Ordinary Time Week 21

Psalm: Psalm 104:1-9, 24, 35c or Psalm 91:9-16
Old Testament: Job 38:1-7, 34-41
   or Isaiah 53:4-12

Gospel: Mark 10:35-45
Epistle: Hebrews 5:1-10

I want to continue our discussion of the Epistle to the Hebrews this week because chapter 5 is the start of a new section in the book and sets the ground work for what is to follow. The writers starts a new section here comparing the priesthood of Jesus with that of the Old Testament priesthood. The writer actually called Jesus a priest one time each in chapters 2 and 3 and these two instances set the scene for the argument that is to follow in the rest of the Epistle. We tend to take Jesus' priesthood and the argument Hebrews makes almost for granted, but the argument back then may have been novel and even revolutionary. Outside of the Gospels and acts, where the priests are mentioned numerous times, the word is only mentioned once in Romans and three times in Revelations. In the Gospels it is clear that Jesus is not considered a priest, at least that vocabulary is not used. The priests and the religious establishment are often at odds with Jesus and Jesus seems to be interested only in tearing down their power structures. The 4 examples of the word "priest" outside the Gospels and Hebrews all refer to believers in Revelation and to Paul himself in Romans. (The word "priesthood" also appears twice in 1 Peter, once again in reference to believers.) In Hebrews however, the word priest is mentioned 36 times, more than any other book in the New Testament.

So even if the writer of Hebrews wasn't the first to come up with these ideas, he is a unique voice in the New Testament. I am not sure if there has been scholarly work done to determine the influence of these ideas, but considering the amount of biblical scholarship that has taken place, there is probably more than a few theories out there.

I encourage you to read Hebrews 5-8 because the author makes an extended argument as to why Jesus is a better priest than the Old Testament line. But the question every Jew would have, is how can someone from the tribe of Judah be a priest. Priestly duties were assigned to only assigned to the line of Aaron and the tribe of Levi has special religious functions as well. The tribe of Judah was the same tribe as David and the kings--not the tribe of the priests. So the author of Hebrews either creates or relays the argument that Jesus is a priest according to the "order of Melchizedek."

Outside of Gen. 14:18 and Psalm 110:4 Melchizedek is not mentioned at all in the Bible other than in Hebrews. Melchizedek stands as a mysterious figure in Genesis where we are basically told nothing about him. Psalm 110 picks up on this mystery and in a messianic hymn, looks forward to a new King-Priest who will rule over the people. Because Melchizedek is a mysterious figure, but also an interesting character in the life of Abraham, interpreters where able to let their imaginations run wild. Literature on him seems to pick up around the time of Christ in the Qumran and Dead Sea Scrolls for example, and of course in Hebrews itself. Melchizedek also has a presence in Kabbalah and other esoteric forms of Judaism. And he is even picked up again in cults like Mormonism, which has a priesthood level called the "Melchizedek Priesthood."

I think this information is helpful to understand where the author of Hebrews is coming from and the type of biblical interpretation he is engaged in. In some sense we can take our own cues of how to interpret the Old Testament by how the New Testament writers interpreted it. And it is clear that they interpreted the text mostly through the lens of the Christ. They seemed to scour the Old Testament looking for references and parallels to the life and ministry of Jesus. This may not be how modern biblical scholars engage in this activity, but it has a long history and has validity since it is the method the early church and the New Testament writers used.

I was going to write all about Melchizedek and how he was interpreted and discussed in the Jewish literate and especially the Messianic hopes attached to him, but I just didn't think it was really helpful or useful. Hebrews picks up on the clues from Genesis 14 and interprets them into the life of Christ. It may not have been how the writer of Genesis meant the text to be read, but it is how Hebrews interpretered it. And that is what matters. Maybe we should understand "order" of Melchizedek in a metaphorical sense rather than a literal lineage stretching down to Jesus. The author is picking up on the mystery of the man, to interpret Jesus' priesthood in an imaginative way.

I think this is where I am at the moment with the argument Hebrews is making. I don't think there was some line of priests that lasted down to Christ. I think Melchizedek represents something that the author of Hebrews sees in Christ, so he is able to compare the two. Even if Jesus is in the same order as Melchizedek, he is still superior to him since he is the Son of God, just as he is superior to the Old Testament priests.

I don't really have a point to make this week or any profound insights. I think I was just able to observe how the New Testaments interpreted and expanded on the Old Testament texts. So maybe going forward as you are reading the New Testament and you find examples of Old Testament quotes or exposition, take a few moments to think about how the New Testament text is interpreting the Old and what that may have to say about how you also interpret the Old Testament.

Grace and Peace.