcott in loc.)

5:2,3 Inner disposition is not a requirement for the high priest in the O.T. and this, along with other considerations, has led Lane (1991, 114-116) to consider that 5:1-4 is based on 4:15-16 and that the contrast is not between Aaron and Christ, but between Christ and Aaron, with Christ as the model to which Aaron could not fully conform.- therefore Christ is superior to him.
He must show gentleness and sympathy in his dealings with others (see Num 14:5; 16:22, 47). The idea of the word ‘gently’ (metriopaqei'n) is one of moderation in his emotions. It is a middle course between the apathy so admired by the stoics, and anger. He is to be neither indifferent nor harsh.
‘Those who are ignorant and going astray’ are the people he represents. There was no provision for deliberate sins of provocation of God (Num 15:30; Ps 95:7-11) under the Law, so the high priest had to know how to distinguish these from those of ignorance for which sacrifices could be made (Num 15:28). Sins of ignorance were those committed due to not paying attention to what the Law said. Those ‘going astray’ due to such ignorance are not hardened rebels, and so there is a way back provided for them.
A priest must offer first for his own sins (Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 15-16). He is in the same condition as those he represents. With this knowledge of his own weakness he can have compassion for others. The Mishna represents a prayer of the high priest on the Day of Atonement as follows:
"O God, I have committed iniquity and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house and the children of Aaron, thy holy people. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house" (M Yoma 4:2).

But Christ was without sin, and did not need to offer first for himself (7:27). This makes him superior to them. But even so his mercy is greater than any other priest (2:17-18).

5:4 It was also necessary for a priest to be called by God. The appointment of Aaron set the pattern for this (Exod 28:1-3; Lev 8:1). His appointment extended to his heirs and successors (Num 20:23ff; 25:10ff). Others who attempted to take his office suffered the consequences of their folly (Num 16; I Sam 13:8ff; II Cron 26:16ff). The emphasis is not on the exalted nature of the call but rather on the humility of the one called: he did not presume to enter into his office but rather was appointed to it.
This was not the case in contemporary Judaism since the time of Antiochus IV as high priests were regularly made and unmade by men (Bruce, 1971, 92 fn 19). However the writer is not interested in present practice, but in biblical principles. The calling of God was important and the office was an ‘honour’.
Whatever is done among the people of God regarding appointment to office or adoration which is offered without a command of God does not have divine approval and incurs divine judgement. (Lev 10:1-3; II Cron 26:16-21). This principle was enunciated by the Reformers on the basis of this and similar texts.

5:5 Here, as in the case of comparison with Moses (3:1-6), the writer begins by showing the similarities between Christ and Aaron (‘just as Aaron, so Christ’), only to highlight the contrast later. God has given the office of high priest to Christ. Even as the Anointed One (Christ), he did not put himself into this office, but was called to it by his Father (Jn 8:54).
The use of the official title ὁ Χριστός, “the Christ/the Anointed One” (cf. 9:28), already affirms the fact of divine appointment. The primary proof that Jesus displayed the humility required of his office and did not take for himself the honor of becoming high priest is provided on the basis of Scripture. (Lane 1998, 117)
His natural relation as Son qualified him for the priesthood (Ps 2:7). Here begins the contrast with Aaron, although it is not fully developed until 7:1-28. The emphasis here is on God’s appointment declared in this Psalm and Psalm 110. There are parallels with the opening verses of the epistle where the list of quotations begins with Ps 2:7 and ends with Ps 110:1 (1:5-14). There the important point was to establish the unique sonship of Christ. Here it is to link that sonship with his priesthood. Whilst Ps 110:1 is not quoted again here, it is obviously the link between Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4.

5:6 Christ is different from Aaron.- but like another priest, Melchizedek (Ps 110:4) who was both a king and a priest, whilst Aaron was only a priest. Christ fulfils these two offices of King and priest forever. Whilst Ps 110:1 is quoted in various parts of the N.T. (Mat 22:43; I Cor 15:25; Acts 2:34f), only in Hebrews is verse 4 used to describe Christ (5:6; 7:17, 21 and various allusions). Its introduction here prepares the way for the teaching on Melchizedek in the later chapters. Christ is a priest who truly fulfils the functions of his office and brings about atonement, unlike Aaron and his successors who could only do so symbolically.
Another contrast is that Christ is a priest ‘forever’ and does not pass away or is not succeeded by others as was the case with Aaron. Thus he is a priest ‘of the same kind as Melchizedek’. Most translate ‘in the order of’, but there was no order of Melchizedek as he had no successor, and therefore it is correct to see this as meaning ‘of the same kind’ (Lane, 1998, 110 fn s; Morris, 1999 loc. cit.)
Christ has no successor, nor any need of one, because his sacrifice and entrance into the presence of God are completed (Heb. 9:12, 14; 13:20.).
Reference to the oath which established this priesthood is reserved for 6:13ff and that to the historical figure who met Abram (Gen 14:18-20) will not be treated until chapter 7. Nevertheless the introduction to the theme is made here.
In Israel kingship and priesthood were maintained as separate offices (but see the prophecy of Zac 6:13), unlike in other societies in the Fertile Crescent where they were combined. The Hsasmonean dynasty was the first to combine them, but not all accepted this (eg. Qumran). Here however the offices are united in one person, Christ, and this is given a historical and a biblical precedent in the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek whom chapter 7 will show to be superior to Aaron in many ways.

5:7-10 are kerigmatic and confessional Jesus participated fully in the human condition (cp. Phil 2:5-8)

5:7 refers to the sufferings of Christ in general during his life in the ‘flesh’, (the condition of human weakness which he shared) but with special reference to Gethsemane and Calvary. These sufferings equipped Christ to be a high priest with compassion (4:15).
‘He offered up prayers and petitions’ just as Aaron offered ‘gifts and sacrifices for sins’ (5:1). It was a priestly action (Lane, 1998, 119; Kistermaker, 1985, 136). But it also indicates his dependence upon God as a human being. ‘Prayers’ is a general term, but ‘petitions’ describes the supplication of someone in need of help in overwhelming circumstances.
‘With loud cries and tears’ expresses the intensity of his agony. This is not referred to directly in the Gospel accounts though there are references which could account for the use of such an expression (Luk 22:44; Mat 27:46).
If we continue to think in terms of the cultus then ‘he was heard’ perhaps indicates that his offering was accepted by God, ‘the one who could save him from death. Lane (1998, 120) sees this as simply a title for God and of no further significance in the context. But some (Hagner, 1990, 81) feel that it does refer to Christ’s deliverance in his exaltation following his death. However this although a popular idea, is perhaps artificial.
Rather ‘he was heard’ possibly refers to the response to his submission. Even though he desired that the cup would pass from him, his prayers were conditioned by the will of his Father. Thus it was this petition for the will of his Father to be done which was heard (Mat 26:39; Mar 14:36; Luk 22:42). In this case it was not merely that this will be done to him, but that he would actively do it (Jn 4:34; 6:38; Heb 10:5-9). Consequently he was given strength not only to endure the ordeal which awaited him but to actively offer himself (9:14; 25-26) and thus to sanctify those for whom he made the offering (10:10).
The phrase ‘because of his reverent submission.’ (NIV) or ‘godly fear’ (12:28) suggests the thoughtful shrinking from over-boldness. Some however (Cullmann, 1971, 96) understand the word simply to mean ‘fear’. ‘The whole context forces upon one the sense of ordinary human fear as the meaning of eulabeia’. He had the ordinary human fear of death and he was heard because he conquered this fear when he prayed not for his own will but for that of the Father to be done.
This idea makes even more sense if we add the older view that what he feared was death as the wrath of God coming upon him for the sins of his people which he would bear. Here there is no trace of Docetism but the clearest indication of the humanity of Christ. This is seen even more clearly in the following verse.

5:8 With his equality with God as Son he was ready to be obedient as man (Gal 4:4-5; Phil 2:6-8).
‘Son though he was’ he did not cling to this privilege of eternal sonship (Phil 2:6,7) but received it as Mediator from the Father as a reward for his death (Phil 2:9-11)
‘He learned obedience’ refers to his conscious experience in action which was always present in principle. There is a great difference between a desire to obey and obedience. The suggestion is of a process of development (Luk 2:52) which is complete only when it ends in the obedience of atoning suffering (cp. Phil 2:8). This Jesus had to learn. There is no conflict here between this and his deity, but rather the recognition of his having come as Mediator and the implications which this brought.
How did he learn obedience? We know how it happens with us. We learn to be obedient through the unpleasant things which happen when we are disobedient! But it was not like this for him.
‘He set out from the start on the path of obedience to God, and learned by the sufferings which came his way in consequence just what obedience to God involved in practice in the conditions of human life on earth’ (Bruce, 1971, 103)
So there is not progress from disobedience to obedience but rather expansion in his obedience. In every situation he was obedient to the full extent of the divine demand. But these demands became more and more extensive as he advanced to the climax and their implications became more fully known and understood. This demanded increasing resources of his will and so he learnt obedience. Thus his death was the supreme act of obedience

The idea of obedience again is something active (see 5:1). Jesus does not merely suffer passively, but is active in his obedience towards God (9:14, 25-26).
The verb for ‘suffer’ in Hebrews is used only of the passion of Jesus (2:9,10; 9:26; 13:12). Here then it refers to his unique redemptive sufferings in his high priestly office. Learning occurs in the reception of Scripture as the Word of God. From this Jesus learned that his death was part of the saving will of God and therefore part of his calling. Therefore ‘obedience’ is to this call to suffer.
Jesus freely accepted the suffering of death because Scripture, and through it God, appointed him to this sacrifice for the sake of his office. (Lane, 1998, 121)

These two verses show his qualification to be a sympathetic high priest. The readers can see that he identifies with them in that he did not use his divine power to escape death, any more than he did to escape suffering in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11). Thus he learnt by his human experience. His obedience was learned through suffering and prayer.

5:9 He was always morally perfect, otherwise his sacrifice would not have been accepted. Here ‘made perfect’ refers to his perfect aptitude for his office. Having completed God’s will he himself reaches a state of completeness. His suffering did something. By it he arrived at the goal appointed for him by God and is fully qualified as high priest in a way that even Aaron did not qualify. It was attested by his sitting at the right hand of God, his work finished (1:3).
His triumph gained our eternal salvation. Thus he is its ‘source’ (NIV) or meritorious cause (2:10). His obedience is what achieves salvation (Rom 5:19; Heb 10:10) What does not come through him is not true salvation. He brings his people into the life of the world to come. It is ‘eternal salvation’.- something stable and enduring (Isa 45:17).
‘For all who obey him’: genuine participation in this salvation is always accompanied by obedience No one who is rebellious can be saved (4:1-10). Obedience is the sign of real faith (cp. 4:3). The believer’s obedience to Christ answers to the Son’s obedience to the Father.
Here also salvation is opened to everyone and no longer restricted to the Jews. Christ came to offer salvation to all men.. Whilst Hebrews is addressed primarily to Jewish Christians there is also a great emphasis not on Christ’s jewishness, but on his humanity. He came as the Saviour of the human race and all who obey him find salvation.

5:10 God designated Christ as a high priest like Melchizedek. This confirms that he has all the qualifications necessary for his office. This should be an encouragement to the readers as they face a life of suffering for obedience to the revealed will of God.

But before he develops this theme he speaks of his readers’ immaturity (5:11-6:3) and warns them of the dangers of such a position (6:4-8), before returning gradually to it (6:9-19) and finally taking it up again (6:20-7:28).

This passage, whilst doctrinal in content, is extremely pastoral in intent. Its purpose is to encourage the readers to persevere in the salvation which Christ gained for them as their priest and in order to do that it invites them to come to God in prayer with confidence because they have a better high priest that Aaron. Jesus fulfils the requirements for being their priest, even though he was not a descendent of Aaron. His is a superior priesthood. He is one with them and so sympathizes with them and can help them. He can bring them near to God, whom he has reconciled to them by his obedient sacrifice of himself.
This should give them confidence not only to come to God by him, but also to trust God and obey him as Jesus himself did, knowing that he is dependable as he showed in the personal human experience of Jesus.
Jesus is also their example in his obedience and dependence on God for the strength and courage to do his will. They should look to him then as high priest, sacrifice for sin, encourager and example. With him before them, how can they fail to approach God with confidence and so obtain the needed timely grace to persevere in the midst of their trials and persecutions?