Delio Ruiz, scj
Beyond the many questions concerning this Letter, one thing presents itself very clearly: the Letter to the Hebrews is characterized by a specific Christology which, in the context of the New Testament, stands out strongly for its consistency and originality1.
In Hebrews the Christology is connected above all with the titles, which express and synthesize it clearly. We shall dwell on two of them: “Son of God” (hyiós tou Theoû) and “(high) priest” (arch-iereus), which are not only the most frequent (they appear 13 and 17 times respectively), but which are presented so closely related to each other that it is not possible to study one without the other2. Here we find concentrated all the Christology of the Letter, and consequently we find the fundamental lines of our theme: priestly solidarity.
a) Jesus, Son of God
1. Jesus is Son and Becomes Son
The way of presenting the filiation of Jesus in the Letter to the Hebrews invites readers to reflection, in order to make comprehensible the surprising affirmation: Jesus is the Son of God and, at the same time, “He became the Son of God”. A series of texts speak of the perennial dimension of the filiation of Jesus as His ontological characteristic (1:2: “he spoke to us through a son”). In opposition to the temporal dimension of the prophets, the divine filiation defines Jesus from the roots. In two passages - 5:8 (Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered”) and 7:28 (“The son was made perfect forever”) - the qualification of the Son is associated with the idea of a perfection already acquired3.
Another series of texts, instead, insists on the filiation acquired by Jesus. The fundamental text is 1:5, in which the title is repeated twice. The acquired inheritance consists of a new dimension of this filiation: the royal enthronement (Cf. Heb 1:3). In 3:5,6, while Moses is defined as “servant”, Jesus is defined as “Son”.
2. “He was made perfect”
The meeting point, historical and ideal, between the condition of Son and that of Priest, is constituted by the fact of the “perfecting” (teleíosis) of Jesus. Although it may seem unusual, in this concept, Hebrews is an absolutely typical and central writing4. Certainly the semantics of the text is varied5. However, the characteristic fact of the use of the verb “to perfect” (teleióo) in Hebrews, consists in the fact that no other part of the New Testament uses this verb with Jesus as the direct object (Cf. Heb 2:10) or as a passive subject (Cf. 5:9; 7:28)6.
“For it was fitting that he, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the leader to their salvation perfect (teleiôsai) through suffering” (Heb 2:10).
“Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect (teleiôtheís), he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:8-10).
“He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect (teteleiôménon) forever” (Heb 7:27,28).
It should be noted first of all that within the process of perfecting it is always God in person who puts events into action, as is revealed by the form of the verb employed (active in the first case, passive in the other two). In the second place, we can observe that the subject “perfected” is indicated constantly as Son (implicitly: Cf. 2:10,13,14; explicitly: 5:9; 7:28): it is as such that He later becomes also Priest. The third observation is associated with the theme of suffering, present at every moment; in fact, there is no perfecting if it is not through an experience of pain (Cf. 2:10; 5:8; 7:27). And lastly, we note the theme of “salvation” as the effect of that experience: “leader to their salvation” (2:10), “source of eternal salvation” (5:9). “Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them” (7:25).
2.1 In Full Solidarity with Men (Cf. Heb 2:10)
Already, simply as a man, Jesus shared the common condition of human weakness. It is enough to quote the comparison of Jesus with the angels (Cf. 1:5-2,18), in which the identity of the Son is exalted. The most interesting is the original Christological interpretation of Psalm 8 (Cf. Heb 2:5-9)7, with the hermeneutic key of Psalm 110. None of the angels has shown such solidarity with men nor has suffered death for them as Jesus did (Cf. 2:10-16). This solidarity is expressed repeatedly and in varied forms with a rich vocabulary: “all have one origin” (2:11 - ex henos pántes), that is to say, both Jesus and men are joined together in the same origin; “Therefore, he is not ashamed to call them ‘brothers’“ (adelphoí: 2:11; Cf. 2:12,17; Rom 8:29; Jn 20:17); “the children share in blood and flesh” (kekoinoneken: 2:14; the general affirmation prepares for the following); “he likewise shared in them” (paraplesíos metéschen: 2:14); the aorist tense expresses the precise historical action of the incarnation); “he had to become like his brothers in every way” (kartà panta homoithenai: 2:17; Cf. 4:15); “he himself was tested” (péponthen autòs peiratheís: 2:18; Cf. 4:15,16).
In this context the perfecting of Jesus passes unavoidably through the full sharing of human weakness. Let us add that the complement “through what he (diá) suffered” must be read in the sense that suffering is considered in itself as the means of transformation; therefore, perfection does not follow the avoidance of suffering nor its negation.
2.2 The Crucial Experience of the Passion and Death (Cf. Heb 5:5-8)
The second presentation of the idea of becoming perfect (announced in 5:9) is prepared in Heb 5:5-8, with the theme of the Passion and the death of Jesus8. This experience is understood not only as the culminating moment of solidarity with men, but also, and above all, as the decisive moment of obedience to God9.
Let us note the main elements of the text. The central theme is the total humility of Christ, which is manifested at various moments. a) Above all, He does not declare himself priest but is declared such by God (as Jewish High Priest: Cf. 5:1-6). b) Jesus faces the painful weight of suffering in His Passion: the expression “offering prayers and supplications... with loud cries and tears” certainly refers to the moment of the agony in Gethsemane and to Calvary (Cf. Mt 26:38-46)10. It can be said that the offering of Christ is His own frailty. In this way one passes from ritual and exterior sacrifices to a personal and existential sacrifice. c) With this He demonstrates His own trustful “submission” (eulábeia: 5:7, literally “profound respect” Cf. 12:28) to the divine will11. d) He learns in the same way that every mortal, through sufferings, learns obedience (5:8), that is to say, He learns to trust and abandon Himself totally in God with one decision: “Behold, I come to do your will, O God” (10:7)12.
“He was heard” (eisakoustheís: 5:17)13 does not so much mean He has received more strength in order to drink of the cup (Cf. Mt 26:39,42) of suffering, nor to make the subsequent exaltation after death, but much more signifies victory over death by means of death itself - insofar as this means reducing the Prince of Death to impotence and accomplishing the liberation of humanity (Cf. 2:14,15). The result of this experience of suffering is the “perfecting” of Jesus (5:9). The description in 5:1-4, in conformity with ancient usage, does not contain the slightest indication of a change in the person of the high priest. The application to Christ, on the contrary, proclaims that He “achieved perfection” and crowns this affirmation by indicating with realism how this transformation was achieved (not ritual but real)14.
2.3 The Moral Integrity of Jesus and the Uniqueness of His Offering (Cf. Heb 7:26-28)
The last requirements stated by the author (7:26,27) as being necessary for His “perfecting” (7:28) are these: the moral integrity of Jesus and the uniqueness of His offering. After having openly declared the abrogation of the Levite priesthood (Cf. 7:18), the author enumerates a series of positive characteristics which, instead, make Christ suitable for the priestly function (7:26): on the one hand He is “holy”, “innocent”, “undefiled”, “separated from sinners”, that is to say, He responds fully to the biblical requisite of Levite purity (Cf. Lv 21:1-22), and, on the other hand, He is “higher than the heavens” and therefore can intercede for us (Cf. 7:25). In addition it is said for the first time that “he did that once for all” (ephápax heautòn anenégkas: 7:27), thus introducing the theme of the following section of the Epistle (8:1-9,28) which effectively deals with the perfection of Jesus the Priest. Significantly, in 7:28 one finds a contrast between the “high priests” and “a son”. This suggests that, paradoxically, those who obtain priesthood are subject to weakness and therefore to inefficacy, while in principle He was not a priest who “was made perfect” on the basis of His filiation15.
2.4 Conclusion
1. Of what does the perfection obtained by the Son consist? Let us take into consideration three different interpretations: a) A response which we will call final perfection: the word “perfection” may express only achieving an end16, however it does not explain the accent given to the theme of suffering in 2:10 and 5:8, according to which the being made perfect does not come after but is a consequence of suffering, with which it is intimately related. b) Moral perfection: according to some, Jesus brought to maturity a moral perfection in so far as He reached the maximum paradigm of perfect virtue17. In effect, starting from certain texts, it would appear that the experience of suffering raised Jesus to a higher moral level (Cf. 2:10; 4:15; 5:9); all the same the affirmations to be found in 4:15 and 7:26 admit no doubts to the fact that He is “undefiled”, “separated from sinners”: nevertheless one cannot think that previously He was imperfect and that it was only in a second moment that He reached the perfection of full sanctity. c) Priestly perfection: the perfecting of Christ consists simply of His having been constituted priest18. This is comprehensible if we bear in mind two distinct and complimentary aspects. In the first place, we observe that since the beginning there exists a cultural-ritual dimension of the concept. In effect, in the Old Testament, the consecration of priests is described with the literal expression “to perfect (= to fill) his hands”19, and the sacrifice of investiture is expressed literally as “perfecting”20. In the second place, one must take into account the fact that this ritual concept has been completely re-elaborated by the author of the Letter in a double sense: existential and relational. On the one hand, the “perfecting” of Christ is not accomplished through a ritual ceremony but through the painful offering of Himself through suffering and death. On the other hand, He has become perfect also through His adhesion before God, by means of extreme submission to His will, as also through a total solidarity with men (Cf. 2:9-18; 8:1), an aspect unknown in the ritual of Leviticus21.
2. If the offering of Jesus on the cross made Him “perfect”, that is to say, constituted Him priest, then another question is raised: What is the relationship between the exercise of His priesthood and the moment of His being made “perfect”? The exercise of this priesthood, is it only a consequence of being made perfect or is it part of the same? One might, then, think that the teleíôsis acquired in suffering is only a premise for the exercise of the priesthood which is carried out totally and only in heaven, in the celestial sanctuary (Cf. Heb 8:1,2; 9:11,12,24). This would mean that the death of Jesus on the cross had not been a true priestly act, but only a preset condition.
Two kinds of solutions can be given to this problem. a) The first consists of considering the shedding of blood as purely a function of the offering within the sanctuary, so it can be concluded that the sacrifice on the cross was intrinsically “a celestial act”, in the order, naturally, of the priestly ministry carried out later within the sanctuary of heaven. In this way, returning to the ritual act of Yom Kippur, the result would be that the second moment (the most important one) absorbs in itself the first, making it so that both the cross and the entry into the Holy of Holies of heaven become part of the same priestly action22. b) Another explanation, less convincing, refers to the underlying theme of Yom Kippur, but from a very different point of view. According to Hebrews there exists, then, a clear difference between the Jewish holy day and the death of Jesus. While the immolation of the male goat was only a preparation for the true act of expiation, which consisted in the subsequent sprinkling of the blood performed in the Holy of Holies, here, instead, expiation, in the true sense, occurs at the very moment of the shedding of the blood of Jesus. This is revealed by the explicit link between redemption and death in the following passages: 9:15 (“since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions” and 10:10 (“we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ”). Therefore it does not appear convenient to refer the infinitive hiláskesthai, present in 2:17, only to an actual and continuous expiatory activity of Jesus23. It is in conjunction with His sacrifice that the blood of Christ is more eloquent than the blood of Abel (Cf. 12:24), above all more than the blood of goats and bulls (Cf. 9:12,14) and becomes the blood of the new covenant (Cf. 8:1 to 9:28).
In Heb 5:7 the sacrificial context, the use of the verb prosphéro and the idea of prayer as sacrifice, lead to the thought that the deliverance of Himself unto death was already a priestly oblation24. Also, the recurring theme of ephápax (“once and for all”) is placed in a double line: on the one hand, it is certain that it appears connected only with the subsequent offering (Cf. 9:12), on the other hand, in most cases it is related to the sacrifice (Cf. 7:27; 9:26,28; 10:10). There exists then a dialectic between the two moments.
One can gather that all the primitive Christian tradition connects the concepts of redemption-pardon-remission-ransom solely with the death and therefore with the shedding of the blood of Jesus (Cf. Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 7:23; 15:3; 1 Pt 1:18,19, etc.), and never with His future heavenly ministry (which nevertheless exists and is important: Cf: Rom 8:34; 1 Jn 2:1 ff: here “expiation”). Then one can say, as conclusion, that the real and true redemptive value is linked also with the shedding of blood on the cross.
Consequently, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, the perfecting of Jesus envelopes the suffering of death in His priestly nature.
b) Jesus, High Priest, Worthy of Faith and Merciful
This title, in Hebrews, is present in its two forms: simple and compound. The first comes from Psalm 110:4 and is found, in fact, only in those passages which refer to that Psalm, repeating it; the second form, instead, appears in passages which explain the sense of the Psalm, applying it to Jesus. There are no differences between these two forms.
For our theme of priestly solidarity we are not going to go into the problematics of the priesthood, either from the historical-religious environmental point of view, or from the traditional structure of the theme within the Old Testament and the New Testament25. Let us remember simply that in the New Testament the Christological title is exclusive to Hebrews26. Nevertheless, important Christological elements regarding the priesthood are to be found in the New Testament, in Hebrews and elsewhere27. In conclusion the priestly Christology of Hebrews may have antecedents not only in Judaism but also in the Christian tradition; nevertheless, it is clear that it was never developed in the form which was used by the author of Hebrews, neither in its extension nor in its depth.
Taking into account the structure of the letter28, in the conclusion of the first part (2:17,18) the theme of the second part is introduced. Jesus is high priest “merciful and faithful” (eleemon kaì pistós). The new section, 3:1-5,10, develops the theme, inverting the two qualifications, “faithful” (3:1,6), He from whom we “receive mercy” (4:15 to 5:10), inserting a long parenthetical exhortation (Cf. 3:7 to 4:14). The entire section, 3:1 to 5:10, serves as a general preparation to what will be said more specifically on the priesthood of Christ in Chapter 7.
These two qualities are the fundamental qualities with which He must act as mediator between God and men. They are not two separate virtues, as courage and temperance might be, but are in relation to the whole person, expressing His capacity of relationship. That is why they can define the priest, because the function of the priest consists of establishing good relationships between the people and God. The function of mediator, however, requires a double capacity of relationship: the relationship with God and the relationship with man29.
Above all, eleemon expresses the capacity of relating to men. The beginning of the sentence of 2:17 already demonstrates this, saying that Christ “had to become like his brothers in every way, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest”. This is about His relationship with His brothers. Subsequently, verse 18 explains the idea clearly: “Because he himself was tested through what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested”. Priestly mercy is presented as fraternal compassion, founded on the experience of the same difficulties and tribulations. Having suffered, Christ has become capable of suffering with.
The same perspective is found again at the beginning of the corresponding section, that is to say in 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin. So let us confidently approach...to receive mercy”. To exercise the priestly ministry it is necessary to deeply understand the needs of mankind, to share their weaknesses and feel the need to help them; in a word, it is necessary to be merciful.
Nevertheless, mercy is not enough. It is also necessary to have the capacity of intervening with God in favor of mankind. Without this, mediation would be sterile. The function of the priest does not consist only of sympathizing, but also of becoming the remedy to the situation of sinners, obtaining for them the pardon of God and putting an end to tribulations. For this positive function a further capacity of relationship is needed, one which refers to God. The priest must be “a merciful and faithful high priest before God” (2:17 - pistos ta pros ton Theon)30. In other words, the priest must be “accredited to God”. That is the position which the glorified Christ occupies (Cf. Acts 17:31).
The qualification pistos covers two aspects which correspond to the two directions of mediation: of mankind towards God and of God towards mankind. The first aspect is the fundamental one, it is associated with access to God. Christ is pistos ta pros ton Theon since He is accepted by God, He is pleasing to God. Even more, He is always united to God and therefore is always capable of interceding for us (Cf. Heb 7:25).
The other aspect of Christ pistos is associated with His authority over us. Christ is not only capable of speaking to God in our favor, but also to us in the name of God. He is worthy of faith in the sense that His word has divine authority. Christ is worthy of faith since He is the Son of God. God gave Him all authority in heaven and on the earth, and has made Him the only path to salvation.
What defines the priest is the union of these two qualities: faithful and merciful, an intimate relationship with God in glory and authentic participation in human solidarity. In the Letter the arguments are not placed where they are by chance, but are desired by the author, in the part referring to the concept of the priest (second part of the Letter: Heb 3:1-5,10)31. It is easy to see that the first aspect, pistos, corresponds to the glorification of Christ, and the second aspect, eleemon, corresponds to His Passion. We can observe the parallelism between the two sections of the second part and the two paragraphs of the first: the first section corresponds to the first paragraph; the second section corresponds to the second paragraph. That is to say, pistos, first section, corresponds to the glorious position of Christ united to God, described in 1:5-14; eleemon, second section, corresponds to the solidarity of Christ with us, described in 2:5-18. We can observe that only the second section speaks of the Passion of Christ, as does the second paragraph. The first section and the first paragraph say nothing of the Passion. The union of the two aspects is assured in Christ by the fact that His mystery, Passion and glorification form an indissoluble unity. The glorification of Christ is the fruit of His Passion. Christ reached His glory through His fraternal solidarity manifested until death. Therefore, His glory cannot be confused with the proud triumph of an ambition which has been fulfilled; it is the glory of perfect generosity. This divine glory has, as a consequence, an intimate link with mercy and gives Christ the most efficient means to exercise it.
c) Conclusion: The Dynamics of Solidarity in the New Covenant
The experience which the Christian attains in his adhesion to Christ-Priest is the experience of the “new covenant”. From this point of view the quotation from Jer 31:31-34 (LXX 38:31-34), in Heb 8:8-12, occupies a central place in the Letter not only for its material position but also for its decisive Christological-Soteriological interest. The same quotation from Jeremiah, partially repeated in 10:15-17, does not have only a negative function in that it criticizes the ancient covenant, but also, and above all, it has the positive role of underlining the qualitative difference between the two: the new, in effect, is interior and written, not in tablets of stone but in the heart of man, and pardons sinners truly and definitively.
At the center of this newness (as we have seen) is to be found Jesus, Son of God and High Priest. His objective sacrifice and its influence on believers make access to God, and therefore communion with Him, possible forever. If one wishes to express a short formula regarding the newness of Christ’s priesthood, one can say it is the priesthood of the new covenant. In effect, at the Last Supper, Jesus takes the cup and says: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you” (Lk 22:20; Cf. 1 Cor 11:25). Christ is the new priest because he is the “mediator of a new covenant” (Heb 9:15)32.
The priestly oblation of Christ presupposes another newness: in it the surprising union between the meekness of God and His solidarity with sinners has been achieved, and this union started a new dynamic of covenant. In the Old Testament there is no possibility of uniting the two orientations: to stay with God it appeared necessary to fight against the enemies of God. Because of this, after the idolatry of the golden calf, the Levites broke away from their brethren and reached the point of exterminating them in order to obtain the priesthood (Cf. Ex 32:26-29). Jesus, on the other hand, obtained His priesthood in the opposite way: by means of total solidarity with sinners. The light which emanates from the Passion leads the author of the Letter to the Hebrews to disregard the aspects of priesthood which were formerly in the forefront (Cf. 5:1 ff) and to emphasize, on the contrary, other aspects which existed but had previously tended to be ignored. In a single event Christ reached the depths of His priestly solidarity with men, lowered Himself to the depths of their poverty and, on the other hand, opened the doors of this poverty, thanks to His supplicant prayer and His painful allegiance, to the transforming action of God, who could consequently create in Him the new man, perfectly united to the Father and available to His brethren. In Christ, transformed in this way, the mediation between the lowest level of human misery and the heights, before then unreachable, of divine sanctity, was brought to fulfillment. Christ, the one who “offered...and he was heard”, the one who “learned obedience from what he suffered” converted His very being into the most complete mediator. The divine proclamation can be applied to Him in fullness: He is priest forever.
His filial meekness, far from being an obstacle to this solidarity (Cf. Lk 19:10), impelled Him to carry on to the very end. Instead of being mutually exclusive, the two dispositions of spirit reinforce each other mutually. To correspond fully to the love of the Father, Jesus gave His life for His sinful brethren (Cf. Phil 2:8). Thus, in the priestly oblation of Christ, are soldered the two dimensions of love - to God and to one’s neighbor - to which correspond the two dimensions - vertical and horizontal - of the cross. This indissoluble union set in motion a powerful dynamic of reconciliation and communion: the dynamic of the new covenant, which is communicated to us in the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Communion33 and source of solidarity.
1 N. CASALINI, Ebrei, Discorso di Esortazione (Hebrews, a Discourse of Exhortation), Jerusalem 1992; W. L. LANE, Hebrews, (WBC), Dallas 1991; A. VANHOYE, Struttura e Teologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei (Structure and Theology in the Epistle to the Hebrews), P.I.B., Rome 1996; and Sacerdotes antiguos y sacerdote nuevo según el Nuevo Testamento (Ancient Priests and New Priests According to the New Testament), Sígueme, Salamanca 1984 (orig. Paris 1980); and La Cristología sacerdotal de la carta a los Hebreos (The Priestly Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews), CEA, Buenos Aires 1997.
2 In some decisive passages the two titles are found not only together, but also tightly linked. This happens from the beginning of the Letter; in the introduction (1:1-4) and in the first part (1:5-2:18). The Christological titles appear respectively 13 and 17 times: “Son of (God)”: 1:2,5,8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6; 7:3,28; 10:29; to which must be added the title of “first born”, prototókos, in 1:6. “(High) priest”: 2:17; 3:1; 4:14,15; 5:5,6,10; 6:28; 7:11,15,17,21,26; 8:1,4; 9:11; 10:21 (seven other times the title has no Christological value).
3 On these lines two analogous texts can be found: Heb 6:6 and 10:29.
4 D. PETERSON, Hebrews and Perfection. An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews”, SNTS MS 47, University Press, Cambridge 1982; A. VANHOYE, “La ‘teleíosis’ du Christ: Point capital de la christologie sacerdotale d’Hébreux” (The ‘teleíosis’ of Christ: Essential Point of the Priestly Christology of Hebrews), NTS 42 (1996) 321-338.
5 H. HÜBNER, “Teleióo”, DENT, 1714-1716.
6 The only exception is to be found in Lk 13:32.(the meaning, inserted in a chronological scheme, is not relative to the personal dimension of Jesus, as it is in Hebrews, but to something external to Him: that which goes towards perfection is the work of Jesus).
7 Here, with the quotation from Psalm 8, generic humanity is affirmed in an implicit form; whereas the subsequent verses insist on the total sharing of the human condition.
8 The author of the Letter takes a step forward with regard to the preceding situation.
9 Cf. A. VANHOYE, Sacerdotes antiguos y sacerdote nuevo según el Neuvo Testamento, 152-153.
10 The verb “to offer” (prosenégkas: v. 7) has as its object “prayers and supplications”, in contrast with the offering (prosphére: v. 1) of “gifts and sacrifices” of the Levitic priests. The offering of Christ is not a ritual, it brings to life a new concept of sacrifice: He “offered himself” (Heb 9:14).
11 For the meaning of the term Cf. C. ZESATI ESTRADA, Hebreos 5:7-8. Estudio histórico-exegético (Hebrews 5:7-8. A Historical-Exegtic Study) AnB 113, PIB, Roma 1990, 171-241.
12 The phrase of 5:8 indicates, in addition, that the transformation obtained does not concern solely the exterior situation, as happens in the case when a threatened man suddenly sees himself free of all danger; it also, and above all, refers to a personal transformation of the person who offers through suffering, which educates. What we meet here is a completely radical innovation with respect to the ancient priesthood.
13 The decisive element of a true sacrifice is its acceptance on the part of God, since, if the offer is not accepted by Him, then it is not sanctified either - it is God who sanctifies - and, therefore, the sacrifice has not been fully accomplished. Only the offering of Christ, who “offered...and...was heard”, constituted a sacrifice in the full sense of the word. This fulfillment is owed to the prayer of Christ, which opened up human misery to the sanctifying action of God (Cf. 10:11 ff; on the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice). Cf. VANHOYE, Sacerdotes antiguos y sacerdote nuevo según el Nuevo Testamento, 47.
14 A true priestly consecration should consist of a profound transformation of the priest to be, which makes him truly perfect, in order to be worthy of entering into a relationship with God. Without a radical transformation of his being, sinful man encounters the impossibility of drawing close to All Holy God, and consequently of exercising his priesthood. A téléiosis is indispensable for him. Leviticus is completely right in establishing the obligation to accomplish this. However, the foreseen ritual does not respond to the demands of the situation (Cf. Lv 8:22-28). Similar exterior rights symbolize a transformation, but without empowering anyone to fully accomplish it. Everything takes place in the superficial environment of “the flesh”, “without any efficacy or utility”, at the level of the ancient law: “the Law” observes the author, “brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19); therefore it was incapable of affecting a true priestly consecration. That is why it was necessary that a different priest be “raised”, a priest constituted as such by means of an authentic téléiosis. The transformation to which Christ submitted Himself did not take place in Him as the Son of God, but as a man of flesh and blood. The author indicates this in the text 5:7-9, which speaks of this vocation. Cf. A VANHOYE, Sacerdotes antiguos y sacerdote nuevo según el Nuevo Testamento, 178-179.
15 The rhetorical function of the participle “made perfect” (teteleioménon), which emphatically closes 7:28, is brought to light by A. VANHOYE in La ‘teleíôsis’ du Christ (The ‘Teleíôsis’ of Christ), 223 ff.
16 The Jerusalem Bible, in its note to 5:9 explains: “in His office as Priest and Victim”.
17 Cf. CULLMANN, Christologie (Christology), 82-86.
18 Today this is the most widespread interpretation, although with different nuances. Cf. D. PETERSON, Hebrews and Perfection: A. VANHOYE, La ‘teleíosis’ du Christ.
19 LXX: teleioûn tàs cheîras; TM millê’yad; Cf. Ex 29:9; 29:33,35; and Lv 4:5; they speak of “the anointed priest (that is to say he whose hands have been filled: ho iereùs ho christòs ho tetleiôménos tàs cheîras)”, etc.
20 LXX: teleíôsis; TM: millu’îm; Cf. Ex 29:22,27,31, etc.
21 The concept of solidarity merits further observations: a) First, it is associated with the Jewish priesthood. While the Old Testament insists on the separation and distinction of the High Priest with regard to the people (Cf. Ex 28 and 29; Lv 8 and 10; the plate of gold placed on the turban of Aaron bore the inscription Qodeö le YHWH, “Sacred to the LORD” (Ex 28:36); and, according to the Mishnah the High Priest was isolated from his family seven days before Yom Kippur, in a room attached to the temple [Yom 1:1]), Hebrews, on the other hand, insists on the profound solidarity of Jesus with men (Cf. 2:9-18; 4:14,15; 5:7,8). b) The second observation is in relation to messianism. While traditional Christology insists, all the same, on the real Davidic categories, here, on the other hand, one passes decisively to the categories of a priestly messianism, re-conceived, in the sense that the expiation realized by the priest is not in a ritual manner but (this had never been heard of before) in a personal and existential manner; in this way there are recovered all the aspects of weakness, humiliation, suffering and death, which were incompatible with real messianism. In effect, on the two occasions that David is mentioned, in Heb 4:7 and 11:32, the messianic note does not appear and, in addition, the quotes from Psalms 2 and 110 are now re-read in relation to the priesthood.
22 D PETERSON, Hebrews and Perfection, 191-195, in which he emphasizes the fact that, according to Lv 16:15, the immolation of the male goat is performed outside (in front of) the true Sanctuary, but with the intention of later taking the blood into the interior of the Sanctuary.
23 Compare A. VANHOYE, Situation du christ. L’épître aux Hébreux 1-2 (The Situation of Christ. The Epistle to the Hebrews, chapters 1 and 2), LD 58, Cerf, Paris 1969, 380-381; W.L. LANE, Hebrews, I, 66: “The concept implies sacrifice and in this context the work of the Son consists of giving His life for the multitude”.
24 C. ZESATI ESTRADA, Hebreos 5:7-8 (Hebrews 5:7,8), 128-141.
25 For a first approach to the theme in its complexity see A VANHOYE, Sacerdotes antiguos y sacerdote nuevo según el Nuevo Testamento, 17-80.
26 In the Synoptic Gospels, in John and in Acts it is employed only with reference to the Jewish priests (Cf. Mark 15:3 par; Jn 7:32; Acts 4:6). In the Pauline letters it never appears at all, neither in one sense nor the other. In the Rv it is present only in the plural, denoting all Christians (Cf. Rv 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). The Christological title reappears in 1 Clement 36:1 and 61:3. On the other hand, in the New Testament, only the abstract noun “priesthood” appears (hieráteuma: 1 Pt 2:5,9), applied to the entire community (Cf. Ex 19:6).
27 Cf. Rom 3:25;, Eph 5:2; Mt 26:28; Acts 20:28; Jn 17:19; Rv 5:9.
28 A VANHOYE, El mensaje de la carta a los hebreos (The Message of the Letter to the Hebrews), Biblical Notebook 19, Verbo Divino, Estella (Navarra) 1993, 30 ff - where the letter is divided into five parts: I: The name of Christ 1:5 to 2:18; II A: Jesus high priest, faithful 3:1-4,14; II B: Jesus high priest, merciful 4:15 to 5:10; Preliminary Exhortation 5:11 to 6:20; III A: A High priest according to the order of Melchizedek 7:1-28; III B: Having reached perfection 8:1-9,28; III C: The cause of eternal law 10:1-10; Final Exhortation 10:19-39; IV A: The faith of the ancients 11:1-40; IV B: The necessary patience 12:1-13; V: Making the way straight 12:14 to 13:21. Let us remember that the grouping of these sections into five parts is based on the indications given by the author of the Letter himself, in the five “headings of the theme”. As a result the scheme obtained presents a symmetry of a concentric type. Other suggestions: Cf. The Jerusalem Bible 3rd Edition, 1998.
29 A VANHOYE, Struttura e Teologia, 95.
30 The translation of some Bibles, including the Jerusalem Bible, “compassionate and trustworthy” does not sufficiently express the sense of the text.
31 As is characteristic of the structure of Hebrews, the theme is anticipated a few verses in advance: 2:17,18.
32 The insistence on mediation and on the covenant is already a first newness with regard to the Old Testament. At Sinai, the conclusion of the first covenant did not include the intervention of the priests (Cf. Ex 24:4-8). The priests were related not with the mediation of the covenant, but with the worship of the divine. The priesthood signified a great honor since the priests were considered priests by God (Cf. Ex 28:1; 29:1). To them was reserved the right to offer sacrifices to God and to enter His house. And as the high priest had the privilege of entering once a year in the most holy part of the Temple, he appeared as an almost heavenly being, raised up over the people (Cf. Eccl 45:6-13; 50:7). Instead, Jesus, at the Last Supper, presented Himself simply “as the one who serves” (Lk 22:27). In the institution of the Eucharist He expressed and reinforced a double relationship: first, His relationship with God, His Father, in the prayer of thanksgiving; and, immediately afterwards, the relationship with His disciples, to whom He gave Himself - His body and His blood. This second relationship had a much stronger expression than the first. Analogously, the Letter to the Hebrews substitutes the unilateral view of the priesthood as seen in the Old Testament - constituted priests by God (Cf. Ex 28:1; 29:1) - with a bilateral perspective: “Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God” (Heb 5:1). The writer starts by saying, “taken from among men” and only afterward specifies the other side of mediation, speaking of relationships with God. He applies to Christ three times the title of “mediator”, which never appears in the Pentateuch, and only once in the rest of the Old Testament, and even there as something impossible (Cf. Jb 9:33). Instead, in the Letter to the Hebrews, not only is it affirmed that Christ is “mediator”, but that He is mediator “of the covenant” (Cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), because He closely binds priesthood and alliance. Of all the writings of the New Testament, it is Hebrews which speaks more often of covenant: Diatheke (covenant) appears 17 times in the Letter as against 16 times in the rest of the New Testament. This has been indicated recently by A VANHOYE, “La novità del sacerdozio di Cristo” (The Newness of the Priesthood of Christ), in La civiltà cattolica (Catholic Civilization) n. 3541 (1998) 16-27; an article extracted from Selecciones de Teología (Theological Selections) 38 (1999), 3-9.
33 Ibid 27. For the eucharistic theme in the Letter to the Hebrews Cf. J. SWETNAM, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews”, Bibl 70 (1989) 74-95; M.E. ISAAC, “Hebrews 13:9-16 Revisited”, NTS 43 (1997) 268-284; an allusion to the theme in G. LEONARDI, “I discepoli di Gesù terreno e i ministeri nelle prime comunità Rotura o normale evoluzione?” (Were the Disciples of the Earthly Jesus and the Ministries in the First Communities a Breaking Away or Were They a Normal Development?), in R. FABRIS (editor), La parola di Dio cresceva (At 12.24) (The Word of God Grew - Acts 12:24), SuppRivBibl. 33, Bologna 1998, 476.