As the term suggests, Christology is the doctrine of Christ. Christ is its theme with regard to his work as well as his person, for in the teaching of the New Testament the person and the work of Christ belong together as a unity. A right understanding of the person of Christ is essential to a right understanding of his work. Hence the prolonged battle against christological heresy m the early church, which seemed to concentrate on the establishment of the orthodox faith regarding the person of Christ, was in fact a battle for the gospel itself, precisely because it was clearly perceived that erroneous notions of the incarnation were inevitably destructive of the truth of Christ’s action as our Redeemer. The Epistle to the Hebrews is particularly rich in Christology; in fact, it may justly be described as in the main a christological treatise.^[1]The reader should consult the exposition and notes in Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), for full discussions of textual and bibliographical issues. See especially the ex­cursus on “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood” (pp. 329- 54). Its primary purpose is to insist on the absolute and unrivaled supremacy of Christ as our unique Savior and Lord, and to warn against the extreme danger of imagining that this position can be compromised without cutting oneself off from Christ and his salvation.

I. Christ and the Prophets

The first three verses of Hebrews precipitate us, so to speak, without the formality of an introduction into one of the most profound and concise christological passages to be found in the New Testament. To begin with, the superiority of Christ to the prophets of old is indicated. It was God indeed who spoke through the prophets, but this was done in a variety of ways, bit by bit and from time to time, through the instrumentality of a multiplicity of prophets. But in these last days, which are the days of the fulfillment of the ancient promises and prophecies, God has spoken his final word, and he has done so in the single person of the Son, who is himself the divine Word (John 1:1) and as such the supreme, the ultimate, and the absolute Prophet.

This contrast between the one and the many is of considerable significance in the perspective of this book. The prophets of old were many because their utterances were partial and preliminary. In his capacity as prophet Christ is one. There is a categorical difference, for he is uniquely the Son, who, being the Word, is true not merely in his utterances but also in his person. Once and forever finality and fulfillment are realized in him who, without qualification, is the Truth (John 14:6). The same radical contrast between the one and the many, the perfect and the imperfect, recurs in the meaningful distinction between the many priest of old and their inconclusive repetition of sacrifice on the one hand, and, on the other, the unique similarity of the priesthood of Christ and of the sacrifice of himself which he offered once for all (Hebrews 7-10). Christ, moreover, is God’s only Son: it is only in him, through union with him, that others can be designated sons of God and experience the blessings of his sonship.

In the christological affirmations which are so tightly packed together in 1:2-3, a distinction must be made between those that refer to Christ as the eternal Son and those that refer to him as the incarnate Son—in other words, in his capacity as Redeemer (for he did not of course cease to be the eternal Son when he was incarnate). The first of these affirmations, that God appointed him heir of all things, should be understood as applying to him in his mediatorial office as the Savior of the world. In human society sonship and heirship are closely related concepts, and it is usual for an only son to be regarded as the sole heir of his father’s property in the line of family succession; but when we are speaking about God there can be no suggestion that the Son, as heir, succeeds the father. Any such notion would be disruptive of the unity of the divine being. The question to be asked is this: When did the Father appoint the Son heir of all things? The answer to be given is: When the incarnate Son had redeemed and reconciled all things. It was as “the first born from the dead” in whom “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” and through whom God reconciles all things to himself, “having made peace by the blood of his cross,” that he was appointed heir of all things (Col. 1:18-20). That is why in the apostolic preaching the triumphant day of Christ’s resurrection is the day of Christ’s begetting as Son, and in him of the rebirth of mankind and the renewal of creation.^[2]Ps. 2:7, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee,” cited in 1:5, is interpreted in Acts 13:32f. as having specifically been fulfilled in the raising of Jesus from the dead; cf. Rom. 1:4, where Paul declares that Jesus Christ our Lord was “designated Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead.” The incarnate Son was appointed heir of all things because by his atoning work he achieved the reconciliation of all things to their Creator.

Moreover, the fact that the incarnate Son has been appointed the heir of all things is the guarantee of our own eternal inheritance; for he took our human nature to himself to redeem it, and by uniting it to himself he made our destiny one with his destiny. Consequently, his appointment as heir of all things assures us of the reality that his inheritance is also our inheritance: Being one with him we are his fellow heirs; in him ours is an imperishable inheritance; all things are ours because we are Christ’s (Rom. 8:14-17; 1 Pet. 1:3f.; 1 Cor. 3:21-23).

It is affirmed, second, that it was through the Son that the Father created the world. Since the creation precedes the incarnation, the reference is to Christ in his eternally pre-existent state. Just as it is the same Son, however, through whom both creation and redemption are effected, so also this passage sets before us the important truth that there is an indissoluble link between creation and redemption. The world that was created by him is the world that is redeemed through him. Redemption is the new creation in the sense that it is the renewal of creation that, by our sin, has been alienated from its Creator and the restoration and completion of all God’s purposes in creation (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:16-20; Eph. 1:7-14). As the agent of creation and also of recreation Christ is no mere man. He is God in action, bringing the created order into existence and bringing it back into harmony with the will and purpose of its Maker.

The authentic deity of the Son is further confirmed by the assertion which now follows, that he is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (NIV). The glory of the Son is identical with the glory of God the Father. Being divine, it transcends every glory of the created realm. It was the supernatural glory that radiated from his person on the mount of transfiguration (Mark 9:2ff.), the awesome brilliance of which Peter who witnessed it could never forget (2.Pet. 1:16-18), and by which Saul of Tarsus was blinded as he encountered the risen Lord on the road to Damascus—a glory surpassing the brightness of the midday sun (Acts 26: 13); for the glory of the Son is the glory which he had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5).

That the Son is truly God is also the import of his description as the exact representation of God’s being. This in no way implies that the Son is only some kind of copy and therefore someone inferior to God the Father. The emphasis, as the context not only of this epistle but also of the whole New Testament shows, is on the exact correspondence of the Son with the Father, a correspondence which is inseparable from and the consequence of the divine identity of being and union of will that belong to the mystery of the trinitarian Godhead. Within the unity of the tripersonal deity the Son is eternally the image of God, and this is precisely what is meant in the expression we are discussing. As such, the Son is himself the image of God in which man was originally created, and this establishes a special bond between man and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Man was created in the Son, and the purpose and design of man’s creation is for him to be conformed to that image in which he was constituted. Man’s sinful rebellion against his Creator inevitably resulted in the perversion and degeneration of the divine image at the heart of his being. His salvation demands the restoration of that image so integral to the expression and fulfillment of his true humanness. Who (as Athanasius asked rhetorically long since) is able to restore that broken image other than the Image himself after which man was created? And so the Son, who is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4), became man in the incarnation and lived our life according to the image of our making and then offered himself up in our place to reconcile us to our Creator. Hence the apostle Paul speaks of the new (and true) humanity, which is ours in Christ, “being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator” (Col. 3: 10) and of our being transformed into Christ’s image from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18). Indeed, he speaks of our being ”predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29), thus making clear once again that the purposes of God in creation, which is effected through the Son, are brought to fulfillment in redemption or recreation, which also is effected through the Son.

The next thing we read in this opening passage is that the Son upholds the universe by his word of power. By this we are instructed that the Son’s activity in relation to the created order is not confined to his work as the agent of creation and of redemption: He through whom the world was brought into existence and through whom, by virtue of his intervention as the incarnate Son, the world is brought back into a right relationship with its Creator, is also the one through whom all things are maintained in existence. In other words, he is also the agent of the divine providential control of the cosmos throughout the course of its history. This, it may be said, is his continuous work; and this, too, like creation and redemption, is his dynamic work, as, by definition, any work of the Son must be. Accordingly we read that the universe is upheld by his word of power—not static power, as though Atlas-like, he bears the universe as a dead weight, but active, progressive power by which the creation is being carried purposefully forward to its destined consummation (as the Greek word used here indicates). And this is the work of the eternal Son from creation to consummation, with this further implication, however, that even as the incarnate Son who has taken to himself the frailty and finitude of our human nature he does not cease to sustain and promote the existence of all things.

Our author now returns to the Son in his incarnate state, as he declares that ”when he had made purification for sins he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” To make purification for sins was the primary purpose of his incarnation, and this he did as he bore the judgment of our sin on the cross of Calvary. To the subject of his priestly office and offering we shall return. Meanwhile the Christology of this opening section is completed by the statement that he is now seated at the right hand of the divine Majesty—a statement which tersely summarizes the glorious exaltation of the Son following the completion of his mission to our fallen world, and which covers his triumphant resurrection from the dead, his ascension to the heavenly glory that he had left in coming to us, and his enthronement as the sovereign Lord of the world he has redeemed.

The affirmation is rooted in the soil of Psalm 110, which opens, “The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand.”’ The messianic or christological significance of this psalm, and especially of verses 1 and 4 (“You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”) is frequently apparent, by allusion or direct quotation, in the argument of this epistle. The concept of Christ as seated in glory symbolizes two truths: first, that the work of redemption he came to perform is completed; and second, that the “seat” that is his is the seat of honor and authority, that is to say, it is a throne from which he rules on high.

This rich christological passage describes the Son in whom God the Father has spoken his full and final word and who surpasses and supersedes the prophets of old because in him is the fulfillment of all the promises spoken by the Father through them (2 Cor. 1:20). Indeed, in this brief space the Son is presented in the three functions of his messianic office: as Prophet (he himself is the divine Word), as Priest (he made purification for our sins), and as King (he is enthroned in glory). The Christology here propounded in fact sets the tone for the whole epistle. Its reference is not merely back to the ancient prophets but also forward to all that follows, leading both grammatically and logically into the next section in which the superiority of Christ to angels is demonstrated.

 

II. Christ and the Angels

The absolute supremacy of the Son as the agent of creation, providence, and redemption, and in his present state of glorification, is the unquestionable import of the christological doctrine defined at the beginning of this epistle. There is no escaping the conclusion that his superiority extends over the whole order of creation, and therefore over angels as well as over men. In the remainder of chapter 1 and much of chapter 2 our author’s purpose is to prove that Christ is greater than the angels, and not relatively but absolutely so. This letter, like all the letters of the New Testament, was written to meet the needs of a concrete situation. There must have been ample reason for our author to insist that angels are in no way comparable in being or dignity to Christ. The evidence now available to us shows that in the Jewish world of the first century there was a considerable amount of speculation and even dogmatism concerning the role played by angels in the scheme of things. As those to whom this letter was addressed were beyond reasonable doubt Hebrew Christians, it can readily be concluded that they needed to be warned against the danger of allowing veneration for angelic beings to threaten the absolute supremacy of Christ.

Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran forty years ago we now have a much more precise understanding of the seriousness of the issue. The members of the Qumran community were adherents of a strictly orthodox and idealistic form of Judaism which is known as Essenism.^[3]The Essenes were one of the three main religious parties in Pales­ tine; the other two were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Qumranians had withdrawn to the desert, there to prepare and wait for the setting up of the eschatological messianic kingdom in Jerusalem. In their teaching, however, the supreme personage in this kingdom was to be the archangel Michael, while next in order under his hegemony there were to be two messianic figures, the first a priestly messiah and the second a kingly messiah.^[4]Two messianic dignitaries were necessary because in the Qumranian perspective there was no possibility of a single messiah combining in himself both Aaronic (Levitical) and Davidic lineage. It seems also that in the teaching of the Dead Sea sect the archangel Michael and Melchizedek were regarded as one and the same person. This being so, it is all the more easy to see the need for the careful instruction concerning the significance of Melchizedek which our author is so anxious to communicate to the recipients of his letter (see especially chapter 7), who, it is fair to conclude, were being induced to permit Melchizedek, interpreted as an angelic super-being, to rival the supremacy of Christ.

The chain of passages cited (Heb. 1:5-13) establishes the divine and therefore supreme lordship of the Son and also the creaturely subordination of the angels, who are but “ministering spirits sent forth to serve” (1:14). Significantly, because it is so appropriate a counter to the eschatological expectation of the Qumran community, the admonition is given that ”it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come” (2:5). No angel is the supreme lord of all. Psalm 8:4-6 is quoted which speaks of man as being ”for a little while lower than the angels,’ ‘ but which at the same time indicates that man’s ultimate destiny is to be “crowned with glory and honor” with “everything in subjection under his feet” (Heb. 2:6-8); in other words, though temporarily lower than the angels man is intended by God to be exalted to a position of dignity higher than the angels.

In our epistle, however, this passage from Psalm 8 is immediately given a christological interpretation. The reason for this is that, because of the incarnation, the whole destiny of man has been enacted, indeed realized, in the history of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ we see the perfection of manhood lived in total obedience to the will of God and achieving its true potential. It is to him that the description of Psalm 8 applies par excellence. Inasmuch as it is our humanity that he took to himself to redeem and to glorify, his history is also our history. Thus during his earthly sojourn the incarnate Son was for a little while lower than the angels, but now, his earthly mission accomplished, he is crowned with glory and honor, far and eternally above the angels (Heb. 2:8, 9). What happened to him happened to our humanity, and therefore to us who by God’s grace are one with him. Hence he is described as the pioneer of our salvation through whom God is bringing many sons to glory (2:10). In the same nature in which we were overcome by the devil he overcame the devil. The nature he assumed and redeemed was not that of angels but that of the seed of Abraham; that is to say, the salvation he has procured for mankind applies in particular to the children of God’s covenant of grace long since established with Abraham, the father of those who are justified by faith (2:16; cf. Rom. 4:16ff.; Gal. 3:6-9, 26-29).

Furthermore, it was by partaking of our human nature that the incarnate Son was able to suffer and die in the sinner’s place on the cross, and in doing so to destroy the power of the devil and deliver us from his tyranny (Heb. 2: 14f.)-a conquest which, besides procuring our eternal salvation, was a demonstration, in the most significant manner, of the superiority of Christ to the angels; for the devil was created one of the most exalted of the angelic beings, who, as the leader of the rebellion against the Creator, was all along doomed to destruction. Again, it was men, not angels, Christ came to de­liver. The fallen angels follow their satanic leader to perdition. The rest who loyally serve God as ministering spirits have a special function in connection with God’s redemptive purposes for man­ kind, for their ministry is ”for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation” (1:14); accordingly, they are subservient to Christ and joyfully acknowledge his supremacy.

 

III. Christ and Moses

There was another and probably – in terms of contemporary Judaism – a related respect in which the Hebrew Christians to whom our letter was addressed were in danger of compromising the sole sovereignty of Christ. The content of chapters 3 and 4 in particular make it plain that they were being tempted to assign to Moses a prominence that was scripturally unwarranted and damaging to the gospel. Here, too, the influence of the type of mentality that prevailed among the Essenes of Qumran may reasonably be suggested, since the community they had formed in the desert was designed to conform faithfully to the standards laid down under the leadership of Moses in the wilderness (apart from the sacrificial system associated with the tabernacle, about which we shall have something to say in due course). Their purpose was to recapture the ideal of the Mosaic era and to observe faithfully the high demands of the Mosaic covenant. That their dedication has a strong appeal to serious-minded persons of Jewish stock can readily be imagined. The recipients of our letter were evidently feeling the attraction of at least the combination of some such form of idealized Judaism with their Christian faith which would mean giving Moses a position alongside of Christ. To do so, they are warned, apart from being wrong-headed, would disastrously compromise the uniqueness of Christ as their sole Savior and, consequently, their security in him.

There were, indeed, areas in which Moses was typologically comparable to Christ, in particular his faithfulness as the leader of the people of Israel from the bondage of Egypt through the wilderness wanderings to the land of promise: Jesus ”was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in God’s house” (3:2). But much greater glory belongs by right to Jesus in that he is the builder of the house in which Moses faithfully served—that “house” or “household” being part of the created order. When our author adds that “the builder of all things is God” the christological significance is unmistakable, implying as it does that Jesus himself is God; and this can only mean that his superiority to Moses, a creature within the creation, is categorical and absolute. The argument is pressed home by the explanation that Moses was faithful in God’s house as a servant, whereas Christ was faithful over God’s house as a son (3:3-6). A servant exercises his steward­ ship within the household and is obviously inferior and subject to the son whose position is that of dominance over the household.

But in any case the forty years in the wilderness under Moses, faithful servant of God though he was, were anything but the golden age that some imagined them to be. The people that Moses led out of Egypt showed themselves to be a rebellious and ungrateful multitude, whose evil, unbelieving heart caused them to fall away from the living God, and who for their wickedness, instead of entering into the rest of the promised land, perished in the wilderness (3:7-12, 16-19). This was an example to be shunned, not emulated (3:12-14; 4:1- 13). Even those who entered the land of promise did not enter into God’s rest, for no rest in this fallen world is comparable to the eternal blessed­ness of the rest that God promises. It is neither Moses nor Joshua but only Jesus, our Joshua, who leads us to the perfection of that rest, for he alone is both the pioneer and the perfecter of our faith (4:6-9; 12:2).

There can then be no going back to Moses: to do so would be to deny the uniqueness of Christ and to depart from the blessing of the gospel. The repentant sinner who has opened his heart to receive the everlasting life freely flowing to him from the cross of the incarnate Son on Calvary’s hill has left behind forever the terrors of the law that condemned him to perdition. He has turned from Moses and Mount Sinai to Jesus and Mount Zion. By the mercy of God he is no longer under law but under grace. “For you have not come,” the recipients of Hebrews are reminded, ”to a mountain that may be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them . . . . But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, . . . and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (12:18-24).

The very fact of the prophetic announcement that a new covenant was to be brought into force (Jer. 31:3lff.) was sufficient to indicate the imperfection and the impermanence of the former covenant given through Moses (Heb. 8:7-13). The inauguration of the new covenant through the mediation of Jesus means the end of the old covenant mediated through Moses. The old covenant, ratified by the blood of brute beasts that could never take the place of man who is formed in the divine image, was necessarily no more than preliminary and temporary; but the new covenant, ratified by the blood of the incarnate Son, man’s true substitute, is, because of its perfection, a covenant for all eternity (9:11-15). Thus in the full blaze of the surpassing glory of Christ and his grace, the glory of Moses and his law have ceased to be glorious (cf. 2 Cor. 3:9f.).

 

IV. Christ and Aaron

In the closest association with Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, was Aaron, the high priest of the old covenant. The law which was the content of the old covenant was indissolubly bound up with the levitical priesthood, so much so that a change in the one would necessitate a change in the other (Heb. 7:llf.). The reason for this inter­ connection was that the giving of the law automatically created the necessity for a system of forgiveness and reconciliation, since all the people were sinners who as such came under condemnation as law-breakers. Hence the need for the priesthood and its sacrifices in conjunction with the law. One of the main purposes of this epistle is to explain that a radical change has been introduced by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ which also involves a change in relationship to the law. In this connection a right understanding of the significance of Melchizedek was particularly necessary for those to whom this letter was sent. The instruction given on this subject is of great christological importance.

The apostolic teaching on Melchizedek is given exclusively in Hebrews. Nowhere else is Melchizedek so much as mentioned in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament, apart from the brief narration of the encounter with Abraham when Melchizedek, identified as king of Salem and priest of God Most High, gave Abraham his blessing and received from him a tithe of the spoils of battle (Gen. 14:18-20). The only passage that saves him from oblivion is Ps. 110:4, where it is laconically declared: ”You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” The author of Hebrews not only quotes this statement (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:11, 17, 21) but also interprets it christologically as he applies it in the most direct manner to Jesus.

He propounds, first of all (7:1-10), the typological significance of the narrative in Genesis. Even the name Melchizedek is fraught with messianic meaning, for it denotes, when translated, “King of Righteousness,” while the designation king of Salem denotes ”King of Peace.” Furthermore, unlike the other personages in the early chapters of Genesis, no mention is made of Melchizedek’s parentage or of his birth and death. The silence of the biblical text in these respects makes it appropriate for our author to describe Melchizedek as ”resembling the Son of God” and to connect him with the definition “a priest forever” found in Ps. 110:4.

The special dignity and greatness of Melchizedek is apparent also in the fact that Abraham, the founding patriarch of the Hebrew nation, presented him with a tenth of the spoils he had captured and received a blessing from him—a remarkable indication of the superiority of Melchizedek, for tithes are paid by the lesser to the greater and it is the lesser who is blessed by the greater. But this display of homage carries the further implication that, through Abraham, Levi, as yet unborn and “still in the loins of his ancestor,” paid homage to Melchizedek on this occasion; that is to say, the levitical priesthood (named after Levi) acknowledged, so to speak, or bore witness to the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek.

The other notable typological consideration is that both priesthood and kingship are combined in the single person of Melchizedek. There we have the clue that leads to the solution of the otherwise insoluble problem facing those Jews (or Christians) who thought of priesthood only in terms of the levitical order of the Mosaic dispensation. The Aaronic or levitical line was solely priestly; in no sense was it a line of kings; and in any case the prophets clearly proclaimed that the messianic king was to be of the lineage of David. Hence the impasse which the Qumran Essenes, for example, made an unsatisfactory attempt to resolve by postulating the advent of two messianic per­ sons, one priestly (Aaronic) and the other kingly (Davidic). The descent of Jesus from David was clear enough, but this fact ruled out the possibility of his being a priest of the levitical order. What was needed, then, was a change in the priesthood, and at the same time a change in the law which, in the Mosaic system, prescribed that the priestly office belonged only to those who by descent were of the tribe of Levi. Thus we read: ”For the one of whom these things are spoken (i.e., about his being a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek) belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar; for it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (Heb. 7:12-14).

There is, moreover, remarkable significance in the fact that the priestly order of Melchizedek should have been mentioned as a matter of obvious importance in the 110th Psalm, for this psalm was written long after the establishment of the Mosaic system and at a time when the levitical priesthood was fully in operation. This consideration in itself was sufficient to arouse the awareness that the levitical priesthood was a transitory and an imperfect arrangement. Hence the question is put: ”Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood (for it was on this basis that the people were given the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (7:11). The mention of a different order of priesthood presaged not only the setting aside of ”a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness” but also the introduction of “a better hope through which we draw near to God” (7:18f.).

That the people were unable to draw near to God under the Mosaic law was symbolized by their exclusion from the innermost sanctuary of God’s presence, known as the holy of holies, because of the curtain through which they were forbidden to pass. What was needed was a covenant, not of law which placed them under condemnation, but of grace and reconciliation which would open for them the way into unclouded fellowship with their Creator. It was precisely this that the priestly order of Melchizedek was designed to provide. The certainty of this was confirmed by the addition of an oath: ”The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’” (Ps. 110:4), whereas the priests of the levitical order were appointed to office without an oath. “This,” our author comments, “makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant” (7:20-22).

Another factor to be taken into account is the contrast between the one and the many, to which we have already drawn attention. As himself the Word and the Truth, the Son is our one Prophet who has superseded the numerous prophets of old (1:1f.). Now he is presented as also our one High Priest who has offered but one sacrifice and who in these respects is strikingly different from the preceding order of priesthood. “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office” (7:23); consequently the levitical order was one of a long succession in which the multiplicity of priests pointed to the imperfection of their priesthood. This imperfection was all the more evident from the fact that they were sinful men who had to offer sacrifices (or their own sins before doing so for the people (7:27).

The multiplicity of the sacrifices, moreover, indicated that under that system the perfect sacrifice, was not offered. There was an endless repetition of these sacrifices because of their inability to make perfect the consciences of the worshipers. Perfection is marked by completeness; it is not repeatable because it is complete and final and forever. So the multiplicity of the priests and sacrifices in the old system drew attention to the need for the one perfect priest who would offer up the one perfect sacrifice. The levitical ministry enabled the people to understand that forgiveness and atonement involved substitution and shedding of blood; it was, how­ ever, no more than the shadow which aroused a longing for the reality which is the substance (9:9; 10:lf.).

The absolute uniqueness of the order of Melchizedek is seen in this, that it has only one priest who offers up only one sacrifice. This is the mark of its perfection and its finality. Christ is our sole priest because he continues forever. There is therefore no place for a succession of priests or for the transmission of his priesthood to others (7:24; Ps. 110:4). His perfection is constituted, further, by his sinlessness. Unlike the former high priests, there was no necessity for him to offer up a sacrifice for himself (Heb. 7:27); and as he alone is without sin this serves to emphasize the uniqueness of his office and its intransmissibility to any succession of priests (4:15; 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22).

The absolute perfection of his sacrifice rests on this fact, that he offered up himself. The Aaronic priests had offered up brute beasts of one kind or another; but a brute beast can never be a proper substitute for man who is made in the image of God; unlike man, it lacks the power of reason and comprehension and has no moral or religious center of responsibility. Such a sacrifice could not convey the salvation which it symbolized. That is why the sacrifices offered by the priests of the old order were innumerable and endlessly repeated.

The symbolical background that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has particularly in mind is that of the great annual Day of Atonement, when all the people assembled before the tabernacle to witness the high priest offering an atoning sacrifice for their sins. First of all the high priest had to make atonement for his own sins by sacrificing a bull in his place. Then two goats were taken on behalf of the people. One of the goats was slain and its blood was carried by the high priest into the holy of holies and sprinkled there upon the mercy seat in atonement for the sins of all the people. This done, the high priest came out from the sanctuary and, laying his hands on the head of the live goat, confessed over it, and thus, so to speak, transferred to it ”all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins”; and this goat was then led away into the wilderness, bearing all their sins, never to be seen again (Lev. 16:2-22). Thus the total removal of sins was graphically symbolized—but not effected (except by trust in the promise of the perfect sacrifice to be offered by the perfect priest yet to come); hence the repetition of the ritual of the Day of Atonement year after year.

Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was the sub­ stance of which all this was but the shadow, the fulfillment of all that was portended in the old ceremonial. He is the perfect high priest who offers up himself, the perfect substitute, man for man, as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. He truly is the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, who bears away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:18f.). His blood, at last, is fully effective to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14). The annual repetition of the sacrificial offerings on the Day of Atonement was in effect an annual reminder to the people that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (10:3f.); but now that the forgiveness and blotting out of sins is a reality (in fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant) there is no place for any further offering for sin (10: 16-18); no longer is there need for the interminable service of priests who day after day offer up the same old sacrifices which can never take away sins. As we have said, because it is perfect, Christ’s sacrifice is single and it is forever. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (10:11-15).

 

IV. Christ in the Sanctuary

There is still more to be said regarding the high-priestly office of Christ. In the situation governed by the old Mosaic covenant the high priest of the Aaronic order was the only person permitted to enter the inner sanctuary known as the holy of holies where the glory of the divine presence was manifested, and even he was allowed to do this only on one day of the year, namely, the Day of Atonement. Though other members of the priestly tribe of Levi might minister in the outer chamber known as the holy place, they were strictly forbid­ den to enter the holy of holies. Also excluded, of course, were the people as a whole, and this exclusion indicated that because of their sinfulness they were shut out from the holy presence of God. All that the people saw was the slaughter of the sacrificial victim at the altar in the courtyard of the tabernacle and then the high priest carrying the blood of atonement as he entered the sanctuary. It was at that moment that he disappeared from view, and the people remained waiting eagerly for his reappearance and the announcement that the substitutionary blood had been sprinkled on the mercy seat. This exclusion was another aspect of the imperfection of the former system. The people were unable to draw near and enter into the sanctuary of God’s presence because the all-sufficient sacrifice had not yet been offered. And this also typified the plight of mankind as a whole, since all of us are sinners whose ungodliness has excluded us from the blessing of God and whose most radical need is to be restored to harmonious fellowship with our Creator.

The reality adumbrated by the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement was brought to fulfillment by the coming of Christ to earth for the purpose of making atonement for our sinfulness as our great High Priest. His sacrifice of himself was offered up before the public gaze on the altar of the cross in the courtyard of this world. The sacrifice completed, our High Priest, alive from the dead, disappeared from the view of his watching disciples as he ascended and entered the true sanctuary of God’s glorious presence; and now his people joyfully await his return in power and glory when he will reappear to announce the consummation of their eternal redemption. Thus what was foreshadowed by the wilderness tabernacle and its ministry is now a reality. The essential difference is this, that the way into the presence of God that was formerly closed is now wide open, thanks to the offering of the perfect sacrifice by the perfect priest for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). This was dramatically signified by the rending from top to bottom (i.e., by God, not man) of the curtain that blocked the way into the holy of holies at the very time when the flesh of the incarnate Son was rent for us on the cross (see Heb. 10:20).

Accordingly Hebrews presents Christ as our High Priest who has entered the true sanctuary, ”the greater and more perfect tent,” not with the blood of brute beasts, but through his own blood, and not repeatedly year after year but once for all, because our salvation in him is secure now and forever (8:1f.; 9:11ff.,24ff.). Moreover,   the   hope of his expectant people will be fulfilled by his reappearance at the end of the age: They have this assurance, that ”Christ, who was offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (9:28). In the meantime, not only is he their King enthroned on high but he is still their ever-living High Priest who in the heavenly sanctuary sustains them by his constant intercession on their behalf (7:25); there, in the presence of God, he appears for us (9:24); or, as St. John puts it, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins, is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:lf.).

The intercessory activity of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is based, first, on fellow-feeling in consequence of his participation in our human nature and his experience of the same temptations with which we are faced; and, second, on his total victory over every temptation which enables him not merely to sympathize with us but also to impart his victorious strength to us so that we too can overcome in the hour of trial. It is because he himself, the incarnate Son, has suffered temptation that he is able to help those who are tempted (Heb. 2:14, 18). Jesus, the Son of God, who has passed through the heavens into the true sanctuary, is “not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning,” with the result that we, no longer excluded from the presence of God, are invited to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (4:14-16). No longer excluded, we are free, thanks to our High Priest, to draw near. This is a further indication of the fullness and finality of the new covenant and its superiority to the old.

The ascended Jesus, however, has done more than open the way for us to draw near to God with our prayer and devotion; he has gone before us into that heavenly glory where we at last will join him: It is as ”a forerunner on our behalf” that he has entered the sanctuary of the divine presence (6: 19f.). Indeed, in a definite sense our entry is completely guaranteed by his entry, since our High Priest who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven is still Jesus the incarnate Son of God (4:14), and this means that our humanity which he redeemed is also even now glorified in and with him. His identification with us has not ceased with his exaltation. Our union with him who is our High Priest continues. The bond that binds us is forever secure: That is why we can claim to have “a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine” above (6:19). In Christ, our fellowman as well as our God, the future glory for which we look is a present reality. What we shall be we already are in him. The same humanity in which he suffered, our humanity, is even now glorified in him. Our whole destiny has its concentration in him. It must be said, in conclusion, that the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews can only lead to this conclusion:

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful (10: 19-23).