High Priest Archives - Reading Acts

T. Desmond Alexander, Face to Face with God: A Biblical Theology of Christ as Priest and Mediator

Alexander, T. Desmond. Face to Face with God: A Biblical Theology of Christ as Priest and Mediator. ESBT 6; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2022. 156 pp. Pb; $24. Link to IVP Academic

T. Desmond Alexander is senior lecturer in biblical studies and director of postgraduate studies at Union Theological College in Belfast. Has contributed the Apollos commentary on Exodus as well as numerous other works on biblical theology, including From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (fourth edition, Baker 2022) and Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (with Andreas Köstenberger; second edition 2020).

This new volume in the Essential Studies in Biblical Theology presents a biblical theology of Christ as Priest and Mediator. What does it mean to speak of Jesus as a priest? Alexander answers this question beginning in Genesis with Adam as a priest in Eden, but the primary text he uses is the book of Hebrews. Hebrews is an exhortation centering on the priesthood of Jesus Christ. How does this portrayal of Jesus as a priest and mediator contribute to a deeper understanding of our relationship with God?

The first three chapters of the book look back to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle as a model of the heavenly sanctuary, representing God’s holy presence on earth. Here he follows closely the work of John Walton, who argued the cosmos is God’s temple and Eden is an archetypical temple. Alexander thinks the evidence is strong, but he also acknowledges Daniel Block’s caution: sanctuaries resemble Eden rather than the other way around. After all, God never dwelt in the garden of Eden (27).

The Tabernacle is a model of the cosmos and a “portable Mount Sinai,” the place where Israel experienced God’s presence. The innermost part of the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, is the place “where God is.” This anticipates Israel’s experience in Jerusalem in the Temple. The closer one approaches the holy place, the closer one comes to God, therefore, high levels of holiness and consecration are required.

Only the high priest can enter the innermost part of the sanctuary, and then only after fully consecrating themselves. The next four chapters deal with the role of the high priest as an intercessor and mediator of the covenant. Alexander begins with Moses in the tent of meeting (Exodus 33), a story deliberately incorporated into the Golden Calf incident. This highlights the importance of intercession: Moses is the covenant mediator who enters God’s presence because Israel’s covenant relationship is in danger. The Aaronic high priest follows the same pattern. Aaron is a mediator in the book of Numbers, in contrast to the rebellion of the sons of Korah. The Aaronic high priests make daily intercessions in order to maintain Israel’s covenant relationship. The high priest sacrifices for the sins of the people who cannot themselves approach God.

To explain what a priest is, Hebrews looks back to Exodus and Leviticus and the nature of the sanctuary and the Aaronic priesthood. What happens at the tent of meeting? The high priest makes intercession for sinful humanity and reconciliation with God. Turning to Hebrews 7:27, Jesus Christ as priest makes a once for all sacrifice on behalf of the people for the sins of the people. Hebrews also compares Jesus to the mysterious Old Testament priest Melchizedek. “The introduction of Melchizedek enables the author of Hebrews to unite the priestly activity of Jesus with his royal status as the ‘son of David’ and the ‘anointed one/Christ/Messiah’” (106).

The final two chapters of the book deal with Christ as a mediator of a “better covenant.” Beginning with the discussion of the new covenant in Hebrews 8, Alexander describes the new covenant as a better covenant because it ensures the two parties will be reconciled (115). Just as Moses was the mediator of the old covenant (Galatians 3:19-20), Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. Alexander observes there are no priests in the Christian Church because the church itself is a community described as a royal priesthood. Adam served as a royal priest in the garden and failed; Israel served as a Kingdom of priests and failed. Jesus is the ultimate high priest because he succeeds by reconciling sinful humanity to God through his sacrifice.

Conclusion. Alexander does an excellent job describing the importance of the sanctuary and sacrifices in the Old Testament as well as the role of high priest as intercessor and covenant mediator. He examines these as “shadows of the reality in Christ” through the lens of Hebrews and focuses on that book’s description of Christ as priest, intercessor and mediator of a new covenant. In fact, this book could be considered an introduction to the theology of Hebrews.

Other reviewed commentaries in Essentials of Biblical Theology series:

NB: Thanks to IVP Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the wor

Hebrews 7:1-3 – Who Was Melchizedek?

In Hebrews 5:1-10 the writer of Hebrews discussed the high priesthood of Christ. Jesus is the superior High Priest because he was a human, like us, yet he was also God. Because of this unique combination, Jesus is able to be the perfect high priest forever, a priest that is not like the line of earthly priests descended from Aaron and the tribe of Levi, but a priest in the order of Melchizedek, the mysterious priest from Genesis 14. But because this was a difficult concept, the writer digresses into a warning to his readers not to be lazy in their spiritual development. They ought to be interested in the difficult “meat” of the Word of God.

11Q Melchizedek

In chapter 7, the writer of Hebrews argues Jesus is the Perfect High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek, who serves as a “type” of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus is the Perfect High Priest, he is able to meet our needs in a way that no human priest ever could.

Melchizedek is identified by the writer of Hebrews as both a priest and a king. While he is mentioned in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, there is a great deal of interest in him in the Second Temple period. Genesis 14 describes Abram’s rescue of Lot from the hands of invaders from the east. Lot was living in Sodom when it was captured by five kings from the east. Abram rallies a small army and pursues the invaders, and routs their army. While returning from the battle, Abram is met by Melchizedek, who greets him and blesses him. Genesis 14:18-20 describes Abram worshiping the most High God with Melchizedek and offering a tithe to God through this mysterious priest.

Psalm 110 also refers to Melchizedek. This psalm is perhaps the most cited messianic Psalm in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews used it in chapter 1 and it appears in Acts and Paul as well. What is important for our reading of Heb 7 is that the Psalm connects the davidic ruler to “the priesthood of Melchizedek.”

There were a number of interpretations of Melchizedek current in the first century, perhaps explaining why the author of Hebrews used this rather obscure character as an analogy for Jesus.

The Dead Sea scrolls make Melchizedek into a paradigm for the righteous remnant, awaiting the return of the Messiah. He functions very much like Michael in Daniel 12. He is a defender of Israel who will return to punish those who opposed the righteous remnant.
The Targum Jonathan argued that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. In the genealogies of Genesis, Shem would outlived Abraham by 35 years. The Jews sought to find a way to explain the great Abraham giving honor to Melchizedek, they did this by making him one of Abraham’s great ancestors.
The philosopher Philo described Melchizedek as the “divine logos,” not God but God’s representative in this world

The reason for all this speculation is that there is not much said in Gen 14 about who Melchizedek. That he worships the God Most High and was the king of Salem (presumably Jerusalem) is remarkable indeed. Perhaps the motivation is that Melchizedek was the king of Jerusalem in the age prior to the Davidic Kingdom. Since David captured Jerusalem as his capitol, he became a king in the line of Melchizedek. As the son of David, Jesus is both a king (in the line of David) and a priest (in the line of Melchizedek).

Hebrews 5:1-10 – The Great High Priesthood

In my last post on Hebrews I looked at Hebrews 4 as a part of the author’s argument that Jesus is superior to Moses and the priesthood of the Hebrew Bible. This is the theme which will continue through chapter 10. In fact the book of Hebrews is interested in Jesus as a priest more than any other book in the New Testament. Jesus is called a priest and high priest only in this letter. Since the argument of the next few chapters is based on the idea that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, it is critically important to understand what these offices meant in the first century.

Two words of caution here. First, the high priesthood of Jesus is based on the ideal forms found in the Bible, not in the high priesthood as it actually functioned in the first century. By way of analogy, we could study the office of president of the United States as it is described in the constitution, or by the way various presidents have functioned as president over the more than two centuries. James Buchanan, for example, usually is ranked at the bottom of the list of presidents by historians, mostly for his handling of the issues which erupted into the Civil War.

We would not, therefore, want to describe the office of president using Buchanan as our example! In the same way, the high priests who held office in the first century were politically motivated and not particularly good examples of the way a priest ought to behave in his office. What is remarkable is that the book of Hebrews does not condemn the current High Priest as corrupt, nor does he say anything negative about the worship of the Temple other than it has been completed in Jesus.

Secondly, the word “priest” has connotations in English which are not present in the function of a Jewish priest. We are not describing a Catholic or Orthodox priest, but rather the Jewish priest. This modern sense of the word is not particularly helpful in understanding the priesthood in the Hebrew Bible. The priest in the Jewish Temple was the mediator between God and man. As such, the office of priest foreshadowed the ministry of Jesus who was provides access to the throne of God for those who have entered into new life through him.

The original intention of a priest in the Hebrew Bible was to be an intermediary between God and Man. The High Priest chosen to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. He represented the nation and did his duty on that Day on behalf of the nation. If the High Priest performed his function right, then the sin of the nation was covered. Since he was a fallible human, there was always the possibility that the atonement was imperfect.

Not so with Jesus as the ultimate High Priest. He is the perfect intermediary between God and man because (Hebrews argues) he was true human – untainted by sin. Therefore he preformed his duties in the real sanctuary properly, providing real atonement to the whole world, once and for all!

Hebrews 4:14-16 – Jesus as High Priest

The book of Hebrews emphasizes the priesthood of Jesus more than any other book in the New Testament. In fact, much of the argument of Hebrews 5-10 is based on Jesus as the High Priest. Two words of caution before discussing Jesus as a High Priest.

First, the “high priesthood of Jesus” is based on the ideal form of priest found in the Hebrew Bible, not in the high priesthood as it actually functioned in the first century. By the first century, the High Priest more a political figure that a religious leader. Control of the temple and the priesthood gave the office a great deal of power, and this power usually led to great wealth. It is unlikely, however, that the writer of Hebrews has this sort of power in mind. He consistently looks to the idea image (“the shadow”) from the Hebrew Bible in order to describe the “substance” of Jesus.

By way of analogy, we could study the office of president of the United States as it is described in the constitution, or by the way various presidents have functioned as president over the more than two centuries. James Buchanan, for example, usually is ranked at the bottom of the list of presidents by historians, mostly for his handling of the issues which erupted into the Civil War. We would not, therefore, want to describe the office of president using Buchanan as our example!

In the same way, the high priests who held office in the first century were politically motivated and not particularly good examples of the way a priest ought to behave in his office. What is remarkable is that the book of Hebrews does not condemn the current High Priest as corrupt, nor does he say anything negative about the worship of the Temple other than it has been completed in Jesus.

Second, the word “priest” has connotations in English which are not present in the function of a Jewish priest. We are not describing a Catholic or Orthodox priest, but rather the Jewish priest. This modern sense of the word is not particularly helpful in understanding the priesthood in the Hebrew Bible. The priest in the Jewish Temple was the mediator between God and man. As such, the office of priest foreshadowed the ministry of Jesus who was provides access to the throne of God for those who have entered into new life through him.

But Jesus is not just the High Priest, but the “great High Priest.” This was a title give to the High Priest Simon in 1 Maccabees (13:42, 14:27). This Simon was one of the founders of the Hasmonean dynasty and the first to take the title of both King and Great High Priest. His first year in power was “the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel” (c. 142 B.C., 1 Macc 13:41). This combination of priest and king was an attempt to consolidate power into the one “office” in Maccabean revival of the kingdom in Judah.

How does the author of Hebrews distinguish Jesus as a high priest from the politically powerful priests of the first century?

Hebrews 7 – Melchizedek and Typology

In Hebrews 7, a character from the Hebrew Bible is used by the writer as a way to talk about Jesus in the present age. This method of interpretation is sometimes called “typology.” As Karen Jobes states in Letters to the Church, this method attempts to understand earlier persons, events, and institutions drawn from the Hebrew Bible as anticipations of later persons, events, and institutions (48). Some events in the Old Testament are described in the New Testament as having anticipated the events of the New Testament. For example, the Passover Lamb is clearly an anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ, the lamb of the Passover can be called a “type” of Christ. In the case of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, the priest-king of Salem is described as a “type” of Christ.

What is “typological” in Melchizedek’s story, and what is not? Two elements are highlighted by the writer of Hebrews – his name and his lack of genealogy. Not everything in Gen 14 is significant for the writer of Hebrews. Noticeably absent from this “typology” is Melchizedek bringing food and wine to Abram. Some in the early church took this as Communion and taught that Abram celebrated the communion with Melchizedek. The food and wine were simply part of the sacrifice and the blessing that followed and not a foreshadowing of the Eucharist.

The first point drawn from the Genesis story is the name Melchizedek, “King of Righteousness” and his title, “King of Salem,” meaning “King of Peace.” The name can mean “King of righteousness,” or “my king is righteous.” Either way the emphasis is on righteousness. The city of Salem may be the city of Jerusalem, which probably means “foundation of peace.” The combination of righteousness and peace is the element of the story that is significant to our writer, Jesus is the combination of righteousness and peace, and is able to bring both to the world in his death.

It was expected that the Messiah would be both a righteous ruler and a bringer of peace (Isa 9:6, Isa 32:17, Jer 23:5-6, 33:15) Thus Melchizedek is a fit analogy for Jesus because Melchizedek combines both the king and priest into one person, and is called both the Righteous King and the Peaceful King, as is Jesus as the Messiah.

The second element drawn from Gen 14 is the fact that Melchizedek has no genealogy. The Genesis story introduces Melchizedek without any hint as to who he is, as it we are supposed to know who he is. That there is no genealogy may be simply because there is no reason in the flow of Gen 14 to give the genealogy of Melchizedek. There are quite a few characters who are introduced without genealogy, but since Melchizedek is a priest it is more significant. The Law is quite clear that a priest must be from the tribe of Levi, later Ezra was quite careful to ensure that all of the priests who were serving could prove their genealogy.

The significance for the writer of Hebrews is not that his genealogy is not mentioned at all. Reading this from the perspective of first century Hellenism, this would be understood as a claim of divinity. The gods are sometimes described as “without mother or father.” The idea that the Messiah would be “without descendants” or ancestors may have been suggested by Isaiah 53:8a “By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants?” Because of this fact he is a worthy analogy of Christ, a priest from an order other than Aaron’s Levitical priesthood. Jesus was a priest, but not in the line of Aaron, he was from this independent line of priests, like Melchizedek.

The danger of a “type” is in taking the analogy too far and creating an allegory out of the original text. Types are analogies, and as such they have some parallels, but the analogy breaks down if you press it too far. The early church loved typological interpretation, pressing details for hard that they were allegorizing every minor element of an Old Testament story into a spiritual meaning for the New Testament era. In an effort to get behind the text and find the hidden meaning, the obvious meaning of the text was lost. There is no basis for most of the interpretations, for example, any four colors represent the four gospels, etc.

I find it troublesome to interpret stories from the Hebrew Bible as “types” today because I am not a prophet (nor the son of a prophet). Part of the problem is my Western “fear of allegory” as an interpretive method. Frankly, the writer of Hebrews would not score very high on a paper for my class using this sort of typological method. And that raises a question – what do we make of his argument about Jesus based on Melchizedek? His method was sound in the first century, but it is not really going to convince a modern skeptic.

Is there any way to use Hebrews 7 as a “guide” for interpreting scripture in a modern context?