Chapter 1 & Somewhat introductory

HEBREWS.              L.H.Brough.

Chapter 1.

The divine revelation reaches its maturity, its wholeness, its integration, its completeness in the Son.  Revelation in former days was partial, fragmentary.  It attains completeness in Christ and it is this that gives it finality.

           

When did the Priesthood of Christ commence?   The Aaronic priesthood was earthly.  The Christian lives on the earth, yet worships in the heavenly sanctuary.  The Christian does not worship in a sanctuary of this world.  The Christian enters into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. 

           

Now this may throw some light on the problem, was our Lord a Priest on earth?  Was His sacrifice a priestly act, since He is a Heavenly Priest?  If we remember that the sons of Aaron could have no part in the heavenly and this surely not merely because they were merely living on earth, for we live on earth and yet we worship in the heavenly sanctuary.    The Aaronic was only a shadow of the heavenly things.  The heavenly things are the true things.  If Christ's Sacrifice was more than a type, if it was the substance and not the shadow, then it must have belonged to the heavenly order of things.

           

In no other book of the New Testament is one so conscious of moving in the realm of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.  We seem to be moving in the same realm of ideas - priest, sanctuary, holy place, altar, worship, sacrifice, blood, atonement, cleansing, and offering for sins.  The High Priest was the centre of the Old Testament sacrificial system.  Christ as our High Priest is central in the same realm of ideas in this Epistle.  This all points to His sacrifice being a priestly act.

           

The Priesthood of Christ:  One marvels at the appropriateness of this truth.  No other form of teaching could have contained so much encouragement to the despondent Hebrews.  They were discouraged because of the sufferings that became theirs for doing the will of God.  But Christ is a High Priest who has experienced such trials, more severely than they.  He was victorious and He is able to sympathise, perfect in His work and ever-living to save.

           

Our Lord's Priesthood not Hereditary.   This is the point of the writer's quotation from Psalm 110 concerning Melchizedek.  The great Personage of that Psalm does not receive His office because of hereditary descent.  His right to the priestly office is not dependent upon His lineage.  So far was our Lord's Priesthood not dependent upon hereditary, we read that He sprang of that tribe of which nothing was said concerning priesthood (7:14).  No word is spoken concerning priesthood of the tribe of Judah.  This bears out the truth that Christ's office depends not upon lineage, but upon His personal greatness.

           

Kingship and Priesthood are offices.  The priesthood of Aaron was an office, but so also was Melchizedek’s.  But the writer's thought appears to be this - the sons of Aaron received their office by descent, while on the other hand, Melchizedek had neither genealogy nor ancestors, therefore he could not have received his priesthood because of descent.  On what grounds then did he occupy his office?  Now the Genesis story is not lacking in indications of the greatness of Melchizedek.  Therefore we conclude that he occupies the office in virtue of his own personal dignity and greatness.  Since he does not occupy the office in view of legal descent or by hereditary right, then he must occupy it because of his own personal worth.  That he was much greater than Abraham is manifest and even Aaron in his ancestor pays tribute to him.

           

When did Christ become High Priest?

           

His Priesthood stands endowed with all the efficacy of Calvary's Sacrifice.  That work is the foundation and basis of all His priestly activities.  His Priesthood is based on His Offering and is exercised in the power and efficacy of that offering.  Whether Christ was actually a Priest at Calvary or had entered His office as our High Priest, may not be so clear, but in as much that His Blood and Sacrifice are the basis of His present priestly ministry, we cannot do other than to ascribe to that Offering a priestly character.

           

Sir Robert Anderson's view fails to show the intimate relationship between His Priesthood and Blood and Offering.  In Anderson’s thought His Priesthood and Offering are made too distant to one another.  But we must emphasize the intimate relationship between His Priesthood and His Sacrifice.

Several points in favour of His Priesthood commencing with His Ascension and sitting at God's right hand are:-

           

1.  Though the Epistle refers so often to His Offering and Blood, yet it never says in so many words that he was priest, He offered Himself.  It is never expressly said that in virtue of His Priesthood He offered Himself.  Though 9:11,12 would imply that He did.

           

2.  The Melchizedek order of Priesthood was untouched by death.  But it is probably never suggested by anyone that Christ entered into His office as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek prior to His Ascension.

           

3.  Our Lord became a Priest by Divine appointment, and at His Ascension was saluted as such.  This can only mean that He entered His priestly office when He sat down at the right hand of God.  Admittedly, this was as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.  But the crucial point is this, if Priesthood is an office to which one must be appointed, can we speak of a person as a priest in any sense until He is appointed?  And it is very clear that Christ did not become a Priest but by appointment, is expressly said to be to that of the order of Melchizedek.

           

4.  Was offering a prominent and primary function of priesthood in the Old Testament?  This point may be important for our subject.

           

Note - In reference to point three, the question is, would Christ be a Priest in any way whatsoever prior to His appointment?  There is this to be said, we are not told that He was called to the priesthood at His ascension.  He was installed in His office then, but He must surely have been called of God long before.  If this is so, may we not assume that all His sufferings and experience as Man were in view of His instalment as Priest, and they therefore have a priestly character?

           

If our Lord's Sacrifice was not a priestly act we might expect a contrast to be drawn by the writer: that Christ's Priesthood was greater than that of Aaron's, since they offered sacrifice, while He did not as Priest offer sacrifice.  On the contrary, there are verses that indicate that just as they offered sacrifice, so He also must have somewhat to offer.  In favour of the view that His Priesthood was an Office, He was installed in at His Ascension, we note:-

           

1.  The Epistle portrays a priest upon the throne.

           

2.  Nowhere in Hebrews, is it specifically stated that as Priest He offered Himself in sacrifice.

3.  The Melchizedek order is not touched by death, but in the power of an indissoluble life He holds office.

4.  No one becomes a priest except by the Divine call.  Our Lord did not become a Priest by His own appointment, but by Divine appointment.  At His Ascension, He was declared a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.  He was appointed to this office.  From this it might be argued that if He was a Priest at the Cross, it must have been of another order.  Now there is no mention of His appointment to any other order of priesthood.  Therefore it may be questioned that He could be a Priest of any kind at Calvary.  In favour of holding that His Sacrifice had a priestly character, note:-

           

1.  Various allusions to His possessing a mediatorial relation to men, in virtue of His Sonship, His Incarnation, His Divine Commission (the will of God).

           

2.  The method in which the writer develops his subject, - he first of all unfolds His Person, and then develops His Work.  The Person of the Priest is developed first, then follows the great truth of His Sacrifice.

           

3.  A narrow view of Christ's Priesthood seems incompatible with the purpose of the Epistle.  The writer perceives that Christianity is the final religion for Christ is the final Priest.

           

4.  The Epistle is saturated with the thought of Leviticus, where Priesthood and Sacrifice are central ideas, and vitally bound together.  In Hebrews it is an acknowledged function of the priest to offer for sins.

           

5.  His Sacrifice is the basis of all His priestly activities.  They are linked together in such a way, that we must regard His Sacrifice as having a priestly character.

           

2:7. "Crowned with glory and honour."  Do these words have reference to man's place in creation in God's purpose as depicted by the Psalmist?  Was Christ invested with a place of authority in creation, and given a special relation to nature in order that He might die for everything?  Man is ideally invested with certain rights and relations to nature (this is the message of the Psalm that the writer quotes). 

           

This ideal or divine purpose was not realised in man because of sin.  But Christ, the perfect man, was crowned with glory and honour.  In Him the divine purpose is realised or rather He was invested with these honours so that His death might have a special relation to all creation.   Peter says of His Transfiguration, - "He was crowned with glory and honour."  We remember also, that the Transfiguration had a special relation to His Decease.

            This Epistle has been called the riddle of the New Testament.  Who wrote it?  To whom was it written?  Where did the readers live?

            Who wrote it?   Most scholars who have made a special study of the Epistle say an Apollos-like person.  If not by Apollos, then his twin brother, i.e. figuratively.

           

Who were the readers?   Were they Gentiles as Moffatt thought, or a group of Christian teachers as E.F.Scott thought, or converted priests living near Antioch, as Spica thought, or were they Hebrew Christians (i.e. Jews speaking Aramaic) as the title implies, or were they Hellenists (i.e. Greek-speaking Jewish  Christians)?

           

Where did they live?    I believe they were Hellenists.  The bulk of learned opinion favours somewhere in Italy.  There is reason to think they were not a large company - that they had been Christians for a considerable time, but had made little progress in Christian truth. 

            2:9.   The Context:  God's purpose concerning man in creation.  But His purpose concerning Creation can only be effected by Redemption.  "We see all things." 

The Cross - the Christian Salvation is necessary to the accomplishment of God's purpose concerning Creation.

           

"The suffering of death" - He faced death in all its bitterness.  "For the joy that was set before Him" - a contrast.

           

"Grace of God." - The Christian sees the Cross on this level.  Peter charged Jews for the murder of the `Just One.'   But we are able to see the Cross on another level - the level of grace.  "Where sin abounded, Grace did much more abound."   Only when we see the Cross on this level, do we rise in worship, and our hearts and mouths are filled with praise. 

           

"The Grace of God." - His gracious will and rich bounty.

"Tasted." - The bitterness of death.  The sweetness of Grace.  It was the Grace of God, His gracious purpose that Jesus tasted death for every man.  But it is the exaltation of Jesus, crowned with glory and honour, that gives His death this ecumenical sweep.  His death, not merely a tragic event of history, for as the glorified Man, His tasting death becomes a soteriological act on behalf of all men.  It was because of the suffering of death that He was crowned with glory and honour, - and He was glorified and crowned that His death might have a significance for all men.

           

The man Jesus first suffered, and was glorified, that His submission to death might be seen in its true role as the path to universal sovereignty.

           

Propitiation.     2:17.  In virtue of His one offering for sin, He makes propitiation for His people's sins.  The verb is in the present tense.  The reference is to His present ministry as our Advocate.  It is interesting to note that John in his Epistle associates Advocacy with propitiation for our sins.  To make propitiation is the essential ministry of the priest.  Under Law, propitiation effected forgiveness and cleansing.  So the believer who falls is rescued, forgiven, cleansed and restored.  This is the priestly ministry of making propitiation for sins.

           

Propitiation is usually regarded as a work accomplished on the Cross, or by some Bible students as a work accomplished when He entered heaven.  On the other hand, there is evidence to show that it is the present activity of our High Priest in forgiving and cleansing.  Not even Romans 3:25 speaks of propitiation wrought, but the redemptive work of Christ is set forth as the present basis of propitiation.

           

Was His Sacrifice a priestly act?  Irrespective of whether He had entered on His Melchizedek order of priesthood or not, we must ascribe to His Sacrifice a sacredotal significance.  In favour of this view we submit the following reasons:-

           

a.  It may not be without significance that the writer first of all treats of the Person of the High Priest and then in subsequent chapters (8-10), he develops the doctrine of His offering and propitiatory work.  In the three chapters (8-10), devoted to the ministry of Christ our High Priest, His Sacrifice and Blood occupy the central place, and are manifestly the basis of all His priestly activities.

           

b.  The writer regards priesthood as an integral part of religion.  In Christianity the priesthood of Christ is the keystone upon which everything hangs.  Christianity is God's complete and final revelation and the perfect way of worship because of the manifestly superiority of our Lord's priesthood.

           

c.  The Levitical service and ritual were types of our Lord's ministry.  The central place in that system was occupied by the High Priest, while sacrifice, sin-offering and making propitiation for sins were primary functions of priesthood.  In `Hebrews' we move in the same circle of ideas.  Covenant, Sanctuary, Priesthood, Sacrifice, Propitiation, Sanctification, Cleansing and Worship.  These are keywords defining the circumference of its circle of thought.  In the Leviticus of the New Testament the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ occupy the central place and are inseparably linked together.

           

d.  This matter of the vital relationship between His Sacrifice and Priesthood requires it to be emphasized.  His offering is the basis of all His priestly activity.  His work on the Cross bears a foundational relationship to His ministry in heaven.  The offerings on the `Day of Atonement' were made with reference to an earthly sanctuary, whereas our Lord's offering concerned "a greater a more perfect tabernacle" - The Sanctuary in heaven.  There could be no place for His offering in the earthly system, but it is fundamental to His ministry in heaven.  Christianity reveals a sanctuary in heaven.  In this much greater tabernacle, Christ ministers and His priestly ministry stands endowed with all the efficacy of Calvary's Sacrifice. 

           

Irrespective of when Christ entered `officially' His Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, we cannot do other than to ascribe to His work on the Cross a priestly character - since it is central, fundamental and vital to His ministry in heaven.  I feel that the view which would exclude His offering from His priestly ministry is too narrow and restricted - a broader and more comprehensive doctrine of priesthood is required to meet the requirements of Hebrews, which ascribe to the Priesthood of Christ a place which is both comprehensive and central.

           

2:17-18.  His Humanity a necessary prelude and qualification for Priesthood.  It is as a merciful and faithful High Priest that He makes propitiation for the sins of His people. 

Observe:    Propitiation is the work of the priest and only a merciful and faithful High Priest can be depended upon to do it thoroughly.  The word propitiation (present tense) is continuous and a present work.  Propitiation has reference to sins, and is interpreted as succouring.  Or is the meaning this - the priest helps, but if we fall he forgives and restores?

           

3:1-2.  "God made (Gk) Him Apostle and High Priest."  Does the verse mean that because of His faithfulness God made Him Apostle and Priest, or does it mean that having been made an Apostle and Priest, He fulfilled that ministry faithfully, as did Moses?

           

4:14-16.  The writer emphasizes both the greatness and  the compassion of the Priest.  The two characteristics - greatness and compassion are combined in a wonderful degree.

           

5:1,3.  The writer evidently regards offering sacrifices for sins as a fundamental function of priesthood.

           

5:9.   The title, "Author," or "Cause," does not seem to point exclusively to a work He wrought, but describes what He is to those obeying Him, in virtue of a finished work.

           

5:10.  The word "named" (hailed), is very important.  Does it mean that He was made a Priest then?

           

6:20.  "Having become." R.V.  Sec.Aor.Participle.  He became a High Priest.  The word would seem to imply that He became a High Priest when He entered into the Holy Place.

           

7:15-16.  `Anistemi', - I raise up, set up. Verse 15 Pres. ind. mid.  In verse 16, `gegonen' (perfect tense), He has become (not been made) a High Priest according to the power of an endless life.  This may imply that His investment as Priest was in victorious resurrection life.

           

7:27-28.  Whether as Priest or not, He made the final offering for sin, it is certain from these verses that His Priesthood is based upon His offering.

           

8:3.  "The offering of gifts and sacrifices."  The primary reason for the appointment of the High Priest.  Christ must also have somewhat to offer.

           

8:4.  If He were on earth He would not be a Priest at all. - Does this mean:-

                  

a.  When He was born on earth He was not a priest in any sense, or,

b.  His Priesthood is in heaven and therefore greater, for if He were on earth His office would be superfluous, since there are already those who serve  in the earthly tabernacle.

c.  Or does it mean that His order is different to Aaron's, therefore He could have no         part in their priestly functions?

           

The point seems to be (see Dodd's) that on earth the priestly office was filled, and as there was no other priestly order on earth, it is manifest that Christ ministers in a heavenly order.  It must be in heaven that He ministers, for the earthly office is filled.

           

The Aaronic priests offer both gifts and sacrifices, Christ must also offer something.  What He offered is not expressly said.  The main point is not what, but where.  In other words, the writer is attempting to prove that Christ ministers in heaven.

           

Offering of some kind is a necessary part of Christ's Priesthood.  The reference may be to the Cross, (7:27; 9:11,12).  Mr Auld's words are fitting: "In the Old Testament sacrifices is based on priesthood, in the New Testament priesthood is based on sacrifice.