especially in its Royal Psalms and principally in Ps. 110.1. The impor-tance of this ¿rst claim is then underscored in the author’s ¿rst warning-text, which follows in 2.1-4 and sets the ¿rst expositional unit slightly off from those that follow in 2.5-18. In the author’s second exposition in 2.5-9, he argues that the enthroned messiah of Ps. 110.1 (1.13) solves humanity’s problem through his own death. Messiah is crowned and humanity is restored through suffering. Thus, messiah’s exaltation through death brings about the initial ful¿llment of Psalm 8’s vision for all of humanity—or, at the least, the new humanity implied in, for example, 2.11 and 2.16. Finally, in the author’s third unit in this section of his exposition, 2.10-18, he justi¿es his interpretation of messiah’s death and resurrection. That is to say, he justi¿es his interpretation of Psalm 8 in the light of Psalm 110. Here he explains that Jesus’ death was the only way to solve the human problem. There was no other way back to the glory humanity lost in the Fall. Messiah’s death was, he insists, both
¿tting (v. 10) and necessary (v. 17). How else could death and, funda-mentally, sin be placed under messiah’s—and, therefore, humanity’s—
feet?
Chapter 3
M
ESSIANICP
RIESTHOOD INH
EBREWS5–7
This second section of Hebrews’ exposition once more comprises three distinct units. As we shall see, the author’s logic turns, as before, on his use of Psalm 110. He uses the psalm (1) to establish that the enthroned messiah is a priestly messiah (5.1-10), (2) to argue that messiah’s priesthood is superior to Levi’s, because it is permanent (7.1-10), and (3) to explain that its permanence implies its ability to perfect (7.11-28).
I. The Enthroned Messiah Is a Priestly Messiah (5.1-10)
Following a second extended exhortation (3.1–4.13) and a brief transi-tional summary (4.14-16), the author, as in 2.5-9, returns in this fourth expositional unit to where his previous argument left off: the son is a
high priest (2.17; cf. 3.1; 4.14, 15; also table 11 below). Here the authorwill justify this assertion by demonstrating that the son exhibits two essential characteristics required of every high priest.
1a. The Logic of Hebrews 5.1-10
The exposition in 5.1-10 divides into two paragraphs.
2In the ¿rst, the author identi¿es the qualities one must possess to be a high priest and, in
1. Cockerill suggests a similar role (among others) for 5.1-10 (Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 229).2. The coherence of the exposition is bound up with the mention of priestly appointment in vv. 1, 4, 5-6, and 10 and the adverbial phrase ÇĩÌÑË Á¸ţ, which signals the beginning of its second paragraph, a division further suggested by the recurrence of ¸ĹÚÅÑ in vv. 1, 4 and ¼ÂÏÀÊñ»¼Á in vv. 6 and 10. In fact, it is the attention given to appointment in vv. 1 and 10—and not simply vv. 4-6—that pushes against the common claim that the two paragraphs are chiastically related (see, e.g., Bruce, Hebrews, p. 123; Delitzsch, Hebrews, vol. 1, p. 237; Michel, Brief an die Hebräer, pp. 214–15; Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 61; Weiss, Brief an die Hebräer, pp. 302–3; D. R. Anderson, King-Priest, p. 205; D. L. Allen, Hebrews, p. 314; O’Brien, Hebrews, p. 189; Lindars, Theology, p. 61; Mason, ‘You Are a
1
the second, he shows how each applies to Jesus. A high priest must (1) be appointed by God (vv. 1, 4, 5-6, 10) and (2) mediate salvation (vv. 1, 9). The author’s emphasis on divine appointment and the medi-ation of salvmedi-ation recalls, of course, the initial description of the son’s priesthood in 2.17. There the son was made (ĝÄÇÀÑ¿ýŸÀ) like his brothers so that he might become (ºñž̸À) a high priest; the voice in each case implies the sort of appointment described presently (see, e.g., ĨÈġ ÌÇı
¿¼Çı, 5.4, 10). And he was appointed a priest so that he could take care of his people’s sins, which is to say, so that he might lead them to salvation (cf. ÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë, 2.10). Here the author will also underscore, once more (2.17-18; and, especially, 4.15), that it is the priest’s common experience of humanity and, thus, suffering (ÈñÈÇÅ¿¼Å, 2.18)
3that ensures he will recognize the importance of his post (ë¼ŢÄÑÅ, 2.17; ì¼ÇË, 4.16) and, thus, carry out its responsibilities (ÈÀÊÌĠË, 2.17).
4Priest Forever’, p. 23; Michael Bachmann, ‘Hohepriesterliches Leiden: Beobach-tungen zu Heb 5:1-10’, ZNW 78 [1987], pp. 244–66 [251; cf. 254]; Davis, ‘Function of Old Testament Texts’, p. 198; Cockerill, Hebrews, pp. 230–2; cf. also Westcott, Hebrews, p. 124; Alford, Greek Testament, vol. 4, pp. 90–1; Hewitt, Hebrews, p. 95;
Attridge, Hebrews, p. 138; cf. p. 144; and Thompson, Hebrews, p. 114).
3. Also Á¸ÌÛ ÈÚÅ̸, v. 17; cf. ÒÊ¿¼Å¼ţ¸ÀË//Á¸ÌÛ ÈÚÅ̸, 4.15.
4. Verses 1-3 and 7-10 do not clearly advance the comparison so obviously present in vv. 4-6. Not only is the syntax not precisely parallel (e.g., vv. 7-10 comprise a dependent clause vis-à-vis vv. 1-3’s independent clause), the ideas are not either. There is, e.g., no explicitly parallel note about the son’s ability to moderate his emotions in vv. 7-10 (ļÌÉÀÇȸ¿¼ėÅ, v. 2; for this gloss, see, e.g., Philo, Abr. 257; Josephus, Ant. 12.128; so, e.g., W. Michaelis, ‘ÈÚÊÏÑ, ÁÌÂ’, TDNT, vol. 5, p. 938; Attridge, Hebrews, p. 143; McCruden, Solidarity Perfected, p. 108; Koester, Hebrews, p. 286; cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 62 [‘gentleness and forbearance’]; on the relationship of 5.2 with 4.15, see, e.g., Westcott’s proposal, Hebrews, p. 119), nor, in fact, are the sacri¿ces offered in vv. 1-3 parallel with those found in vv. 7-10—
despite what we might expect with the recurrence of ÈÉÇÊÎñÉÑ in v. 7. After all, instead of sacri¿ces for his own and others’ sins, the son offers prayers and petitions, ostensibly for himself alone (see, e.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 292; O’Brien, Hebrews, p. 199; contra, e.g., Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 236, incl. n. 36 and pp. 241–42 n. 58; though cf. his note about a sacri¿ce of priestly consecration on p. 239 n. 51;
also p. 240), though this is not stated anywhere explicitly. Moreover, only in vv. 7-10 do we ¿nd an emphasis on obedience. All this has led some to suggest that the two sections are, in fact, not parallel (see, e.g., Lane, Hebrews, p. 114) or, related, that the author focuses exclusively on priestly appointment in vv. 5-10 (Göttlieb Lünemann, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884], p. 505; Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, p. 62; see also pp. 78, 201; cf. Milligan, Theology, pp. 104–5). The fact that the two paragraphs are not chiastically related, as is often assumed (see n. 2 above), could, of course, further point in this direction. As we shall see, however, there is suf¿cient evidence
1
Table 11. Parallel Vocabulary in Hebrews 5.1-10 and Hebrews 2.10-18 5.1-10 2.10-18 ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼ŧË, vv. 1, 5, 10 ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼ŧË, v. 17
ëÆ ÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÑÅ, v. 1; also ëÅ
̸ėË ÷ÄñɸÀË ÌýË Ê¸ÉÁġË ¸ĤÌÇı, v. 7
Á¸ÌÛ ÈÚÅ̸ ÌÇėË ĝÄÇÀÑ¿ýŸÀ, v. 17; also ļÌñÊÏ¼Å ÌľÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ, v. 14 ÌÛ ÈÉġË ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ, v. 1 ÌÛ ÈÉġË ¿¼ĠÅ, v. 17
ĨÈòÉ ÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÑÅ, v. 1;
also ȼÉĖ ÖĸÉÌÀľÅ, v. 3
¼ĊË Ìġ ĎÂÚÊÁ¼Ê¿¸À ÌÛË ÖĸÉÌţ¸Ë, v. 17
Ěμţ¼Å, v. 3 ĵμÀ¼Å, v. 17
ÌÇı ¸Çı, v. 3 ÌÇı ¸Çı, v. 17
¸Ĺ¸ÅĠļÅÇË, v. 1; ¸ĹÚżÀ, v. 4 ëÈÀ¸ĹÚż̸À, v. 16 ë»ĠƸʼÅ, v. 5 (cf. also ÌÀÄŢÅ,
v. 4 with 2.7, 9)
»ĠƸÅ, v. 10
ʸÉÁĠË, v. 7 ʸÉÁĠË, v. 14
¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ, v. 7 ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ, vv. 14, 15
¼Ĥ¸¹¼ţ¸Ë, v. 7 ÎĠ¹Ŀ, v. 15
ìȸ¿¼Å, v. 8 ÈñÈÇÅ¿¼Å, v. 18
̼¼ѿ¼ţË, v. 9 ̼¼ÀľÊ¸À, v. 10
ëºñżÌÇ, v. 9 ºñž̸À, v. 17
ÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë, v. 9 ÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë, v. 10
1. Two essential qualities for every high priest (5.1-4). In the ¿rst paragraph, both characteristics are identi¿ed in the ¿rst verse, with the subject and main verb of a sentence that continues all the way to the end of v. 3. Every high priest is appointed (Á¸¿ţÊ̸̸À) to the service of God (ÌÛ ÈÉġË ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ).
5The author, moreover, will clarify in v. 4 what is here only implicit in the priest’s appointment.
6There he will note that the reason Á¸¿ţÊ̸̸À is in the passive voice is that priesthood is divinely bestowed (ĨÈġ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı). It is not an honor (ÌüÅ ÌÀÄŢÅ) one takes for himself (ÇĤÏ î¸ÍÌŊ ÌÀË Â¸Ä¹ÚżÀ).
7Rather, it is an of¿ce one receives
to suggest that vv. 1-3 and 7-9 are intentionally parallel, though in a much more subtle way than vv. 4-6—perhaps owing to differences (cf. ÏÑÉĖË ÖĸÉÌţ¸Ë, 4.15; cf.
9.14), emphasized later (contra, e.g., Kurianal, whose slightly idiosyncratic exegesis here is too much inÀuenced by these later contrasts [Jesus Our High Priest, pp. 47–
83]), between the two priestly orders mentioned here (see ¸ÉŪÅ, v. 4; ¼ÂÏÀÊñ»¼Á, vv. 6, 10).
5. The reference to ¸ÉŪÅ in v. 4 probably limits the purview of ȸϗË ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼ŧË to Judaism. See a similar note in Cockerill, Hebrews, p. 232.
6. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 271: ‘V. 1 and especially v. 4 emphasize the levitical high priest’s divine call’. See also Cockerill, who calls Á¸¿ţÊ̸̸À a ‘divine passive’ (Hebrews, p. 237 n. 38).
7. On the danger of this sort of presumption, particularly by non-Levites (cf.
7.13-14), see Num. 3.10; 16.40; cf. 1 Kgs 12.31 and, esp., 2 Chron. 26.16-21.
1