JESUS AS HIGH PRIEST ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK

In the Letter to the Hebrews, the author affirms that Jesus' high priesthood is according to the order of Melchizedek.This means that it is more ancient and superior to the Levitical high priesthood, founded on Aaron. In order to understand it fully, it is important to interpret the author's arguments about Jesus as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek in light of second-Temple theological reflection on the figure of Melchizedek, with which no doubt the readers of the letter were familiar. It seems that the author makes use of his readers' views about Melchizedek not only in order to refute their belief in the permanence of the Levitical priesthood but possibly also to correct those same views about Melchizedek.

The meaning of the name Melchizedek is "King of Righteousness." He makes his only appearance in biblical narrative in Gen 14:18-20: "Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine and he was a priest of God most high. And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God most high, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God most high who delivered your enemies into your hand.' And he [Abram] gave to him a tenth of everything." In the Genesis narrative, Melchizedek is said to be both king of Salem and a priest of God most high. Abraham recognizes his priestly status by tithing to him.

The only other reference to Melchizedek in the Old Testament occurs in Ps 110:4 (LXX 109). This psalm is said to be of David, so that the reader should understand the first person, singular pronoun ("my") as referring to him. David says that Yahweh said to his lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" (Ps 110:1; LXX 109:1). In the next two verses, David continues to address this unidentified individual, whom in verse one he called his "lord." (There are many problems with the interpretation of Ps 110:2-3.) In Ps 110:4, he says to this individual, "Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'." So this kingly figure described in Ps 110:1-3 is also a priest, not from Aaron and Zadok's line, but according to the order of Melchizedek.

Philo and Josephus refer to Melchizedek, but only reiterate what the Genesis narrative says about him. Philo allegorizes the Genesis account of Abram's meeting with Melchizedek. He writes, "Melchizedek also has God made both king of peace, for that is the meaning of Salem, and his own priest...a king peaceable and worthy of his [God's] own priesthood. For he is entitled 'the righteous king', and a king is at enmity with a despot, the one being the author of laws, the other of lawlessness" (Leg. All. 3. 25-26 33 79-82). Josephus explains why it was appropriate that Melchizedek should be a king and a priest. He says that Abram "was received by the king of Solyma [Salem], Melchizedek; the name means 'righteous king', and such he was by common consent, inasmuch for this reason he was moreover made priest of God; Solyma was in fact the place afterward called Hierosolyma [Jerusalem]" (Ant. 1.10.2).

The historical figure of Melchizedek is mentioned in an Aramaic reworking of the book of Genesis found at Qumran, called Genesis Apocryphon (22.14-17). Nothing significant beyond what is affirmed about him in the Genesis narrative, however, is found in this text: "Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out food and drink for Abram and for all the men who were with him; he was a priest of the Most High God and he blessed Abram and said, 'Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, the Lord of heaven and earth. Blessed be the Most High God who has delivered your enemies into your hand'. And he gave him a tithe of all the flocks of the king of Elam and his confederates."

Found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is a sectarian text called 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) in which remarkably Melchizedek is understood as an angel, probably identical to the archangel Michael and the Prince of Light known from Qumran sectarian writings. This theological reflection is based exegetically on Lev 25, the legislation on the year of jubilee, which is then interpreted in light of Deut 15:2 and Isa 61:1. (Twice is Lev 25 cited in 11QMelch: Lev 25:9 in line 2 and Lev 25:13 in line 25. Both are introduced by "And concerning that which he said," the same phrase used in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab) to cite a portion of a biblical text given in full earlier. Based on this observation it is probable that at least Lev 25:8-13 was cited earlier in a part of the text that is no longer extant.) The text began with the citation of Lev 25:13 to which the parallel legislation in Deut 15:2 is brought alongside in typically midrashic fashion. The point established is that the Torah requires the release of all debts in the year of jubilee.

In his pesher on Lev 25, the author then proceeds to uncover an eschatological meaning of the year of jubilee: “Its interpretation for the last days concerns the captives about whom it is said, 'To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa 61:1)'.” The year of jubilee is interpreted eschatologically, so that final salvation is understood as the ultimate year of release; this is the fulfillment of the prediction of the release of the captives foretold in Isa 61:1. The term "captives" no doubt refer to the members of the community who are oppressed by their compatriots and by Belial and the angels of his lot. Moreover, Melchizedek, assumed to be an angel (and, as indicated, probably identical to the archangel Michael and the Prince of Light), is given a role in the eschatological salvation of the righteous and judgment of the wicked. The members of the community are called the “inheritance of Melchizedek” and it is said that Melchizedek will be the one who will "proclaim liberty to them and will release them from the [debt] of their iniquities." At the completion of the ninth Jubilee, in the first week of the tenth jubilee, on the Day of Atonement, atonement will be made for "all the sons of light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek" (2.8; see 2.6), possibly connected somehow to Melchizedek’s eschatological appearance. It is said that this is “the time of the year of grace for Melchizedek," meaning that this is time of eschatological salvation to be mediated by Melchizedek.

The one who proclaims good news mentioned in Isa 52:7 is also identified as Melchizedek and brought into relation to Isa 61:2-3, in which the “anointed one” is said to “comfort the afflicted” and so forth. The various clauses in Isa 52:7 and 61:2-3 are interpreted atomistically, as is typical in Qumran exegesis; but, because of lacunae, it is difficult to understand what is meant. The text reads: "The mountains are the prophets and the messenger is the anointed of the spirit about whom Daniel spoke" (2.17-18) and "'To comfort the afflicted'. Its interpretation: to instruct the ages of the world” (2.20). The passage cited from Daniel as coming to fulillment in tandem with Isa 52:7 and 61:2-3 is Dan 9:25, which implies that the author sees the completion of Daniel’s seventy weeks (Dan 9:24-25) as identical to the beginning of the tenth jubilee; whether the anointed one of Dan 9:25 is interpreted of Melchizedek, however, is unclear.

At this time Melchizedek will also execute judgment on Belial (Satan) and the spirits of his lot. In this context, Ps 82:1-2 is interpreted eschatologically of Melchizedek's judgment of the fallen angels: God takes his stand in the assembly of God; he judges in the midst of the gods. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" The “god” ('elohim) who takes his stand in the assembly of God ('el) is the heavenly being Melchizedek; he will judge in the midst of the other “gods” ('elohim) (2.9-14). In line 11, citing Ps 7:8, it is said that God ('el) will judge the peoples, which is interpreted to mean apparently that the angel Melchizedek will be the instrument of God's eschatological judgment. Along the same lines, the reference “Your God (elohim) reigns” in Isa 52:7 is interpreted to be the reign of Melchizedek, who is a "god" in the sense of being an angel. Ps 82:2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked” is interpreted as follows: “Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, who rebelled by turning away from the precepts of God” (2.12). It would seem that Ps 82:2 is interpreted as speaking about the unjust reign of Belial and the spirits of his lot, which will come to an end with the appearance of Melchizedek as eschatological judge. (This interpretation is suggested by the fact that Ps 82:1 says that God presides over the assembly of God and judges among the gods ['elohim]. These “gods” are interpreted as angels rather than as human judges. Those addressed in Ps 82:1-2 are again called “gods” and are also called sons of God in Ps 82:6.) 11QMelch 2.13 "But Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of Go[d's] judgments [ ] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of his lot]" seems to affirm that Melchizedek will become judge on that day and will remove the right to judge (or to rule) from Belial and the spirits of his lot.

In other of the Qumran Sectarian writings, Melchizedek is probably to be identified with the archangel Michael who is mentioned in the War Scroll, insofar as Michael assumes the same role of eschatological savior and judge that Melchizedek has in 11QMelch (see 1QM 13.10; 16.6-8; 17.7).Other probable names for Michael / Melchizedek are Prince of Light (1QM 13.10-11; 1QS 2.20-22; CD 5.17-19) and Prince of His [God's] Truth (1QS 3.24). In 4QVisions of Amram (4Q544) there are references to two angels—one good and one evil—who have been empowered to rule over human beings. The evil angel goes by three names: Belial, Prince of Darkness and King of Evil (Melchi-resha). The good angel also is known by three names, but unfortunately the text is corrupt at this point. It is almost certain, however, that one of the names was Melchi-zedek, corresponding to Melchi-resha. The other two names likely were Michael and Prince of Light. The biblical figure of Melchizedek became identified for the Qumran community with God's ruling angel.

In another text, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, copies of which were found at Qumran and Masada, there are reference to angels who function as heavenly priests in the heavenly Temple; these are, in other words, angelic priests. In the first Sabbath song, the angelic priests are also said to bring about the possibility of forgiveness for those who turn from sin. The text in which this idea appears, however, offers some translation difficulties (4Q400 frag. 1 1.15b-16b). Should the Hebrew word translatable as “His favor or good will” be taken as the result of the atonement offered on behalf of those who repent or as the object of the atonement, so that “to atone” has more the meaning of propitiate? If the former then the translation would be: “They atone for all those who turn from sin, resulting in God's favor to them.” But if this were the meaning it would be better expressed with the article ("the"), to indicate the idea of purpose. If the latter, it would mean: “They propitiate God's good will for the benefit of those who repent of sin.” On this interpretation “His good will” is a substitute for God (see Gen 32:21). In either case, however, it is clear that a role of the angelic priests is to provide atonement by means of a heavenly cult for those who repent. This is probably the context in which the phrase in 4Q400 frag. 1 1.18 should be understood,: “[..] His lovingkindness for an eternal compassionate forgiveness.” The lamed clause may express the result of the preceding clause, which, unfortunately, has too many lacunae to be able to recover its meaning. Probably, the “eternal compassionate forgiveness” (see parallels in Dan 9:9; 1QH-a 6.9; 4Q286 frag. 1 2. 8) results from some cultic function of the angelic priesthood. The means by which the angelic priests provide atonement or propitiation for the sins of the penitent is sacrifice. In what may be classified as part of the thirteenth Sabbath Song, there are references to the “sacrifices of the holy one” (11Q17 9.4), as well as “the odor of their offerings” (11Q17 9.4) and “the odor of their drink offerings" (11Q17 9.5). In other words, whatever human priests do in the earthly Temple has its counterpart in heaven, performed by angelic priests.

In Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, there is evidence that there is one angel presiding over all other ranks of angels, who serve to provide atonement or propitiation for human beings. The use of the singular "leader" (nshy') in 4Q401 frag. 23.1 and "prince" (šr) in 4Q403 frag. 1 2.23 suggests the existence of such a heavenly being. Similarly, 4Q403 frag. 1 2.24 has the phrase "head of priests of inner sanctum" (rwsh mkwhn qwrb), which implies that one of the angels of the inner sanctum has authority over the rest. There are also two probable references to Melchizedek as one of these heavenly priests: [mlky]tsdq kwhn (4Q401 frag. 11.3) and [ ]ky tsdq (4Q401 frag. 22.3). Given Melchizedek's identification with Michael and the Prince of Light, there is a good chance that Melchizedek would have been understood as this presiding priestly angel, which would make him the heavenly High Priest.

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews uses the figure of Melchizedek in his theological reflection on the salvation-historical significance of Jesus' death. Although there are probably original elements to his theological use of Melchizedek, much of what he affirms about Melchizedek is parallel or similar to what is found in second-Temple sources. It is probable that the author intentionally uses elements of his readers' views about Melchizedek in order to present his interpretation of the significance of Jesus' death. (This means that his argument would not strike his Jewish readers as idiosyncratic at all, unlike modern readers.) There are two purposes and corresponding lines of argumentation in the letter, one explicit and the other implicit. The author explicitly uses his readers' views about Melchizedek for the purpose of proving the superiority of Jesus' High Priesthood to that of Aaron and his descendents. His goal is to demonstrate that Christ's death brings the Levitical sacrificial system to an end. More than this, however, the author may also implicitly be refuting the very views about Melchizedek held by his readers that he uses to his rhetorical advantage in his explicit line of argumentation. Even though he uses him to prove Jesus' superiority as High Priest over the Levitical High Priests, the author's use of the figure of Melchizedek in his argument may also have the purpose of refuting or correcting certain theological views about Melchizedek held by his readers. They may have understood Melchizedek as an angel to whom was assigned a pre-eminent salvation-historical function rivaling that of the Davidic messiah. Likely, the readers' views about Melchizedek that in the author's view dishonor Christ are combined with their views about the Aaronic priesthood and the Temple.

In Heb 5:1-10, the author begins to argue for the superiority of Jesus as High Priest over the High Priests from the line of Aaron. The reason that he does this is not stated, but one should probably assume that the intended readers have somehow subordinated Jesus to the Levitical priesthood. It is possible that they are willing to interpret Jesus as the Davidic messiah, but also believe that the Levitical priesthood is an eternal institution, to which even the Davidic messiah must subject himself. (Such a belief would be perfectly understandable given the promises in the Old Testament of a eschatologically restored Temple and priesthood [ Micah 4; Isa 2; Jer 33:18; Ezek 37:26-28; 40-48]. In fact, it is the author who holds the radical view that requires justification.) It is even possible that the readers have subordinated Jesus as the Davidic messiah to a priestly messiah or at least hold that he will share authority with a priestly messiah at the time of the eschaton. This eschatological priestly messiah will come from the Aaron's high priestly line. That some Jews believed that there would be two messiahs is clear from second-Temple sources (see T. Levi 18:2-14; 1QS 9:9-11; CD 7; 12:23-13:1; 1QSa 2; 4Q161 frags. 8-10. 25; 4Q285 frag. 5. 1-4; 4Q541; 4Q174 1.11-12; 4Q175). Heb 5:1-10 introduces the topic of Jesus' High Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, but a more complete discussion of the topic is postponed until Heb 7:1-10:18 (see Heb 2:17 for the first reference to Jesus as High Priest). What the author assumes is that what is true of Melchizedek is true of Jesus, so that, if Melchizedek is a superior High Priest to Aaron, so also is Jesus.

In Heb 5:1-4, the author describes the High Priesthood as set out in the Torah; his goal is to procure agreement from his readers in order to be able to move from that agreement to a conclusion about Jesus as a greater High Priest. In Heb 5:1, the author explains that the High Priest was chosen from among human beings (ex anthrôpôn) and put in charge of the things pertaining to God on behalf of human beings (huper anthrôpôn). He was a representative, being appointed to matters relating to God (ta pros ton theon). In particular, the purpose of his appointment was "in order that he offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (hina prospherê dôra te kai thusias huper hamartiôn) (Heb 5:1). The phrase "gifts and sacrifices" seems to be an idiomatic, so that the author intends the two words to be roughly synonymous. The purpose of the offering "gifts and sacrifices" is expressed by the prepositional phrase "for sins" (huper hamartiôn), meaning for the purpose of the removal of the guilt resulting from transgressions of the Law.

In Heb 5:2, the author then adds that, since he is the same as those on whose behalf he serves, i.e., weak, the High Priest is able to deal moderately with those who are ignorant and wayward. In this context, the verb metriopathein has the meaning of "to have an indulgent attitude" and not its more usual meaning of to have a regulated restraint of emotion. The phrase "ignorant and wayward" denotes one group of people, and so functions as a hendiadys: "those who are wayward in their ignorance." In the Old Testament, this class of persons is described as those who sin "unintentionally" (LXX akousiôs) (see Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15; Num 15:21-29) or "in ignorance" (LXX kat' agnoian) (Lev 22:14), in contrast to those who sin "with a high hand" (LXX en cheiri huperêphanias), for whom no atonement is possible (Num 15:30-31; see Num 15:32-36; Deut 17:12). In addition to offering sacrifices for "the people," in Heb 5:3 the author explains that the High Priest also must offer ("gifts and sacrifices") for himself for the purpose of sin (peri hamartiôn) on account of his own weakness (Heb 5:3). This is probably a reference to the Day of Atonement when the High Priest must remove his own sins before he sacrifices the goat on behalf of the people (see Lev 16 [see also Lev 9:7-14]; m. Yoma 4:2-5:7). Finally, in Heb 5:4, the author stresses that the High Priest does not presume to take upon himself the honor of being High Priest, but receives it from God when God calls him to the position, as Aaron was called (see Exod 28-29; Lev 8; Num 3:10; 16, 17, 18). (By honor [timê] the author is referring to the responsibility of being High Priest [see Josephus, Ant. 3.190; Philo, Mos., 11.67].)

In Heb 5:5-6, the author argues that what is true of the Levitical High Priests is also true of the greater High Priest, Christ. (In Heb 5:5, the author begins to refer to "Jesus the son of God" [Heb 4:14] as "Christ.") He begins with Christ's right to the appointment as High Priest: as with Aaron (Heb 5:4) (and all other legitimate High Priests) Christ did not glorify himself in becoming High Priest, but received it from God (Heb 5:5-6) (see Sir 45:20; 2 Macc 14:7 for the term "glory" [doxa] used of the functions of the High Priest). To prove this the author again quotes Ps 2:7, a psalm interpreted messianically in the second-Temple period: the Davidic messiah is appointed "son" by God and does not presume to take it himself. The author has already interpreted Ps 2:7 as messianic in Heb 1:5. (For the messianic interpretation of Ps 2, see Ps. Sol. 17:23 = Ps 2:9; 1QSa 2:11-12 = Ps 2:7; 4Q174 = Ps 2:1; Acts 4:25-26 = Ps 2:1-2; Acts 13:33 = Ps 2:7; see also 4 Ezra 7:28-29; 13:37, 52; 14:9). He conceives Christ's status as son as an acquired status: Christ is proclaimed to be the son, i.e., Davidic messiah (as Ps 2:7 says of the Messiah) after his appearance in history. But what does Ps 2:7 have to do with the high priesthood? In Heb 5:6, the author connects Ps 2 with Ps 110:4, another psalm quoted earlier as messianic (Heb 1:14 = Ps 110:1) (see Mark 12:36-37). Insofar as it is established that the Davidic Messiah is being referred to in Ps 110:1 what is said in Ps 110:4 must be addressed to the Messiah. Since the messiah in Ps 110:4 is declared to be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek and since he is also being referred to in Ps 2 as being appointed to this role by God and did not presume to take it for himself, what is said of the Messiah Ps 2:7 can be imported into Ps 110, so that the appointment to the role of Davidic messiah (Ps 2:7; see Ps 110:1) is also his appointment to the role of High Priest (Ps 110:4), in the same way that Aaron was appointed High Priest. This is an instance of the application of the interpretive rule later called gezerah shavah ("an equal category"): an Old Testament passage that has verbal or conceptual similarities with another Old Testament passage can interpreted in light of that passage, so that meaning can be imported into the interpreted passage from the one to which is it verbally similar. In the case of Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:4, what is similar is that both texts are interpreted as referring to the Davidic messiah (although no common words for the messiah are found in both texts). This second citation of Ps 2:7 by the author (see Heb 1:5) and his bringing this messianic passage in relation to Ps 110:4, as described above, allows him the possibility of connecting his teaching about Jesus as the son (i.e. Davidic messiah) with his teaching about him as the greater High Priest. Not surprisingly, the author subsequently describes Jesus as son in relation to his role as High Priest (Heb 5:8-10; 7:28). It should be pointed out that the author implicitly criticizes the idea that the Levitical priesthood is eternal (see Exod 29:9; 1 Chron 15:2) in the sense of being incapable of being superseded salvation-historically.

The figure of Melchizedek sees the unification of king and high priest into one individual. These two offices were separated in the Mosaic covenant and also later in the Davidic covenant. Moses led the people whereas Aaron his brother founded a high-priestly order; later, when God swore to David that he would establish his dynasty forever, the high priesthood belonged to the family of Zadok, who was a priest (from the line of Aaron). Melchizedek, in the author's view, prefigures the unification of two offices in one person, which should come to pass in the "last days." To be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek is to be both king and priest.

7 In the days of his flesh, he offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the one able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence [for God]. 8 Although he was [the] son, he learned obedience from the things that he suffered. 9 And having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey him the source of eternal salvation, 10 being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

In Heb 5:7-10, the author elaborates on his assertion that Jesus as the son is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Syntactically, Heb 5:7-10 is a relative clause, whose antecedent is found in Heb 5:5: ho Christos (Christ); this relative clause has two main verbs: "he learned" (emathen) (Heb 5:8) and "he became" (egeneto) (Heb 5:9). There are also several subordinate participial clauses connected to each main verb. (For other christologically significant relative clauses, see Heb 1:2; 12:2.) The author says that “in the days of his flesh” Christ offered up "prayers and supplications" as a High Priest to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence (for God) (The terms "prayers" and "supplications" are probably synonymous terms [see LXX Job 40:27; see also Polyb. 3.112.8; Isocrates, Or. 8.138; Philo, Leg. Gai. 226, 228; Jos., War 5.318; see the occurrence of "supplications" in 2 Macc 8:29; 9:18; 10:25; Sir 51:9].) The author is alluding to the gospel tradition of Jesus in Gethsemane: "And he [Jesus] was saying, "Abba Father. All things are possible for you; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:36). Nevertheless, God did not save him from death, and this for a reason: his suffering was the means of his becoming perfected (teleiôtheis egeneto) (Heb 5:7) (see Mark 14:33-36 = Matt 26:37-39; Luke 22:42-44). The expression "days of his flesh" is a genitive of quality: his fleshy days or fleshly period of time. It refers to Christ's historical appearance, the period of time before his exaltation. The use of "flesh" to describe Jesus' historical manifestation implies Jesus' identity with the realm of human weakness and sin, although the author holds that Jesus was without sin (Heb 4:15).

The preposition apo (from) in the phrase apo tês eulabeias ("from reverence") has a causal meaning. In Heb 5:8, the term "son" is used of Christ again, and the author makes the point that "in spite of being (the) son" (kaiper ôn huios), he learned obedience through his sufferings. Christ learned to submit to God's will in his suffering, which would lead to his death. This is why he was not saved from death. The author makes use of a common word play in Greek: emathen (aph' hôn) epathen (tên hupakoên) ("He learned [from what] he suffered [obedience]). This learning of submission led to his perfection ("He became perfected" [teleiôtheis egeneto]), his becoming qualified to be the source of salvation for all who obey him (see Heb 2:10: "through sufferings to perfect" [dia pathêmatôn teleiôsai]). In a sense, Jesus becomes the son or Davidic messiah (Christ) through his obedience. As the author will argue later, as the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Jesus does high priestly work by his own suffering and death (Heb 5:9). His obedience to God in suffering was the means by which he became qualified ("perfected") to be High Priest. For this reason, the author says that Jesus as High Priest became the "cause of eternal salvation for those obedient to him" (tois hupakousin autô aitios sôtêrias aiôniou). To be "the cause of eternal salvation" is synonymous with being "the author of salvation" (ho archêgos tês sôtêrias) (Heb 2:10). (Only in Heb 5:9 does the author use the term "eternal salvation," but it is synonymous with his use of the unmodified "salvation" elsewhere in the letter.) (The phrase "cause of salvation" used in various senses occurs in Polyb. 1.43.2; Diod. 4.82.3; Philo, Spec. leg. 1.252; Agr. 96; Virt. 202; Jos., Ant. 14.136.) The one for whom Jesus is the "cause of eternal salvation" is the one who is obedient to him: the author inseparably joins faith and obedience. Finally, in Heb 5:10, the author concludes by saying that Jesus was designated by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. It is probable that the author is attempting to refute the view of his readers that Jesus' suffering was irrelevant to his role as Davidic messiah; rather, their view may have been that Jesus suffered because of the blindness of the Jewish authorities, but God vindicated him by raising him from the dead and exalting Jesus to his right hand (see Acts 2:14-36). In so doing the author compares the salvation-historical effects of Jesus' death to his receiving a high priesthood like that of Melchizedek.

The author interrupts his treatment of the theme of Jesus as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, in order again to exhort his readers not to apostasize, but to persevere in their faith (Heb 5:11-6:18). After this digression, he resumes his line of argumentation in Heb 6:19 extending until Heb 8:6a.

19 which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast, and one that enters within the veil, 20a where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us,

The author explains further in Heb 6:19 that this hope—the hope of salvation through Jesus as priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 104:4)—is "an anchor of the soul" (agkura tês psuchês). Unknown in biblical tradition, the metaphor of an anchor to symbolize stability is well-attested in Hellenistic sources (Pindar, Olymp. 6.110; Aeschylus, Ag. 488; Euripides, Hel. 277; Hec. 80; Aristophanes, Eq. 1244; Plato, Leg. 12.961C; Plutarch, Solon 19; Praec. ger. reip. 19 (815D); Artemodorus, Oneirocr. 2.23; Ovid, Tristia 5.2.42; Heliodorus, Aeth. 4.19.9; 7.25.4; Corp. Herm. 7.2).The anchor metaphor is apt: this hope is that which holds one's life firm, as a spiritual anchor. The anchor belongs to the soul, or more accurately, to the human being as consciousness and spiritually connected to God (possessive genitive). The anchor, metaphorical of hope, is "sure and steadfast" (asphalê te kai bebaian). The author adds that this hope enters or, more accurately, allows human beings to enter "within the veil" (eis to esôteron tou katapetasmatos), by which is meant the holy of holies. The point being made is that the one who has the hope described has the sort of access to God that was reserved for the High Priest, and that only on an annual basis, on the Day of Atonement. Such terminology derives from the Torah, because in LXX Lev 16:2, 12, 15, Aaron is said to enter "within the veil" (to esôteron tou katapetasmatos) (see LXX Num 18:7 to endothen tou katapetasmatos) (The idea of entering the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement foreshadows a theme to be developed in Heb 9.) The use of the present participle "one who enters" (eiserchomenên) implies an action in progress, which, in this case, suggests that the possibility of access to God remains permanently open. The tabernacle had two curtains, an outer curtain (Exod 26:36; 36:37 [LXX 37:5]; 40:8, 28), and an inner curtain, separating the holy place from the holy of holies [Exod 26:31; 36:35; (LXX 37:3); 40:3]. In the LXX, the former is called to epispastron (LXX Exod 26:36), to katapetasma tês thuras (LXX 37:5 = Exod 36:37), kalumma katapetasmatos (Exod 40:5), kalumma (Exod. 27:16) or katakalumma tês thuras (Num 3:25), whereas the latter is called to katapetasma (Exod 26:31; 36:35; [LXX 37:3]; 40:3). Not surprisingly, Josephus calls the veil to katapetasma (War 5.219; see Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.101). The author then says that this is where Jesus as a High Priest entered on "our" behalf; since Jesus entered we can now also enter (Heb 6:20a). (Heb 6:20a is the first explicit reference to Jesus since Heb 5:10.) He calls Jesus the "forerunner" (prodromos), by which he means that Jesus has gone first "within the veil" to make possible such access to God for others (see the parallel idea of "author of their salvation" in Heb 2:10). It should be noted that, when he speaks about Jesus entering the Holy of Holies, the author is speaking metaphorically or typologically in an effort to describe the soteriological significance of Jesus' death and resurrection: it is as if Jesus entered the Holy of Holies.

6:20b having become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the son of God, he remains a priest forever. 4 Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

In Heb 6:20b, the author, in dependence on Ps 110:4, asserts that Jesus is High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, which serves as an introduction to a lengthy discourse on Melchizedek and Jesus, the son of God, in Heb 7:1-28. The explicit purpose is to use Melchizedek to prove that Jesus is a greater High Priest than Aaron and his descendents, whereas the implicit purpose may be to correct his readers' views on Melchizedek. This discourse is divisible into two major sections: Heb 7:1-10 and 7:11-28. The former deals with Melchizedek and his relationship to Abraham as set forth in Gen 14:18-20, whereas the latter is an extended interpretation of Jesus as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek exegetically based on Ps 110:4. It should be noted that the author changes Ps 110:4 slightly by calling Jesus "High Priest" (archireus) and not simply "priest" (hiereus). This change could be the author's assimilation to the view that Melchizedek was the angelic High Priest, as some Jews considered him to be. At any rate, such a change facilitates his comparison of Jesus with the High Priest Aaron and his descendents later in the letter (see Heb 7:15, 23-25).

In Heb 7:1-2a, the author summarizes what can be known about Melchizedek from Gen 14:18-20: "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils." He omits the detail from Gen 14 about how Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham when he went out to meet Abraham, presumably because this was not necessary for his purpose. In Heb 7:2a-3, he then provides his readers with further insights about Melchizedek exegetically inferred from Gen 14:18-20 in one way or another. First, he provides an etymology of the name and title of Melchizedek: his name means "the king of righteousness" and his title, "king of Salem," means the king of peace (for similar etymologies, see Philo, Leg. All. 3.79-81; Jos., War 6.438; Ant. 1.180). Second, using an argument from silence, the author says that, because his ancestry is not provided in Gen 14 (or anywhere else), Melchizedek is without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of days and being without mother and without father (Note the use of alliteration in Heb 7:3: apator [without father]; amator [without mother]; agenealogetos [without genealogy].) For the author to say that Melchizedek has no genealogy implies that he views Melchizedek as other than a human being and probably as an angel. As explained above, this is consistent with certain Jewish interpretations of the figure of Melchizedek as an angelic priest (11QMelch and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), and probably represents his readers' viewpoint. Third, the author asserts that Melchizedek resembles the son of God in respect to being agenealogetos ("without genealogy"). (The verb "to be like" [aphomoioun] is a hapaxlegomenon in the New Testament, but occurs in Ep. Jer. 4, 63, 70; Wis 13:14; its meaning in Heb 7:3 is adjectival: "like the son of God".) Earlier in the letter the author asserted that the son was uncreated (see Heb 1:3, 11, 12). It seems that his argument is that, insofar as he is an angel, Melchizedek is like the son of God, not by being uncreated, but by not being a human being and not having a genealogy: he is likewise without father, without mother and without genealogy. Ultimately, what the author seeks to do is clarify the phrase "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Ps 110:4); he assumes that what is true of Melchizedek is true of Jesus. He establishes that Melchizedek is not a human being and so, unlike the High Priests from the line of Aaron, never relinquishes his priesthood, because he does not die: "He remains a priest forever" (Heb 7:3). If he is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), Jesus likewise remains a priest and indeed a High Priest forever. (As already indicated, the use of the interpretive principle gezerah shavah allows the author to connect Ps 2:7 with Ps 110:4, so that he can refer to the son as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek: what is true of the Messiah in Ps 2:7, that he is proclaimed to be son, can be imported into Ps 110:1-4, since this passage also refers to the messiah.)

In Heb 7:4-10, the author concentrates on proving the greatness of Melchizedek on the assumption that the same applies to Jesus. His ultimate aim is to prove the superiority of Jesus as High Priest to the Levitical High Priests by proving that Melchizedek's high priesthood is superior. He says in Heb 7:4 that even Abraham, the patriarch, gave tithes to Melchizedek. Then he says that those who are descended from Levi, who is descended from Abraham, receive a tithe—this is commanded in the law (see Num 18:25-32)—as their inheritance from their fellow Israelites. The author's point is that, whereas Abraham's descendents gave a tithe to others of his descendents (Levites), Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek showing the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham and his descendants, especially the Levites (Heb 7:5-6). In Heb 7:6, he again stresses that Melchizedek does not belong to Abraham's line, but nonetheless received tithes from Abraham and blessed Abraham. He then draws the conclusion from the fact that Melchizedek blessed Abraham that the former is superior to the latter, since, as all would agree, the superior always blesses the inferior. The author makes a difficult statement in Heb 7:8: the one tithe is received by those who are mortal, whereas the other tithe was received by one who of whom it is testified that he lives. He means that the successive generations Levites received the tithe and then died, whereas Melchizedek, who also received the tithe from Abraham, lives forever (see Heb 7:3). As previously said, the fact that Melchizedek has no genealogy is interpreted to mean that he was neither born nor died. This again implies that the author, probably like his readers, views Melchizedek as an angel and not as a human being. In Heb 7:9-10, he concludes by saying that it is possible to say that the Levites gave a tithe to Melchizedek, insofar as Abraham did since they were still "in the loins of their father."

On the assumption that both the author and the readers believe that Melchizedek is the angelic High Priest, the question that arises is how Christ and Melchizedek are related to each other salvation-historically (see previous references to Jesus as High Priest in Heb 2:17-18; 5:6-10). In spite of his positive use of the figure of Melchizedek in his proof of Jesus' superiority as High Priest to the Levitical High Priests, the author insists that, even though Melchizedek is an angel, his salvation-historical role is subordinate to that of the son of God (the Davidic Messiah), being only to serve typologically as High Priest until the "perfection" of the son of God. Melchizedek as the angelic High Priest typologically prefigures what the son of God would do as High Priest; the former's ministry is mirrored in that of Aaron and his descendents, which, for that reason, is also typological of the ministry of the son of God. (But Melchizedek's high-priestly work is more like that of the son of God because he likewise has an eternal priesthood [Heb 7:3] and serves in the heavenly tabernacle [Heb 9:11-12], not its counterpart on earth.) It is conceivable that the author's implicit purpose is to refute his readers' views that Melchizedek is destined to assume a key salvation-historical role superior to that of the son, the Davidic messiah, which would be consistent with his earlier argument that the son is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-14; 2:5-9). They may have been expecting the angel Melchizedek to appear at the eschaton, as 11QMelchizedek assumes, not only to judge, but also to atone for sins as an eschatological angelic High Priest. This atonement may have been conceived as a one-time atonement, inaugurating the time of eschatological salvation. If so, until the eschaton comes in its fullness, the readers must make use of the Temple cult to obtain atonement, and, perhaps, even after the atonement that Melchizedek effects, the Temple cult would still be in effect, perhaps under the direction of Melchizedek. Or it is conceivable that the readers may have expected the coming of a human eschatological priest , a priestly Messiah, whose work was intended to mediate eschatologically the benefits of the angelic priestly ministry under the direction of the angelic High Priest Melchizedek (see Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice for description of the heavenly priesthood). In other words, the readers may have subordinated Jesus as Davidic or royal messiah to an eschatological priestly messiah, still to come. This eschatological priest would continue to offer atoning sacrifices at the Temple, in tandem with Melchizedek's work at the heavenly Temple. On either interpretation, the readers have not yet recognized that Jesus' suffering and death have rendered the Temple cult obsolete by his own high-priestly work. In other words, they have not yet recognized that Melchizedek's role as angelic High Priest is typological of that of the son of God.

The first subsection of Heb 7:11-28 is Heb 7:11-19; this is marked off as a literary unity by means of an inclusion: "perfection" (teleiôsis) in Heb 7:11 and "he brought to perfection" (eteleiôsen) in Heb 7:19. The author argues that the priesthood promised in Ps 110:4 supercedes the Levitical priesthood; the former is the eschatological replacement of the latter. In fact, the Levitical priesthood was inferior, and needed to be replaced by another priesthood, that according to the order of Melchizedek. By the word "order" in the phrase "according to the order of Melchizedek" (derived from Ps 110:4) the author means "type." He differentiates the type of priesthood that Melchizedek had, which Jesus now shares, with the type of priesthood that Aaron and his descendents have (described in 7:11 by means of the parallel phrase "according to the order of Aaron"). (In 7:15 he uses the synonymous phrase "according to the likeness of Melchizedek.") The author begins with a counterfactual conditional sentence, in which the apodosis serves as a rhetorical question: "Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood...what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?" The answer that he expects is that perfection (teleiôsis) was not attained through the Levitical priesthood. By "perfection" is meant being made acceptable to God through the removal of guilt, which is what the Levitical sacrifices and rituals were intended to accomplish (This is a different use of the term "perfection" than was applied to Christ [see Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28]) (see Heb 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23). Within his conditional sentence, the author includes the parenthetical observation concerning the connection between Law and Levitical priesthood, which is expressed by ep' autês. The preposition epi + genitive should be taken to mean "on the basis of" (see LXX Deut 19:15: epi stomatos duo marturôn), so that the meaning is "For on the basis of it [the priesthood] the people received the Law." (The antedecent autês is "priesthood" [hierôsunê]). The point is that the Levitical priesthood is indispensable to the Law, and even, prior to the Law, insofar as the Law presupposes the Levitical priesthood. (Thus, a change in it would necessitate a change to the Law [Heb 7:12].) The author claims that the Levitical priesthood was imperfect because there is another priesthood referred to in Ps 110:4—the priesthood to which the son of God belongs, that according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11). That this priesthood is not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek, implies that the Levitical priesthood was deficient and needed to be replaced. He assumes that another priesthood would not spoken about later if the first priesthood was adequate to its task.

In Heb 7:12-17, the author deals with the theological "problem" that Jesus is not of Levitical descent, and therefore is not qualified to be a priest. He argues that if there is a change in priesthood (see Ps 110:4) there must be a corresponding change in the Law, which only knows of a Levitical priesthood. But, if there is a change in the Law, then priests may not have to be of Levitical descent any longer, which turns out to be the case (Heb 7:12). In Heb 7:13-14, the author points out that "our Lord" (ho kurios hêmôn), i.e., Jesus, belonged to the tribe of Judah, to which the right of priesthood does not belong; but (implicitly) the change of the Law has resulted in the fact that the High Priest will come from the tribe of Judah and be, like Melchizedek, both king and priest. (The use of the verb anatetalken ["he has sprung"] may be an allusion to the messianic passages concerning the "branch" in Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Zech 6:12 [anatelei] and the "star" in Num 24:17; Mal 4:2 [LXX 3:20] [anatelei].) The fact that the author can take it for granted that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah probably reflects his readers' acceptance that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah. It is significant that Melchizedek was king of Salem, the future city of David, who is from the tribe of Judah. It should be noted that the author makes a hermeneutical assumption that most Jews and perhaps even his readers would not explicitly grant: that the Law can ever be superceded and that scripture itself could be interpreted as proving this very thing. This is a controversial element in the author's argument and is similar to Paul's view of Law. (Implicitly, however, Jews altered the Law in different ways, including using the genre of the "rewritten Bible," which allowed them to add and delete from the Torah.)

In 7:15-19, the author then contrasts the new High Priest with the Levitical High Priests with respect to their qualifications. His introductory clause "And it is clearer still" refers back to what he stated in 7:11-14. His point seems to be is that the reason that Jesus is qualified to be a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, elucidated in 7:15-16, makes his previous statements about the inferiority of provisional nature of the Levitical priesthood in 7:11-14 even more credible. The Levitical High Priests were qualified to be High Priests on account of their physical descent from Aaron, based on the requirement of the Law. The new High Priest is qualified to be High Priest because he, like Melchizedek, does not die (Heb 7:15-16). The author paraphrases Ps 110:4, substituting "likeness" (homoitêta) for "order" (taxin); his purpose is to explicate the way in which Jesus' type of high priesthood differs from that of the High Priests according to the order of Aaron. Unlike the other type of High Priests, those according to the order of Aaron, Jesus has become such not on the basis of a fleshly law, but according to the power of an indestructible life (Heb 7:16). He introduces this thought by means of a relative clause: "who has become etc." So the reason that Jesus and Melchizedek belong to the same order or type of high priesthood: both are indestructible High Priests, Melchizedek as an angel and Jesus as the son whom God raised from the dead, unlike the men who are descendents of Aaron. (The first genitive in the phrase "power of an indestructible life" [dunamin zôês akatalutou] is a genitive of apposition or content, meaning power consisting of an indestructible life, whereas the second genitive is one of quality.) The high priesthood of Melchizedek, the type that Jesus has assumed (Ps 110:4), is said not to be "according to the Law of fleshly commandment," by which he means the Law's stipulations about priesthood. He means that the Law concerning the qualifications of the High Priest consists of a fleshy commandment. To say that a commandment is "fleshly" is say that it is weak and ineffectual, which in this context implies that the Levitical High Priests do not function as true mediators between Israel and God. The Old Testament and, more importantly, the Qumran sectarian writings serve as the best religious-historical background for this use of "flesh" to denote weakness and ineffectualness (see Gen 8:21; Isa 40:6, 8; 2 Chr 32:8; Ps 78:39; Jer 17:5; 1QS 11.11-12; 1QH-a 4.29-30; 10.23; 18.21; see also T. Judah 19.4; T. Zebul. 9:7). In 7:17, the author again quotes Ps 110:4 to make this point: the Davidic messiah is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Finally, in Heb 7:18, the author argues that, if there is a new High Priest, there must be a setting aside (athetêtis) of the (old) commandment (regarding priesthood) because it was weak and useless (asthenês kai anôpheles) (see "fleshly commandment" in Heb 7:16). As he already indicated, a new priesthood would not have neen necessary if the old priesthood was effective. So, according to the author, the promise of a perpetual Levitical priesthood in Exod 29:9 ("And they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute") and 40:14 ("Their anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations") should be interpreted to mean until the time of the eschaton, when the greater High Priest appears. The author denigrates the Law further by saying that it made nothing “perfect” (eteleiosen) (Heb 7:19a). (Actually, according to the author, the Law was not intended to be eternal but only preparatory for something better and perfect.) When he says that the Law did not bring perfection, he means that the Law as pertaining to the priesthood and the Temple cult did not serve to make anyone acceptable to God. As a result a better hope is introduced (through a better High Priest), which allows for a new approach to God (7:19b).

Heb 7:20-28 contains an inclusion using the word "oath" (horkômosia), thereby setting it apart as a literary unit: 7:20 "not without an oath" and 7:28 "but the word of the oath." This section is focused less on Melchizedek and more on Jesus; it can be further subdivided with respect to its content: Heb 20-22; 23-25; 26-28. The author gives reasons why Jesus’ high priesthood is superior to the Levitical high priesthood. First, it is superior because he assumed office as a result of an oath, as it says in Ps 110:4, whereas the Levitical High Priests did not; the latter simply assumed it by virtue of the command of God, but not an oath of God (see Exod 28; Jub. 32:1; T. Levi 8). (Heb 7:20 "And inasmuch as it was not without an oath " is elliptical: what has been omitted is that Christ has been declared to High Priest not without an oath.) (The verb form eisin ... gegontes is a periphrastic perfect denoting the beginning of a state or condition.) This means that Jesus has become the guarantor (egguos) of a better covenant. (Parallels to the use of the word guarantor (egguos) include Sir 29:15-16; 2 Macc 10:28.) This is the first reference to the better covenant, which is to say, the new covenant, and it is interpreted in relation to Jesus' high priesthood: a new High Priest implies not only a new Law but also a better and new covenant; the author shall return to this theme in Heb 8. Second, the author explains that Jesus as High Priest is superior because he, after assuming office after his resurrection and exaltation, does not die, but remains, whereas the other High Priests did die, therefore requiring a secession of High Priests (Heb 7:23-25). Josephus calculates that from the beginning of the Aaronic priesthood until the destruction of the Temple in his own time, there were eighty-three High Priests (Ant. 20.227). As indicated already, this is another sense in which Melchizedek prefigures and for this reason is typological of Jesus as High Priest, because he likewise does not die, being an angel (see Heb 7:3, 8). (The verb paramenein ("to remain") is used of remaining in office [P. Flor. 44.19; Jos., Ant. 9.273; Diod. 2.29.5]. The author says of Jesus that he "remains" [menein] in the sense of living forever, in so doing, he makes use of paronomasia, or a play on words.) The author draws the conclusion that Jesus can save to the fullest all who come to him in a cultic sense as High Priest since he ever lives to make intercession for them (Heb 7:25). He saves them from the eschatological wrath of God. (He uses the inferential particle hothen to indicate that he is drawing a conclusion from the preceding.) (On "approaching God" see Heb 4:16; 10:1, 22). Third, in Heb 7:26-27, the author argues that Jesus is a superior High Priest because of his moral perfection: "holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Heb 7:26). (The author moves from speaking about Jesus as "priest" in 7:11-25 to speaking about him as "High Priest" in 7:26; this is because in the former the author was arguing from Ps 110:4, whereas in the latter he is moving away from an exegesis of this passage [see Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20].) Jesus is said to be without sin and therefore does not need to offer sacrifices for his own sins; he offered himself once and for all to remove the sins of the people. In speaking of the function of the earthly High Priest's offering of sacrifices, it seems, however, that the author refers to both the two daily burnt offerings [the Tamid offering], implied by the phrase "daily" (kath' hemeran) and the twofold offering made on the Day of Atonement. Philo likewise says that the High Priest "day by day offers prayers and sacrifices and asks for blessings" (Spec. leg. 3.131; see Sir 45:14). The idea of Jesus as not only the High Priest but also as the sacrifice the author shall develop more fully later.

In Heb 7:28, the author provides a summary of his argument in Heb 7. He contrasts again the Law and its High Priest with the High priest appointed according to the oath of God, which came later than the Law and supercedes it. The High Priests appointed by the Law are weak, whereas the son appointed by oath has been made perfect forever. His perfection is his qualification to become a High Priest greater than any Levitical High Priest (2:10; 5:9). The perfection was the result of the son's suffering (see 2:10); he is now qualified to be both a High Priest and a sacrifice through what he suffered.