Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:47:48 GMT -5
III. The Supremacy of Christ’s Ministration (4:14-10:39)
Consistent with the perspective and overall thrust of his letter, the Hebrews writer set Jesus at the
very center of his instruction regarding faithfulness and entrance into God’s rest. But it’s his
inclusio that shows how he viewed Him in relation to this rest and people’s inheritance of it:
Jesus is the substance of the Christian’s confession, but precisely because He is God’s ordained
High Priest. This confession, then, underscores two crucial truths:
- First, Jesus is the true Image-Son – the truly human King-Priest who’s entered God’s rest
so as to administer His rule over His creation (2:5-9).
- Jesus is true Man, but as Man unto mankind. His resurrection and ascension were human
phenomena; He sat down at the Father’s right hand as the Son of David (Acts 2:22-36).
But even more, Jesus attained this consummate glory as the Last Adam (2:5-18) – the
first-fruits of God’s new creation (1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 42-45; Colossians 1:15-18),
and the first-born among many brethren, such that His inheritance as Image-Son is the
inheritance of all of His brothers and sisters (Romans 8:12-17, 29). They all share His
glorification, enthronement, and priestly vocation as authentic image-children who enter
God’s rest in Him and so fulfill their ordained human destiny (Genesis 1:26-31; Romans
8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-2:7; 2 Timothy 2:11f; 1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 5:1-10).
The writer used the fact and significance of Jesus’ high priesthood to frame his argument
concerning God’s rest and the human obligation to it (ref. again 3:1, 4:14-16), and the above
observations show why he did so. Like everything else in the divine purpose and its outworking,
man’s attainment of God’s rest – the rest for which he was created and predestined – is “yes and
amen” in Jesus the Messiah. Human beings attain their regal and priestly fortune as imagechildren by sharing in the authentic humanity of the unique King-Priest.
Thus Jesus’ priesthood is fundamental and critical in the Christian’s confession; indeed, an
implication of the writer’s argument is that there is no truly accurate confession of Jesus that
doesn’t grasp and hold as central the reality of His status as enthroned High Priest. This was the
way Israel’s prophets – and so the Israelite nation they served – envisioned the coming Messiah
(cf. Zechariah 6:9-15 with 2 Samuel 5-7; Psalm 110; Isaiah 53:11-12), but the same imagery also
depicted the restored covenant household that the Messiah was to inaugurate (cf. Exodus 19:1-6
with Psalm 132; Isaiah 61:1-6; Jeremiah 33:14-22).
The writer clearly was familiar with this messianic backdrop and its place in Israel’s history and
national hope. But even more, he’d come to recognize how these promises had been fulfilled in
Jesus of Nazareth – albeit not in the way he or his Jewish countrymen had expected. Yahweh’s
word to Israel had come to pass in a most startling manner, but the events surrounding the
prophet Jesus of Nazareth had nonetheless demonstrated that He is indeed the promised Messiah
and glorious King-Priest. This truth was foundational to his readers’ enduring faith and hope, and
thus the writer set about unfolding it for them. And in doing so, he followed his characteristic
pattern, showing in great detail how Jesus’ priesthood both fulfilled and transcended its Israelite
counterpart (5:1-7:28). In the same way that He is greater than Israel’s prophets and Moses
himself, Jesus is greater than Aaron and the priestly ministration grounded in him.
90
A. Superior to the Aaronic Priesthood (4:14-7:28)
The author viewed Jesus’ high priesthood as compelling incentive for his readers to persevere
with confident faith – not just that their sovereign King would provide what was lacking in their
resource, but that He served their need as their enthroned High priest. The Son seated at the
Father’s right hand is the priestly Son of Man, who ever lives to intercede for His brethren.
1. This topic of the Son’s priesthood and ministration is the focus of chapters 5-7, and the
writer addressed it in terms of its counterpart, namely the Aaronic priesthood that served
the covenant household of Israel from Sinai until the coming of the Messiah.
Furthermore, he constructed his treatment around the principles of continuity and
discontinuity – which is to say, the ways in which Jesus’ priesthood and ministration
corresponded with Aaron’s, and the ways in which the two differed. And this approach
wasn’t arbitrary, but determined by the promise-fulfillment relationship that exists
between the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood and the one associated with Jesus. What binds
them together on the one hand, and distinguishes them on the other, is determined by the
inherent relationship between promise and fulfillment as it exists and plays itself out in
God’s purposes and work in the world.
a. With respect to the continuity between the two priesthoods, the writer began by
observing that both share the same origin and orientation. Each originates in and
is effectuated by God’s calling and ordination, and both serve the same purpose of
mediating the Creator/creature relationship that has man at the center. This
mediation ultimately extends to the non-human creation, but the concern in this
context is the priestly work of mediating the relationship between God and His
human creatures – the divinely-ordained human work that binds together God and
His human image-bearer. And, inasmuch as they pertain to fallen man, both
priesthoods operate from the vantage point of human weakness, ignorance and
failure, and so involve the offering of “gifts and sacrifices for sins” (5:1-4).
b. As to the matter of discontinuity, the first clear point of distinction is the human
individual in whom each priesthood was ordained, established, and ordered. The
former (Levitical) priesthood was grounded in Aaron (ref. Exodus 28-29;
Numbers 3:1-10), while the latter – the priesthood associated with Jesus – has its
origin in the enigmatic figure Melchizedek (5:5-6, 10; cf. Genesis 14:18; Psalm
110). The writer only introduces the concept of a Melchizedekian priesthood here,
but it will become a key component of his argument going forward (ref. 6:19-
7:28). Other than this distinction, the author hints at a couple of others, which he
also fleshes out as he develops his case. These are the matters of priestly offerings
made for personal sins (cf. 5:3, 7:26-27; cf. 4:15), and an effectual mediation that
results in true and full remedy (5:7-9, 7:24-25, 9:11-14).
2. The writer demonstrated his claims of correspondence (continuity) and distinction
(discontinuity) using two passages of scripture, both drawn from the Psalms (5:5-6). Each
of the two serves a distinct purpose and makes a unique contribution to his argument, and
each introduces its own interpretive challenges.
91
a. The first citation is from Psalm 2, which the author used to support his claim that
Jesus, like Aaron, didn’t take to himself the priestly vocation and its glory (which
was likely a charge Jewish detractors leveled against Him), but entered upon his
priesthood as a matter of obedience to God’s calling and ordination (5:5-6).
Specifically, the writer cited verse 7 of the psalm, which records the king’s
affirmation of Yahweh’s decree of sonship concerning him: “I will surely tell of
the Lord’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’”
This citation presents an obvious interpretive challenge, which the writer’s silence
only increases. The immediate difficulty is that the citation has nothing to do with
the priesthood or priestly ministration – Levitical or otherwise (compare the
writer’s use of it in 1:5). How does Yahweh’s decree of sonship regarding His
enthroned king prove the assertion that Jesus didn’t take up the priesthood and its
glory as an autonomous, self-serving act? Even acknowledging that Psalm 2 is
messianic isn’t particularly helpful. For the entire psalm concerns enthronement
and dominion, and treating it as messianic simply assigns to Jesus this regal status
and rule. Messianic or otherwise, the psalm doesn’t so much as mention the
concept of priesthood, let alone make the point the Hebrews writer was asserting.
And the writer himself is no help, for he provided no insight into his reasoning or
why he believed Psalm 2:7 proved his contention. His silence is significant, and
suggests two plausible explanations: Either he unwittingly failed his readers by
not connecting the dots for them, or he was consciously confident that they would
understand his reasoning, and so felt that no clarification was needed. Given his
careful and orderly argumentation, the latter is almost certainly correct. Of course,
the writer’s confidence in his readers’ insight doesn’t prove that he was using
Psalm 2 correctly, but it does indicate that his understanding of this psalm in
relation to Jesus’ priesthood was shared in the early Christian community – at
least by some among the Jewish believers. And this, in turn, suggests that there
were traditions in first-century Jewish scholarship that read Psalm 2 this way,
though obviously not in relation to Jesus of Nazareth.
All of this, then, begs the question of how the writer was connecting the dots; how
did he find within Psalm 2, and especially verse 7, substantiation for his claim
concerning Jesus and His priesthood? The critical key to this answer – a key that
is often missed (or misunderstood) – is the organic nature of scriptural revelation.
The Bible isn’t a collection of discrete propositions, truisms, and directives, but a
multi-dimensional, intricately interwoven storyline. This is especially true of the
Old Testament, which tells the epic story of God’s design for His creation and its
outworking centered in Abraham and his covenant “seed.”
The organic nature of the Scriptures means that no portion, aspect, or concern is
independent or self-interpreting; rather, the reality, truth, and meaning of any part
resides in the whole, but as the whole is rightly ordered and understood.
Christians often find this principle strange (if not false), but this isn’t the case
with Jewish readers, who recognize the Scriptures (Tanakh) as Israel’s long story.
92
The same was true of the Jewish apostles and their companions who penned the
New Testament documents. This is evident in the way they interacted with
Israel’s scriptures. Though they typically cited short passages or statements in
their writings, they didn’t do so as discrete proof-texts for a particular truth or
doctrine. Their citations were concise, but their perspective and intention were
expansive. This is precisely the reason they seem so often to be using the
Scripture inappropriately and out of context; they draw on a particular statement
or verse, but with reference to other content and ideas intimately related to it,
much like pulling a single thread draws in the fabric it’s woven into.
- So Matthew cited Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus’ “exodus”
from Egypt after Herod’s death (Matthew 2:13-15), though this verse is
neither prophetic nor messianic. In context, it is part of God’s indictment
of Israel’s long history of idolatry and rebellion, His declaration of coming
judgment, and His promise of future restoration (ref. Hosea 11-14).
- Similarly, Paul cited from the first two chapters of Hosea – a passage that
has nothing to do with Gentiles – to prove his contention of God’s longstanding intent to call Gentiles to Himself (Romans 9:22-26).
This sort of non-contextual use of Israel’s scriptures is common in the Hebrews
epistle (ref. 1:10-12, 2:5-9, 10:5-7, 36-38, 12:25-27), and the present citation is
another instance of it. Just as Paul’s understanding of the connection between
Israel’s restoration and the ingathering of the Gentiles allowed him to cite Hosea
1-2 in Romans 9, so the Hebrews writer’s recognition of the intimate, inseparable
relationship between Messiah’s kingship and priesthood allowed him to use Psalm
2 to make his point here.
Most Christians recognize regal and priestly dimensions in the Old Testament
vision of the Messiah, but few hold them together as inseparable and mutuallydependent. So Dispensationalists commonly deny Jesus’ present reign, while
upholding His high-priestly ministry. They argue that Jesus exercises His priestly
ministration from heaven, whereas His kingly reign will take place in a future
earthly “millennial kingdom.” But the New Testament allows no such distinction
or separation; rather, it treats Jesus’ high-priestly ministry as a primary function
of His reign: He rules as Yahweh’s enthroned High Priest, and carries out His
priestly ministry as the sovereign King of kings (Hebrews 4:14, 7:26, 8:1; cf.
Romans 8:33-34). And this King-Priest dynamic is precisely what the Old
Testament predicted of the Messiah. The convergence of the regal and priestly
messianic dimensions was first hinted at with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18; cf.
Hebrews 7:1) and Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3, 14:1-20, 17:1-6, 20:1-7), but became
a matter of overt prophetic promise in connection with David (2 Samuel 6:12ff;
Zechariah 6:9-15). Moreover, it was implicit in the concept of Messiah as the true
embodiment of Israel (Isaiah 49:1-6), for Israel was itself a royal priesthood as
God’s elect image-son (Exodus 19:1-6), even as Israel’s priests ministered in the
place of Yahweh’s enthronement (Psalm 99:1-5; cf. Hebrews 8:1-2, 9:11-24).
93
The Hebrews writer was obviously aware of the inseparable union of priesthood
and kingship now realized in Jesus the Messiah, and thus he could use an
enthronement/dominion context such as Psalm 2 to demonstrate truths about
Jesus’ priesthood. (The opposite is also true; truths regarding the nature and
operation of Jesus’ rule can be deduced from his ministration as High Priest.)
Here, the issue was showing that Jesus obtained His priestly vocation as a divine
endowment, so that the writer needed only to demonstrate the same dynamic
respecting His kingship; if Jesus’ installation as sovereign King was a matter of
divine grant, the same was true of His priesthood. And the author demonstrated
that by citing Yahweh’s declaration of sonship (5:5). The reason this
accomplished his end is that sonship implies lordship: Once again, man was
created and ordained image-son in order to carry out God’s rule over His creation.
And this human role was realized in the Last Adam, so that the “begetting” of the
Son in Psalm 2 speaks to His ordination and installation as Yahweh’s sovereign
King: “‘As for Me (Yahweh), I have installed My king upon Zion, My holy
mountain.’ ‘So I (the installed king) will surely tell of Yahweh’s decree. He said to
me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask Me, and I will surely give
the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.”’”
Israel’s God ordained and granted Messiah’s kingship, and so also His priesthood.
b. This interpretation not only suits the larger scriptural message, it perfectly
dovetails with the epistle’s surrounding context, both the preceding topic of God’s
rest (4:9-14) and the subsequent citation from Psalm 110 (5:6). That citation,
especially, shows that the writer was thinking in terms of the convergence of the
regal and priestly functions in the person of the Messiah. For Melchizedek was
the archetypal priest-king, described in the Genesis account as “the king of Salem
and priest of God Most High.” Outside of Genesis, the only other mention of
Melchizedek (whose name means righteous king or king of righteousness) in the
Old Testament is in Psalm 110, to which the Hebrews author here referred. This
psalm makes three important contributions to the Scripture’s messianic revelation:
First, it associates Melchizedek with God’s ideal (messianic) king. In so doing, it
secondly connects the priest-king concept with this king. And lastly, the psalm
indirectly hints at the Davidic Covenant, since David penned it as song of praise
to Yahweh’s great king – David’s lord – through whom He would conquer all His
enemies and establish and extend His kingdom throughout the earth. Thus Psalm
110 makes a significant contribution to the Old Testament’s developing portrait of
the coming Messiah, a fact recognized by the Jews of the second temple period as
well as the early Christians. (This psalm is quoted or referenced in the New
Testament more than any other, even by Jesus Himself.)
The statement cited by the Hebrews writer (Psalm 110:4) served his argument in
both of its facets. On the one hand, it further reinforced his assertion that Jesus,
like Aaron, obtained His priesthood as a divine ordination: “Yahweh has sworn,
‘You are a priest forever…’” But it also highlights a foundational and critical
distinction between Aaron’s priesthood and the one granted to Jesus: He, too, is
God’s ordained High Priest, but “according to the order of Melchizedek.”
Consistent with the perspective and overall thrust of his letter, the Hebrews writer set Jesus at the
very center of his instruction regarding faithfulness and entrance into God’s rest. But it’s his
inclusio that shows how he viewed Him in relation to this rest and people’s inheritance of it:
Jesus is the substance of the Christian’s confession, but precisely because He is God’s ordained
High Priest. This confession, then, underscores two crucial truths:
- First, Jesus is the true Image-Son – the truly human King-Priest who’s entered God’s rest
so as to administer His rule over His creation (2:5-9).
- Jesus is true Man, but as Man unto mankind. His resurrection and ascension were human
phenomena; He sat down at the Father’s right hand as the Son of David (Acts 2:22-36).
But even more, Jesus attained this consummate glory as the Last Adam (2:5-18) – the
first-fruits of God’s new creation (1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 42-45; Colossians 1:15-18),
and the first-born among many brethren, such that His inheritance as Image-Son is the
inheritance of all of His brothers and sisters (Romans 8:12-17, 29). They all share His
glorification, enthronement, and priestly vocation as authentic image-children who enter
God’s rest in Him and so fulfill their ordained human destiny (Genesis 1:26-31; Romans
8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-2:7; 2 Timothy 2:11f; 1 Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 5:1-10).
The writer used the fact and significance of Jesus’ high priesthood to frame his argument
concerning God’s rest and the human obligation to it (ref. again 3:1, 4:14-16), and the above
observations show why he did so. Like everything else in the divine purpose and its outworking,
man’s attainment of God’s rest – the rest for which he was created and predestined – is “yes and
amen” in Jesus the Messiah. Human beings attain their regal and priestly fortune as imagechildren by sharing in the authentic humanity of the unique King-Priest.
Thus Jesus’ priesthood is fundamental and critical in the Christian’s confession; indeed, an
implication of the writer’s argument is that there is no truly accurate confession of Jesus that
doesn’t grasp and hold as central the reality of His status as enthroned High Priest. This was the
way Israel’s prophets – and so the Israelite nation they served – envisioned the coming Messiah
(cf. Zechariah 6:9-15 with 2 Samuel 5-7; Psalm 110; Isaiah 53:11-12), but the same imagery also
depicted the restored covenant household that the Messiah was to inaugurate (cf. Exodus 19:1-6
with Psalm 132; Isaiah 61:1-6; Jeremiah 33:14-22).
The writer clearly was familiar with this messianic backdrop and its place in Israel’s history and
national hope. But even more, he’d come to recognize how these promises had been fulfilled in
Jesus of Nazareth – albeit not in the way he or his Jewish countrymen had expected. Yahweh’s
word to Israel had come to pass in a most startling manner, but the events surrounding the
prophet Jesus of Nazareth had nonetheless demonstrated that He is indeed the promised Messiah
and glorious King-Priest. This truth was foundational to his readers’ enduring faith and hope, and
thus the writer set about unfolding it for them. And in doing so, he followed his characteristic
pattern, showing in great detail how Jesus’ priesthood both fulfilled and transcended its Israelite
counterpart (5:1-7:28). In the same way that He is greater than Israel’s prophets and Moses
himself, Jesus is greater than Aaron and the priestly ministration grounded in him.
90
A. Superior to the Aaronic Priesthood (4:14-7:28)
The author viewed Jesus’ high priesthood as compelling incentive for his readers to persevere
with confident faith – not just that their sovereign King would provide what was lacking in their
resource, but that He served their need as their enthroned High priest. The Son seated at the
Father’s right hand is the priestly Son of Man, who ever lives to intercede for His brethren.
1. This topic of the Son’s priesthood and ministration is the focus of chapters 5-7, and the
writer addressed it in terms of its counterpart, namely the Aaronic priesthood that served
the covenant household of Israel from Sinai until the coming of the Messiah.
Furthermore, he constructed his treatment around the principles of continuity and
discontinuity – which is to say, the ways in which Jesus’ priesthood and ministration
corresponded with Aaron’s, and the ways in which the two differed. And this approach
wasn’t arbitrary, but determined by the promise-fulfillment relationship that exists
between the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood and the one associated with Jesus. What binds
them together on the one hand, and distinguishes them on the other, is determined by the
inherent relationship between promise and fulfillment as it exists and plays itself out in
God’s purposes and work in the world.
a. With respect to the continuity between the two priesthoods, the writer began by
observing that both share the same origin and orientation. Each originates in and
is effectuated by God’s calling and ordination, and both serve the same purpose of
mediating the Creator/creature relationship that has man at the center. This
mediation ultimately extends to the non-human creation, but the concern in this
context is the priestly work of mediating the relationship between God and His
human creatures – the divinely-ordained human work that binds together God and
His human image-bearer. And, inasmuch as they pertain to fallen man, both
priesthoods operate from the vantage point of human weakness, ignorance and
failure, and so involve the offering of “gifts and sacrifices for sins” (5:1-4).
b. As to the matter of discontinuity, the first clear point of distinction is the human
individual in whom each priesthood was ordained, established, and ordered. The
former (Levitical) priesthood was grounded in Aaron (ref. Exodus 28-29;
Numbers 3:1-10), while the latter – the priesthood associated with Jesus – has its
origin in the enigmatic figure Melchizedek (5:5-6, 10; cf. Genesis 14:18; Psalm
110). The writer only introduces the concept of a Melchizedekian priesthood here,
but it will become a key component of his argument going forward (ref. 6:19-
7:28). Other than this distinction, the author hints at a couple of others, which he
also fleshes out as he develops his case. These are the matters of priestly offerings
made for personal sins (cf. 5:3, 7:26-27; cf. 4:15), and an effectual mediation that
results in true and full remedy (5:7-9, 7:24-25, 9:11-14).
2. The writer demonstrated his claims of correspondence (continuity) and distinction
(discontinuity) using two passages of scripture, both drawn from the Psalms (5:5-6). Each
of the two serves a distinct purpose and makes a unique contribution to his argument, and
each introduces its own interpretive challenges.
91
a. The first citation is from Psalm 2, which the author used to support his claim that
Jesus, like Aaron, didn’t take to himself the priestly vocation and its glory (which
was likely a charge Jewish detractors leveled against Him), but entered upon his
priesthood as a matter of obedience to God’s calling and ordination (5:5-6).
Specifically, the writer cited verse 7 of the psalm, which records the king’s
affirmation of Yahweh’s decree of sonship concerning him: “I will surely tell of
the Lord’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’”
This citation presents an obvious interpretive challenge, which the writer’s silence
only increases. The immediate difficulty is that the citation has nothing to do with
the priesthood or priestly ministration – Levitical or otherwise (compare the
writer’s use of it in 1:5). How does Yahweh’s decree of sonship regarding His
enthroned king prove the assertion that Jesus didn’t take up the priesthood and its
glory as an autonomous, self-serving act? Even acknowledging that Psalm 2 is
messianic isn’t particularly helpful. For the entire psalm concerns enthronement
and dominion, and treating it as messianic simply assigns to Jesus this regal status
and rule. Messianic or otherwise, the psalm doesn’t so much as mention the
concept of priesthood, let alone make the point the Hebrews writer was asserting.
And the writer himself is no help, for he provided no insight into his reasoning or
why he believed Psalm 2:7 proved his contention. His silence is significant, and
suggests two plausible explanations: Either he unwittingly failed his readers by
not connecting the dots for them, or he was consciously confident that they would
understand his reasoning, and so felt that no clarification was needed. Given his
careful and orderly argumentation, the latter is almost certainly correct. Of course,
the writer’s confidence in his readers’ insight doesn’t prove that he was using
Psalm 2 correctly, but it does indicate that his understanding of this psalm in
relation to Jesus’ priesthood was shared in the early Christian community – at
least by some among the Jewish believers. And this, in turn, suggests that there
were traditions in first-century Jewish scholarship that read Psalm 2 this way,
though obviously not in relation to Jesus of Nazareth.
All of this, then, begs the question of how the writer was connecting the dots; how
did he find within Psalm 2, and especially verse 7, substantiation for his claim
concerning Jesus and His priesthood? The critical key to this answer – a key that
is often missed (or misunderstood) – is the organic nature of scriptural revelation.
The Bible isn’t a collection of discrete propositions, truisms, and directives, but a
multi-dimensional, intricately interwoven storyline. This is especially true of the
Old Testament, which tells the epic story of God’s design for His creation and its
outworking centered in Abraham and his covenant “seed.”
The organic nature of the Scriptures means that no portion, aspect, or concern is
independent or self-interpreting; rather, the reality, truth, and meaning of any part
resides in the whole, but as the whole is rightly ordered and understood.
Christians often find this principle strange (if not false), but this isn’t the case
with Jewish readers, who recognize the Scriptures (Tanakh) as Israel’s long story.
92
The same was true of the Jewish apostles and their companions who penned the
New Testament documents. This is evident in the way they interacted with
Israel’s scriptures. Though they typically cited short passages or statements in
their writings, they didn’t do so as discrete proof-texts for a particular truth or
doctrine. Their citations were concise, but their perspective and intention were
expansive. This is precisely the reason they seem so often to be using the
Scripture inappropriately and out of context; they draw on a particular statement
or verse, but with reference to other content and ideas intimately related to it,
much like pulling a single thread draws in the fabric it’s woven into.
- So Matthew cited Hosea 11:1 as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus’ “exodus”
from Egypt after Herod’s death (Matthew 2:13-15), though this verse is
neither prophetic nor messianic. In context, it is part of God’s indictment
of Israel’s long history of idolatry and rebellion, His declaration of coming
judgment, and His promise of future restoration (ref. Hosea 11-14).
- Similarly, Paul cited from the first two chapters of Hosea – a passage that
has nothing to do with Gentiles – to prove his contention of God’s longstanding intent to call Gentiles to Himself (Romans 9:22-26).
This sort of non-contextual use of Israel’s scriptures is common in the Hebrews
epistle (ref. 1:10-12, 2:5-9, 10:5-7, 36-38, 12:25-27), and the present citation is
another instance of it. Just as Paul’s understanding of the connection between
Israel’s restoration and the ingathering of the Gentiles allowed him to cite Hosea
1-2 in Romans 9, so the Hebrews writer’s recognition of the intimate, inseparable
relationship between Messiah’s kingship and priesthood allowed him to use Psalm
2 to make his point here.
Most Christians recognize regal and priestly dimensions in the Old Testament
vision of the Messiah, but few hold them together as inseparable and mutuallydependent. So Dispensationalists commonly deny Jesus’ present reign, while
upholding His high-priestly ministry. They argue that Jesus exercises His priestly
ministration from heaven, whereas His kingly reign will take place in a future
earthly “millennial kingdom.” But the New Testament allows no such distinction
or separation; rather, it treats Jesus’ high-priestly ministry as a primary function
of His reign: He rules as Yahweh’s enthroned High Priest, and carries out His
priestly ministry as the sovereign King of kings (Hebrews 4:14, 7:26, 8:1; cf.
Romans 8:33-34). And this King-Priest dynamic is precisely what the Old
Testament predicted of the Messiah. The convergence of the regal and priestly
messianic dimensions was first hinted at with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18; cf.
Hebrews 7:1) and Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3, 14:1-20, 17:1-6, 20:1-7), but became
a matter of overt prophetic promise in connection with David (2 Samuel 6:12ff;
Zechariah 6:9-15). Moreover, it was implicit in the concept of Messiah as the true
embodiment of Israel (Isaiah 49:1-6), for Israel was itself a royal priesthood as
God’s elect image-son (Exodus 19:1-6), even as Israel’s priests ministered in the
place of Yahweh’s enthronement (Psalm 99:1-5; cf. Hebrews 8:1-2, 9:11-24).
93
The Hebrews writer was obviously aware of the inseparable union of priesthood
and kingship now realized in Jesus the Messiah, and thus he could use an
enthronement/dominion context such as Psalm 2 to demonstrate truths about
Jesus’ priesthood. (The opposite is also true; truths regarding the nature and
operation of Jesus’ rule can be deduced from his ministration as High Priest.)
Here, the issue was showing that Jesus obtained His priestly vocation as a divine
endowment, so that the writer needed only to demonstrate the same dynamic
respecting His kingship; if Jesus’ installation as sovereign King was a matter of
divine grant, the same was true of His priesthood. And the author demonstrated
that by citing Yahweh’s declaration of sonship (5:5). The reason this
accomplished his end is that sonship implies lordship: Once again, man was
created and ordained image-son in order to carry out God’s rule over His creation.
And this human role was realized in the Last Adam, so that the “begetting” of the
Son in Psalm 2 speaks to His ordination and installation as Yahweh’s sovereign
King: “‘As for Me (Yahweh), I have installed My king upon Zion, My holy
mountain.’ ‘So I (the installed king) will surely tell of Yahweh’s decree. He said to
me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask Me, and I will surely give
the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.”’”
Israel’s God ordained and granted Messiah’s kingship, and so also His priesthood.
b. This interpretation not only suits the larger scriptural message, it perfectly
dovetails with the epistle’s surrounding context, both the preceding topic of God’s
rest (4:9-14) and the subsequent citation from Psalm 110 (5:6). That citation,
especially, shows that the writer was thinking in terms of the convergence of the
regal and priestly functions in the person of the Messiah. For Melchizedek was
the archetypal priest-king, described in the Genesis account as “the king of Salem
and priest of God Most High.” Outside of Genesis, the only other mention of
Melchizedek (whose name means righteous king or king of righteousness) in the
Old Testament is in Psalm 110, to which the Hebrews author here referred. This
psalm makes three important contributions to the Scripture’s messianic revelation:
First, it associates Melchizedek with God’s ideal (messianic) king. In so doing, it
secondly connects the priest-king concept with this king. And lastly, the psalm
indirectly hints at the Davidic Covenant, since David penned it as song of praise
to Yahweh’s great king – David’s lord – through whom He would conquer all His
enemies and establish and extend His kingdom throughout the earth. Thus Psalm
110 makes a significant contribution to the Old Testament’s developing portrait of
the coming Messiah, a fact recognized by the Jews of the second temple period as
well as the early Christians. (This psalm is quoted or referenced in the New
Testament more than any other, even by Jesus Himself.)
The statement cited by the Hebrews writer (Psalm 110:4) served his argument in
both of its facets. On the one hand, it further reinforced his assertion that Jesus,
like Aaron, obtained His priesthood as a divine ordination: “Yahweh has sworn,
‘You are a priest forever…’” But it also highlights a foundational and critical
distinction between Aaron’s priesthood and the one granted to Jesus: He, too, is
God’s ordained High Priest, but “according to the order of Melchizedek.”