As one turns to the New Testament with an eye toward discovering the nature of Christ’s priesthood, the Epistle of Hebrews has consistently been regarded as “unique by virtue of its emphasis on Jesus’ priesthood.”
6Nicholas Perrin has noted that, “if one prefers to date Hebrews after the destruction of the temple, it is a straightforward move to infer that the concept of Jesus’ priesthood was entirely a post-Easter theologoumenon, likely occasioned by the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and almost certainly limited in importance so far as first-century Christian belief was concerned.”
7Taking issue with this “familiar paradigm,” Perrin contends that, in addition to Hebrews’ emphasis on Christ’s priesthood, “a case can be made for a broad interest in Jesus’ priesthood across the NT canon”
8and particularly so in the Gospels.
9Understanding Christ’s priesthood as
Zondervan, 1993). For a summary of covenant theology, see Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the
Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979); Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
6 Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” SBJT 22, no. 2 (2018): 81. Proving the point, Albert Cardinal Vanhoye points out that the Epistle of Hebrews should hold one’s attention first regarding the topic of Christ’s priesthood since “it is this Epistle that treats the fundamental point, that of the relationship between Christ and the priesthood and its treatment is extensive and profound.” Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest: According to the New Testament (Leominster, England: Gracewing, 2009), 65.
7 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 81.
8 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 81. Though Hebrews is clearly an informative source for Jesus’ priestly work, his sacrificial work is mentioned in other Epistles and in Gospels. Nelson writes,
Romans, for example, makes use of potentially priestly concepts in reference to Jesus: atoning sacrifice (Rom 3:21-25), access to God (Rom 5:2), sin offering (8:3), and intercession (8:34). Other examples of New Testament sacrificial metaphor are 1 Cor 5:7, Eph 5:2, 1 Peter 1:19, 1 John 2:2;
4:10, and Rev 5:9. More oblique references to Jesus as priest may be present in the seamless robe of the Johannine passion narrative (John 19:23-24; compare to Josephus Ant. 3.7l4 and Lev 21:10), the robe and sash in Rev 1:13 (Exod 28:4; 29:9), and Christ’s ascension blessing with upraised hands (Luke 24:50-51). (Richard D. Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], 143)
9 Perrin has dedicated a full-length work to investigating Jesus’ priesthood in the Gospels. See Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Priest (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). Others have picked up on the Gospels’ recounting of Christ’s earthly priestly. David Schrock, for example, observes evidence of Christ’s priesthood outside the book of Hebrews; he writes,
Admittedly, many scholars overlook Christ’s priesthood [in the Gospels] because the title is missing, but this is to ignore how Christ cleanses the temple, upholds the law, teaches the people, makes judgments about lepers, offers himself as a sacrifice, and mediates a new covenant. For those who have eyes to see, Christ in his person and work, … is a far better priest than the Israelite priests found in the Gospels. The priests in Jesus’ day defiled the temple with their impure hearts; Jesus with
‘dirty’ hands (Mark 7:14-23) cleansed the temple and purified his people. (David Stephen Schrock,
“A Biblical-Theological Investigation of Christ’s Priesthood and Covenant Mediation with Respect to the Extent of the Atonement” [PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013], 262)
more than a post-Easter reality, Perrin shows that Jesus assumed the office and role of priest prior to his resurrection and during his earthly life.
According to Perrin, evidence for Christ’s priesthood in the Gospels abounds.
Detecting verbal links between Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:9-11) and Abraham’s near-offer of Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen 22), Perrin views Christ’s baptism as his “priestly
consecration” through water (Lev 8:6; Num 19), indeed the point at which Christ was ordained as a priest.
10He is later anointed by Mary with oil (John 12:1-8) just prior to his crucifixion, an anointing that may parallel the oil anointing undergone by priests (Lev 8:12).
11As Jesus began his public ministry, he delivered seed parables (Mark 4:1-34), which, according to Perrin, are to be regarded as priestly messages that anticipate a new eschatological Eden, a sacred space and kingdom that was and is being established through his priestly ministry, one that is reminiscent of the primordial consecrated Garden that was maintained by the primordial priest-king Adam. Jesus’ Pater Noster (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4)—in which he as the Son of God addresses God as “Father”
and indeed, as the great high priest, calls his priestly people to do the same—is to be interpreted as Jesus “ascribing to his movement the priestly status of sonship.”
12As Jesus carries out his ministry, numerous other examples are offered to substantiate his priesthood. A demon-possessed man addresses Jesus as the “Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24), a title Perrin believes is a priestly title rather than a royal title, one that was ordinarily reserved for the priests of Israel.
13Making his case further, Perrin suggests
10 Perrin, Jesus the Priest, 54-90; Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 83.
11 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 91.
12 Perrin, Jesus the Priest, 53.
13 See Gerhard Friedrich, “Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohepriestererwartung in den Synoptikern,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53 (1956): 256-311. For a more recent work in favor of this interpretation, see Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah (Part 2),” JSHJ 5 (2007): 57-79.
that while a leper would typically consult a priest prior to his cleansing (Lev 13-14), Jesus assumes the role of priest when he cleanses a leper without the leper first going to another priest; moreover, Jesus is immune to cultic impurity from touching the leper (Mark 1:40-45). Perrin notes further that Jesus acts as a priest when he declares the sins of a paralytic forgiven (Mark 2:5), a “function normally delegated to the high priest under God’s authority.”
14Jesus heals on the Sabbath (John 5:16-18) and he and his disciples work on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28)—acts that were only permissible for priests.
15In Jesus’ interchange with his opponents regarding the need to pay taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17), Jesus references a Roman denarius, which would have been inscribed with the title, “Caesar Augustus Pontifex Maximus” or “Caesar Augustus Chief Priest.” The idea is that Jesus was calling Caesar’s ultimate priestly authority into question (Caesar functioned as a pagan priest who would have sought to mediate between the gods and humanity) and would instead assert himself as the true image of God and, thus, the true Pontifex Maximus.
16Perrin adds that in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus delivers the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20-23) from an elevated position on top of a “mountain” (Matt 5:1); following true priestly form, he extends blessings to his audience (Num 6:22-27).
17In his Farewell Discourse, Jesus speaks of preparing a “place” for his people (John 14:1-4), a “place” that should be understood to be the “eschatological temple.” As a priestly act of consecration, Jesus follows in line with the priests of old who prepared the house of the Lord (1 Kgs 6:16, 19; 2 Chr 8:16); thus, “when Jesus announces his intentions to prepare the
eschatological place, he is declaring not only his mission but also his identity as priest.”
1814 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 84.
15 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 84-85, 90-91.
16 Perrin, Jesus the Priest, 240-47; Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 85-86.
17 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 94-96.
18 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 93.
As Jesus faces Caiaphas’ interrogations concerning his claims to messiahship (Mark 14:60-65), he first remains silent and then finally responds, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”
(Mark 14:62). Caiaphas responds, judging Jesus to be a blasphemer and as a false messiah and priest-king. Ironically, as Perrin indicates, Jesus’ citation declares Caiaphas himself to be a blasphemer and denotes the judgment of Caiaphas: “Paradoxically, in the very act of accusing Jesus of blasphemy the high priest has made himself potentially liable to the same charge.”
19In so doing, Jesus is declaring his own priesthood to be superior to that of Caiaphas. Perrin offers a bevy of other supporting arguments to prove his premise regarding the priesthood of Jesus.
20While all of Perrin’s arguments from the Gospels concerning Jesus’ earthly and pre-Easter priesthood may not stand against scrutiny, the overall preponderance of evidence he offers in support of his thesis would seem to substantiate the notion that discussions of Jesus’ priesthood should not be limited to the Epistle of Hebrews and, furthermore, that “Jesus’ priesthood was no post-Easter construct but remained core to the identity of the historical Jesus himself. Widespread and early, the notion of Jesus’
priesthood goes well beyond and arises well before the Epistle of Hebrews.”
21Perrin’s work in no way diminishes the importance of the Epistle of Hebrews as it relates to Christ’s priesthood. Indeed, the Epistle provides key teachings that explain Christ’s identity as priest. The author of the Hebrews makes numerous connections
19 Perrin, Jesus the Priest, 277. The point is,
Mark’s Caiaphas and Jesus become mirror images of each other: both are blasphemed yet blaspheming and both are supported by (allegedly) blaspheming followers. But the mirror only succeeds as a literary device if we assume that Jesus’ blasphemy was an offence not against divine prerogative but against sacerdotal office. While interpretations of Jesus’ confession have generally focused on its significance for either Jesus’ divine identity or an underdetermined messianic status, both of these accounts short-circuit the conceptual path which Mark expects his readers to take:
tagging Jesus as the Davidic Son of Man, Mark 14.62 asserts Jesus in his role as messianic high priest. (277-78)
20 The above summary represents only a portion of Perrin’s overall argument.
21 Perrin, “Jesus as Priest in the Gospels,” 97.
between the Old Testament and the person of Christ, laboring to show that Jesus reigns supreme over every figure that came before him.
22The Epistle then shifts to devote a large portion of text to Christ’s priesthood (Heb 4:14-10:18), showing that he is the new and better priest.
23The author of Hebrews labors to establish the legitimacy of Christ’s priesthood, the primacy of Christ’s priesthood, and the fact that Christ is a priest of a better covenant.
The legitimacy of Christ’s priesthood. The writer of Hebrews sets out to substantiate the legitimacy of Christ’s priesthood when he introduces the mysterious Old Testament figure Melchizedek into his discussion, rooting Christ’s priesthood in the line of Melchizedek rather than the Levitical priesthood.
24The prophetic expectation of the Old Testament was that the Levitical priesthood would be supplanted by someone from the line of David who would serve, like David, both as priest and king—a priest-king.
2522 Jesus is superior to angels and humans (Heb 1:4-2:16); he is greater than Moses (Heb 3:1-6) and Joshua (Heb 4:6-11) because their leadership did not accomplish the goal of rest for the people of God (Heb 3:7-19).
23 In this section, Jesus is introduced as the great high priest (Heb 4:14-5:10). Jesus is later said to descend from the priestly order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6-10; 7:1-28). It is then argued that Christ is the high priest of a better covenant (Heb 8:1-13). He is the eternal high priest who can enter the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, the one who is also a perpetual and redeeming sacrifice (Heb 8:1-10:22).
24 Jesus would not have been qualified as a high priest during the era of the Israelite priesthood since Israel’s high priests had to descend from the tribe of Levi and from Aaron’s lineage; Jesus, however, descended from the tribe of Judah (Matt 1:1-6; Luke 3:31-34; Rev 5:5). Hebrews inserts Melchizedek (Heb 5:6-10; 7:1-28; cf. Gen 14:18-20; Ps 110:4) into the story, arguing that Jesus’ priesthood was of the order of Melchizedek rather than that of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood (Heb 5:6).
25 Though the law under the Mosaic covenant intended for the offices of prophet, priest, and king to remain separate (Deut 17-18), some kings disregarded these regulations and were punished for it (1 Sam 13:8-14; 2 Chr 26:16-20). Yet, there seems to be a prophetic expectation that the offices of priest and king would eventually come together in one person. Zechariah, for example, puts Joshua (a priest-king) forward as a type of Christ and expects that these two offices would be merged in the coming messiah, the righteous “Branch” (Zech 6:9-15; cf. Zech 9-14; 3:1-10; Jer 30:21-22).
According to 1 Sam 2:35, the prophetic anticipation was that “Israel’s success (read:
covenantal blessing) depends on a faithful priest, one who will come from the family of David, not from the line of Levi or Aaron” and that this faithful priest would be a royal priest, that is, a priest-king. Schrock,
“A Biblical-Theological Investigation,” 205. David exhibits both priestly and kingly behavior,
demonstrating that he served not only as a king (2 Sam 6:21) but also as a priest: Dressed in priestly garb (2 Sam 6:14; cf. 2:18), David led a procession of God’s people up to the house of God carrying the ark of the covenant; there he acted as a priest as he danced and worshipped God in God’s very presence (2 Sam 6:21).
He offered sacrifices to God in the tent (2 Sam 6:17) and blessed the people of God (2 Sam 6:18-19).
Eugene H. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” BibSac 150 (1993): 60. David is regarded as a shadowy figure or type, albeit an imperfect and sinful one, of the priest-king who would
Because of this expectation that the Christ would come as a priest-king, it makes sense that Christ’s priesthood would be associated not with the Levitical priesthood but rather with the Melchizedekian priesthood, because Melchizedek himself was also a priest-king (Gen 14:18; Ps 110).
26How, then, is one to understand the “perpetual” covenant made with the Levitical priesthood (Exod 32:26-29; 40:15; Num 18:15-19; 25:11-13)? If Christ’s priesthood is of the Melchizedekian order rather than of the Levitical order, and if indeed Christ’s priesthood functionally supplants or replaces the Levitical priesthood, then how are the promises of a “perpetual” Levitical covenant kept in the new covenant with the institution of Christ’s priesthood? In answer to this question, the author of Hebrews begins by first identifying Jesus as “the firstborn” (τὸν πρωτότοκον; Heb 1:6), a title that ascribes priest-kingly status to Jesus (Heb 7:15-17). This same title is attributed to the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων) in Hebrews 12:23, meaning “that the privileges of the firstborn, namely kingship and priesthood, accrue also in some sense to the individual believer”
27and to every member of the new covenant priesthood.
eventually come.
26 Robert Bergen picks up several connections between David and Melchizedek, which serve to further substantiate both figures as types of Christ. He writes,
It is unclear from [2 Samuel 6:16-19] whether David actually officiated at these sacrifices or merely directed Levites to perform these tasks. If he did perform the sacrifices himself, he may have been acting in accordance with a precedent set by Melchizedek. Priestly parallels certainly exist between David and Melchizedek in two other matters: pronouncing a blessing upon the Lord’s people and providing a food gift for those who had received the blessing (cf. Gen 14:18-19). As David ‘blessed the people in [Hb. ‘by’] the name of the LORD Almighty’ (v. 18), Melchizedek blessed ‘Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth’ (Gen 14:19). Also Melchizedek brought Abram and his men “bread and wine” (Gen 14:18); David “gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each person in the whole crowd of Israelites” (v. 19). (Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC, vol. 7 [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996], 332-33)
Gen 14:18 speaks of Melchizedek both as the “King of Salem” and as the “priest of God Most High.”
Again in Ps 110, Melchizedek is presented as a priest-king. Understood together with Gen 14 and Hebrews’
teachings on Melchizedek, “what Psalm 110 communicates is that the forthcoming priest would not be a Levite but a priest-king like Melchizedek. To say it another way, the priesthood would not depend on the law of Moses or the lineage of Aaron, but upon God’s sworn oath and the Messiah’s greater obedience.”
Schrock, “A Biblical-Theological Investigation,” 211.
27 Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 170.
Peter concurs with the author of Hebrews when he refers to the members of the church being “built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5) and being
“a chose race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9)—a Petrine passage with obvious echoes of Exodus 19:5-6. The message is clear: “for those who believe in Christ, the corporate royal priestly primogeniture promised to Israel prior to the calf incident (Exod 19:5-6) is restored. Everyone ‘born anew’ through Jesus Christ (see 1 Pet 1:3) partakes of this priesthood, including those who were priests and Levites under the old economy.”
28The result of the new covenant, therefore, is that the Levitical priests who came to faith in Christ (Acts 6:7) and, thus, “entered into the new covenant did not cease to be priests, but became priests of a different sort. In Christ, the royal priestly firstborn, they became royal priestly firstborns (Heb 12:22).”
29In the end, “the covenant with the Levites is not broken,” although the specific old covenant priestly “economy under which the Levitical priesthood operated is replaced.”
30The primacy of Christ’s priesthood. Not only does Jesus’ association with the Melchizedekian priesthood legitimize Jesus’ priesthood, but it also is said to make Christ’s priesthood superior to that of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:1-28).
31The author of Hebrews makes the case for the primacy of the Melchizedekian priesthood, and thus
28 Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 171.
29 Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 171.
30 Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 171.
31 Phillip Edgcumbe Hughes observes the logic of the author’s argument:
The argument now developed is quite plain and easy to grasp. The purpose is to demonstrate how great Melchizedek is in comparison with Abraham—a superiority that is especially startling in view of the fact that Abraham is himself the patriarch, that is, the ancestral founder of the Hebrew people, the one to whom the covenant promises concerning his posterity had been given by God, and therefore the possessor of a position of primacy in the long history of the Jews. . . . But here is someone in their own Scriptures who is manifestly Abraham’s superior. (Phillip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids, W. B. Eerdmans, 1977], 251)
Moreover, since both “seminally and by representation Levi was present in the person of his great-
grandfather,” the author of Hebrews shows that it was Levi who “actually paid tithes through Abraham” to Melchizedek; the point, thus, established is “that the order of Melchizedek, fulfilled in Christ, is superior to the order of Levi, which with the advent of Christ is surpassed and superseded.” Hughes, A Commentary on Hebrews, 253-54.