HeyJ XXXVIII (1997), pp.

51–62

PRIESTHOOD AND THE EPISTLE

TO THE HEBREWS
MARIE E. ISAACS
Heythrop College

INTRODUCTION

After many years of debate, the Anglican Church’s acceptance of the

ordination of women to the priesthood has not been without its repercus-
sions in other communions. So, for example, Cardinal Ratzinger has felt
obliged to issue a statement on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarifying the Pope’s apos-
tolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of May 1994. Its teaching on the in-
admissibility of women to ministerial priesthood is to be undestood as
‘definitive, and therefore not reformable’, and thus the issue closed. Not
all Roman Catholics would agree. Professor Greinacher of Tübingen,
for one, has stated in Der Spiegel that if a student of his had so inter-
preted the Pope’s letter in an examination, he would have failed!
Whatever its final outcome, this particular debate has shown the need
for a re-examination of what we mean by priesthood. This article1 is an
attempt to look at the contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to our
understanding. Since its aim is to explore how the author of Hebrews
used this cultic institution of his day in his presentation of Christian
faith, its focus is upon priesthood in its first- rather than twentieth-
century setting. Perhaps an appreciation of the differences between the
two would not come amiss in much of the current debate.

I. PRIESTS – OLD AND NEW

a) In the NT the term ‘priest’ is not a designation for Christian

ministers
Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the issues of ministerial
priesthood which dominate much of the contemporary church’s
discussion were not those which are to the fore in the Christianity of the
first century represented in the NT. There the designation ‘priest’ is

© The Editor/Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA.

52 MARIE E. ISAACS

never used of Christian individuals. 1 Peter (2:5,9) uses the language of

‘priesthood’ (”ερÀτευµα) and the book of Revelation (1:6; 5:10; 20:6)2
‘priests’ (”ερε~ισ)3 – but of the Christian community as a whole, not its
leadership.4 Elsewhere in the NT ‘priests’ are members of Israel’s cultic
caste – and are usually presented negatively. At the close of the first
century the author of 1 Clement (40–44) may happily appeal to ancient
Israel’s distinction between high priests, priests, levites and the laity in
his attempt to encourage Christians to obey an emerging church hier-
archy. Similarly the Didache (13:3) is not averse to using the example
of the financial support provided for Judaism’s high priest by way of
appeal for funds for Christian prophets. But in each case we are dealing
with analogy.
The main point to note is that neither in the NT nor in these extra-
biblical sources is the term ‘priest’ used of what has now come to be refer-
red to as ‘ministerial priesthood’. Anthony Harvey claims that there is in
fact no evidence of the term’s use of any individual Christian before
Polycrates of Ephesus (c.190 CE), and that it only came to be used of
Christian ministers from the fourth century onwards, and then as a result
of the application of cultic terms to the Lord’s Supper.5
All the more surprising then is Hebrews’ language of priesthood,
applied uniquely, not simply to Judaism’s cultic officials, nor even to the
Christian community as a whole, but to Jesus. The author is well aware
that Jesus does not qualify for such a designation, since he was not of
the tribe of Levi:
For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with
that tribe Moses said nothing about priests (Heb 7:14).

Now if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all (Heb 8:4).

To call a descendant of Judah ‘high priest’ would have been wholly

unacceptable to Jewish tradition. The Hasmonean high priesthood, at
least from the time of Aristobolus I (104/103 BCE), claimed for its
incumbents the title of ‘king’ as well as high priest.6 But although Has-
monean high priests were Levitical, their kingship was non-Davidic.
The Qumran Covenanters, who withdrew from participation in the Jeru-
salem cult, did so not because they disputed the current high priest’s
Zadokite descent, but because his succession had departed from the rule
of primogeniture.7 Amongst the diverse ‘messianic’ models current in
first-century Judaism we can find that of the priest. But whether por-
trayed as the principal salvific figure8 or part of a duumvirate ruling in
tandem with a Davidic king,9 he was always a Levitical priest. Some-
times the coming Davidic king, although not strictly a priest, was
thought, like his historical predecessors, to exercise priestly functions.10
Yet only in Psalm 110:4 do we find a Davidic king actually addressed as
‘priest’ – and that, ‘after the order of Melchizedek’, i.e., of non-Levitical
 PRIESTHOOD AND HEBREWS 53

descent. It is to this psalm that the author of Hebrews appeals in his use
of a priestly model for Jesus.

b) In the first century the Jerusalem cult was operational

Whether one dates Hebrews as pre or post 70 CE, undoubtedly the
Jerusalem temple and its cult would have been operational within recent
experience. We therefore need to remind ourselves that its language
would not have been understood principally as symbolic and meta-
phorical (as it later came to be, not only in Christianity but also in
Judaism). Today we understand cultic language as figurative. Hence, if
someone asks us, ‘What did you sacrifice for Lent this year?’ they hardly
expect the answer, ‘Two doves’, let alone, ‘A goat!’ This is quite unlike
the first century, where its principal referent would have been to a literal
killing. If we are to understand Hebrews’ use of cultic language, we
need to take this seriously, and appreciate that the sacrificial cult was not
principally a metaphor but an operative system whose workings were far
more extensive than this epistle’s use of them.

c) Hebrews makes a limited and specific use of cultic language

We must beware of assuming that the Epistle to the Hebrews is a com-
prehensive treatment of Israel’s priesthood. Far from it. It is a Christian
homily11 whose preacher wishes to affirm two central beliefs: 1) that
Jesus is in heaven, where he now reigns with God; and 2) that his death
was the means by which that exaltation was achieved. Like all the best
sermons it does not aim at ‘coverage’, but rather attempts to link in-
herited tradition with the contemporary situation of its audience. It is
therefore selective and limited in scope.
In fact, the cult and its priesthood was far more complex than the use
Hebrews chooses to make of it. Its history was varied.12 By the time of the
NT its cultic officials, whatever their origins, were clearly a caste, with
their own hierarchy of high priest, priests and levites (a lower cultic order).
The high priesthood was hereditary, claiming descent from Zadok (one
of David’s chief priests). The functions of the priesthood waxed and
waned throughout its long history. According to some OT sources the priest
had an oracular function (Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41), which expanded to
include teaching (Deut 33:9b–10). In others his task was to pronounce
the divine blessing (Num 6:22; Lev 9:22; Sir 45:15). Priests probably
originated as sanctuary attendants who had no monopoly on offering
sacrifices.13 With the centralization of the cult at Jerusalem in the second
temple period their defining function became that of approaching the
altar with the blood of the sacrificial victim, on behalf of the worshipper.
Above all they were guardians of the sacred; divinely appointed
mediators between the holy and the profane.14 This is evident in the very
54 MARIE E. ISAACS

layout of the shrine. It could be said that the Jerusalem temple was a
monument in stone to the notion of the separation between the sacred
and the secular, priesthood and laity. Thus only members of the priestly
caste were permitted to set foot inside the shrine itself. That shrine was
further subdivided into two areas: 1) the holy place to which the priest-
hood was allowed access; and 2) the holy of holies in which only the
high priest was allowed entrance, and then only on one day in the year
– the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16). That inner sanctum which
originally housed the Ark, being closest to the divine presence, was the
most sacred space of all.
To follow Hebrews’ argument it is also important to appreciate that
there was more than one altar. The first, the altar of sacrifice/burnt offer-
ings, was situated outside the shrine’s entrance (Exod 27:1–8; 38:1ff.;
40:6). Since sacrifice was thought to be the means whereby the barrier
between the holy and the profane could be overcome, such offerings had
to take place outside sacred territory. In the case of an expiatory sacrifice
offered by an individual, the blood was taken by the priest no further
than this altar – the altar of sacrifice, located at the entrance to the
shrine. If the expiation was either for a priest or the people collectively,
he went on to sacred ground and entered the holy place and there
smeared the blood of the victim on the second altar, the altar of incense
(Exod 30:1–10; 37:25–28)15 and, if it was an offering for a priest, also
on the curtain which divided the holy place from the holy of holies (Lev
4:1–21). Only on the Day of Atonement was the blood, first of the bull
sacrificed on behalf of the high priest and then of the goat for the nation,
taken inside the holy of holies, there to be poured on the lid of the Ark.
Not all sacrifices were expiatory, but those offered on the Day of
Atonement were. Their purpose was the removal of sin, which consti-
tuted a barrier between God and the worshipper. Their goal, dramati-
cally enacted by the high priest in his entry into the holy of holies, was
access to God.

II. JESUS THE HIGH PRIEST

a) The cultic model used is that of the Day of Atonement

Since the principal cultic model used in Hebrews is that of the Day of
Atonement ceremonies, it is important for those who wish to interpret
this epistle to understand them (Leviticus 16). (Not least it might save
us from preachers who appeal to Jesus on the cross as ‘the scapegoat’.
This is a complete nonsense, since ‘the scapegoat’ was the one who was
not slain! It had been made unholy by the transference of the people’s
sins, and therefore, rather than offered to God, was driven out ‘for
Azazel’. Only the goat without blemish was offered as an expiatory
sacrifice.)
 PRIESTHOOD AND HEBREWS 55

In his book, The Epistle of Priesthood (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,

2nd ed., 1915), Alexander Nairne suggested that the main message of
Hebrews was, ‘Think of our Lord as a priest, and I will make you
understand’ (p. 136). We need to be more precise than that, however. It
is not to priests in general, but to ancient Judaism’s high priest in par-
ticular, and even more particularly, to his part in the Day of Atonement
ritual, that our author turns his thought.
And not to the high priest alone – but also to the sacrificial victim (see
Heb 9:14; 10:4–10). In the comparison and contrast he draws, it is
important for us to appreciate that the author of Hebrews combines the
two, and presents us with Jesus as one who, uniquely, was at once the
offerer and the offering. Although other NT works sometimes liken
the cross to a sin offering (e.g., Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21), only Hebrews
(9:1–10) compares it to ancient Judaism’s expiatory sacrifice par
excellence – that of the Day of Atonement.
Furthermore, this motif is not only evident in our author’s presenta-
tion of Jesus as high priest and victim; it lies behind his depiction of
heaven as the holy of holies. Along with heaven as a royal court, a
country, and a city, this is one of the images used 16 to claim that Jesus
is now in the presence of God. Even within the cultic register appealed
to by Hebrews, the theme of Jesus’ priesthood should not therefore be
isolated from the whole Day of Atonement tapestry of which it is a part.
So much does the model of this particular ceremony dominate
Hebrews, that even when he appeals to a wholly different sacrifice, that
offered to ratify the covenant, the author makes that expiatory as well.
Thus, in claiming that Jesus is the offering which mediated the new and
better covenant promised by Jeremiah (Heb 9:15–22; 13:20; cf. LXX Jer
38 [MT 31]:31–34), he introduces ‘water, scarlet wool, and hyssop’
(Heb 9:19) – elements not found in the biblical account of the ratifica-
tion of the first covenant (see Exod 24:4–8), but drawn from a ritual
similarly concerned with the purification of sin – the ceremony of the
red heifer (Num 19:2–20).17 Even in his concluding exhortation to holi-
ness, the author of Hebrews cannot resist an appeal to the Day of Atone-
ment. Christians do indeed have a sacrifice; one, which like that offered
on the Day of Atonement alone, is consumed neither by priest nor people,
nor burned on the altar of sacrifice, but disposed of ‘outside the camp’
(Heb 13:10–12; cf. Lev 16:27).18

b) Priesthoods compared and contrasted

The model of Levitical priesthood is used in Hebrews by way both of
comparison and contrast. Far from denigrating Israel’s cult, its argument
is dependent upon an acceptance of its divinely ordained purpose – to
gain access to the presence of God. The verb used to express this
(τελειο†ν), usually translated in English versions as ‘to make perfect’,
56 MARIE E. ISAACS

is better understood as ‘to bring to its intended end’.19 The cult and its
priesthood, together with the Law of which it was a part (Heb 10:1), was
unable to cleanse (Heb 9:9//9:14; 10:1//10:2), sanctify (9:14//10:14) and
thus effect that state of purity which was the sine qua non for access to
God. Hebrews’ principal argument is not, therefore, with the sacrificial
system as such, but with its failure to fulfil its intended purpose.
The author levels various criticisms against the cult in order to
demonstrate that it is flawed and partial: 1) The Day of Atonement sacri-
fices needed to be repeated, whereas that of Jesus does not (Heb 10:1–3;
cf. ‘once’ [Heb 9:26,27,28], ‘once for all time’ [Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10])
because its effectiveness is permanent (Heb 10:11–18); 2) Other sacrifices
do not expunge an on-going consciousness of sin (Heb 9:9–14); 3) The
offering of animals, who have no say in their fate, is morally inferior to
Jesus’ self-offering (Heb 9:11–14); 4) Christ’s sinlessness not only ful-
fills the cult’s demands for purity on the part of both victim (Heb 9:14)
and high priest (Heb 7:26); it exceeds it:

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own
sins, and then for those of the people (Heb 7:27).

(Not least, Hebrews’ analogy between the death of Jesus and his present
session in heaven on the one hand, and the Day of Atonement ritual on
the other, only works if, unlike the high priest, he needs to enter the holy
of holies once, rather than twice); 5) The shrine he enters is heaven itself
and thus superior to that located on earth (Heb 8:1–6); and finally, 6)
that by virtue of his resurrection, ‘the power of an indestructible life’
(Heb 7:16), Jesus is ‘a priest forever’ (Ps 110:4) who thus requires no
successor:

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by
death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently
(ˆπαρÀβατοσ),20 because he continues for ever (Heb 7:23–24, RSV).

III. JESUS, THE MELCHIZEDEKIAN PRIEST

It is in his choice of a Melchizedekian (Heb 7:1–28) rather than a Lev-

itical model for Jesus’ priesthood that Hebrews’ subversion of Judaism’s
cult is most evident. The shadowy Canaanite priest-king of Genesis 14:
17–20 became the subject of much speculation among both Jews and
(from the second century onwards) Christians.21 For the Qumran com-
munity Melchizedek functioned as an eschatological figure of judgment
to come (see 11Q Melch). This is quite unlike Hebrews, however, where
we meet him exclusively as a priest. Unlike Qumran’s Melchizedek, at
 PRIESTHOOD AND HEBREWS 57

the eschaton Jesus will return, not to act as judge, but to gather the elect
(Heb 9:28). Thus Hebrews and Qumran use the figure of Melchizedek
quite differently.
For our author Melchizedek serves two main purposes: a) as a type of
non-Aaronic priesthood, and b) as a type of superior priesthood. He
finds in Genesis 14:17–20 and Psalm 110:4 ‘evidence’ to prove both.

a) Melchizedek – a type of non-Levitical priesthood

Whatever his origins, as we meet him in Genesis 14:17–20, Melchi-
zedek is clearly a non-Israelite.22 Although this would not be true of
Israel’s king, none the less his ‘priesthood’ is similarly distanced from
the ‘norm’ (of Levitical descent) by the psalmist, and thus categorized
as ‘after the order of Melchizedek’. In using Psalm 110 (LXX 109):4,
which addresses a Davidic king as a priest, the author of Hebrews is able
to hold together both an understanding of Jesus as messianic son of God
(see Heb 1:5–13) and his chosen analogy of the death and exaltation of
Christ as a priestly act.

b) Melchizedek – a type of superior priesthood

In the Genesis account Melchizedek goes back to the time of Abraham,
and thus antedates Levi and his priestly descendants. Furthermore, it
was Melchizedek who received tithes from Israel’s patriarch, not vice
versa. From this Hebrews concludes that not merely Abraham, but Levi,
who although as yet unborn was none the less seminally present ‘in the
loins of his ancestor’ (Heb 7:10), also acknowledged him as the superior
priest. From the psalm our author infers that a Melchizedekian rather
than Aaronic priesthood is God’s last, definitive word, one confirmed by
an oath. Hence it is of the Davidic son of God, not the Levitical order,
that the psalmist says: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his
mind, “Thou art a priest forever” ’ (Heb 7:21).
This argument is far more subversive than the Qumran Covenanters’
denial of the legitimacy of Jerusalem’s current high priestly incumbents.
This is no mere argument as to which branch of the Levitical tribe
should occupy that office. It does away with the notion of a priestly caste
altogether. A Melchizedekian priesthood is ‘without father or mother or
genealogy’ (Heb 7:3). Ultimately, for Hebrews it is not only the Leviti-
cal priesthood which is inadequate; even Melchizedek does not provide
the definitive model for Jesus, since it is he who resembles Jesus, the
son of God, rather than vice versa (Heb 7:3). The logic of our author’s
argument is that there is no longer any role for an on-going priesthood,
Aaronic or otherwise.
Jesus is a priest ‘for ever’, not because he continues to exercise the
high priestly function of offering the expiatory sacrifice and entering
58 MARIE E. ISAACS

the presence of God in the holy of holies, but because his death and
exaltation definitively and finally fulfil the cult’s purpose, and therefore
needs no repetition. The exalted Christ’s on-going activity is therefore
not concerned with sacrifice but intercession:

Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through
him, since he always lives to make intercession for us (Heb 7:25; cf. 9:24).23

Pleading the cause of the people before God was one of the functions of
the high priest on the Day of Atonement. His intercessory role is sym-
bolized in the very vestments he wore. Engraved on each onyx stone
attached to the shoulder pieces of his ephod were the names of six of
the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 28:5–14; 39:6–7). Each of the twelve
stones on his breastplate also contained the names of one of the tribes
(Exod 39:8–21). These are described as ‘stones of remembrance for the
sins of Israel which Aaron shall bring before the Lord’ (Exod 28:11).
This should not lead us to conclude, however, that advocacy on behalf
of the people was the exclusive prerogative of the priesthood. It was not.
Patriarchs (e.g. Gen 18:22–33; Exod 32:30–34), prophets (e.g. Amos
7:2; Jer 14:11; 18:20; Ezek 9:8; 11:3), kings (e.g. 2 Chron 6:12–21;
2 Kgs 20:2–11) and angels (e.g. Job 5:1; 33:19–25; Zech 1:12) in biblical
tradition are all depicted as intercessors. In Hebrews the priestly model
for Jesus focuses upon his death as the means of access to God, rather
than his present heavenly activity.

IV. THE END OF PRIESTHOOD, NOT ITS REINSTATEMENT

a) Priesthood is not a model for the church as a corporate body

Strikingly, Hebrews’ message of the end of priesthood applies not only
to Christian ministers; it is also true of the Christian community as a
whole. Only if we assume that for the author of Hebrews the rules of
Levitical caste applied to Jesus can we conclude with John Scholer that
‘Hebrews, in accordance with the OT, sees the brothers and παιδÝα of
the high priest as also entitled to hold priestly office’.24 Yet, as we have
seen, it is the unique character of Jesus’ priesthood which the author
affirms – not its inclusiveness or transmission. Priesthood is not viewed
as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Since our author is con-
vinced that that end has been definitively achieved, its raison d’être has
ceased. Therefore, to depict the community as an on-going priesthood
would make a nonsense of his carefully constructed argument.25 For all
that our author addresses his audience as a holy people, called and
dedicated to God’s service (Heb 13:10–16) and granted the privilege of
access to His presence (Heb 4:16; 10:19), he does not develop any notion
 PRIESTHOOD AND HEBREWS 59

of the priesthood of all believers,26 nor anywhere address them cor-

porately as a priesthood. Even John Scholer, in his attempt to see an
implicit, if not explicit, application of priesthood to the community as a
whole, is obliged to entitle his monograph, Proleptic Priests.

b) Priesthood and eschatology

Scholer does this because he recognizes that in Hebrews we do not find
a wholly realized eschatology. Only at the parousia will the priestly
prerogative of full access to God be enjoyed by all God’s people (cf. Heb
4:1,9). As yet they may but draw near, not enter God’s presence. Until
Jesus’ return (Heb 9:29) when they will fully enter into their priest-
hood,27 the faithful must persevere in the world (Heb 10:19–12:29). In
the meantime, according to Scholer, the only non-proleptic priests are
dead ones! Thus he understands:
But you have not come to what may be touched … but you have come to Mount
Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable
angels in festal gathering and to the assembly of the first born who are enrolled in
heaven (Heb 12:18–24),

as a description of Christians who have died and are now in heaven.28

Personally, I would argue that even this is proleptic rather than realized;
a vision of the fate of the faithful of all ages which as yet lies in the
future.29 Until then, Jesus alone has entered fully into the presence of
God (Heb 6:20; 9:12,24,25).
The exhortation with which Hebrews ends is one in which the audi-
ence is encouraged to abandon Jerusalem’s cult place, sacrifices and
priesthood altogether:

Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp, and bear the abuse he endured.
For here we have no lasting city but seek the city which is to come (Heb 13:13–14).

In the future city of God no expiatory sacrifice will be necessary in order

to gain access to God, since in the death of Jesus that requirement has
already been met. The worship now required of the faithful is the
offering of ‘a sacrifice of praise to God,30 the fruit of lips that acknow-
ledge his name’ (Heb 13:15).31 ‘Sacrifice’ for the Christian now consists
of the praise of God in worship and the performance of good works in
the world (Heb 13:15–16). Thus the language of cult has now become
wholly metaphorical.32
To use the word ‘metaphor’ in some circles carries with it the sugges-
tion of something which at the very least is inferior, if not downright
dubious. Thus Barnabas Lindars in his book, The Theology of the Letter
to the Hebrews (Cambridge: CUP, 1991), writes that the priesthood of
Jesus is ‘not just a metaphor but is meant seriously’ (p. 58). It is ‘actual’
60 MARIE E. ISAACS

(p. 63) and ‘real’ (p. 126); both ‘a metaphor and more than a metaphor’
(p. 137). Similarly, Albert Vanhoye has taken issue with those who would
see the language of Jesus’ priesthood and sacrifice in Hebrews as meta-
phorical. For Vanhoye it is the OT cult which is metaphorical, since it
is impotent and symbolic, whereas the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ
is real.33 In describing the language of priesthood applied to Jesus as
metaphorical I am neither subscribing to some Platonic notion of an
inferior copy as opposed to the real McCoy, nor implying that for the
author of Hebrews Jesus did not fulfil the purpose for which priesthood
was instituted. It is because he did that his death could be appropriately
compared to a priestly act. However, he was not literally a priest. And it
is this fact which our author exploits positively in claiming uniqueness
for Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Before we lament the demise of priesthood, perhaps we should note that,

striking as the cultic model is, it is not the only one used in Hebrews.
Access to God is not depicted only in terms of the high priest’s entry
into the holy of holies; it is also portrayed as entry into the promised
land. Significantly, it is this imagery which dominates the opening (Heb
3:1–4:13) and closing (Heb 10:19–12:29) chapters of the epistle. Here
we are presented with a picture of the people of God as a community on
the move; pilgrims journeying towards God.34 And unlike the exclus-
ive caste of priesthood, this band (Heb 11:1–40) includes not only men
but women, one of whom, Rahab (cf. Jos 2:1–22; 6:17,22–25; Matt 1:5;
Jas 2:25) was both a non-Israelite and a prostitute. How far from a priestly
model can you get?

Notes
1 This article is a revision of the G. Henton Davies Lecture, delivered in February 1996 at
Regent’s Park College, Oxford, on the occasion of Professor Davies’s 90th birthday.
2 Echoing Exod 19:6, ‘And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ In Isa
61:5–6 the depiction of Israel as a corporate priesthood emphasizes her separation from and
superiority to all other nations. She has unique access to God.
3 See also Rom 15:16 where the apostle Paul describes his bringing the Gentiles to God as a
‘priestly service’ (”ερουργου~ντα) of the gospel.
4 1 Peter 5:1–4 uses the term ‘elder’ (πρεσβàτεροσ) rather than ‘priest’ (”ερεàσ) for a
Christian leader.
5 A. E. Harvey, ‘New Wine in Old Skins: II. Priest’, ExpT 84 (1973), pp. 200–3.
6 Josephus, Ant 13.301.
7 1QpHab 12.7–8; 10.10; CD 12.2 speak of the ‘wicked priest’ who defiled the sanctuary. This
is not a denunciation of Levitical priesthood per se but of the present incumbent of the office of
high priest. Hence the War Scroll looks forward to the restoration of right worship in the Jerusalem
temple, rather than the end of the cult itself.
 PRIESTHOOD AND HEBREWS 61
8 Jub 31.12–20; cf. T.Jud. 21.29; 24.1–3 where the priest has pre-eminence over the king.
9 1QS 9.9b–11; cf. Zech 3:1–4:14.
10 See for example 2 Sam 6:13,17–18; 24:25; 1 Kgs 3:4,15; 8:5,62–4; 9:25; 2 Kgs 16:12–5.
Scholars such as A. J. B. Higgins, ‘The Priestly Messiah’, NTS 13 (1966/67), pp. 211–39 interpret
1QS 9.9b–11 as a reference not to two figures, but one Davidic king exercising such priestly functions.
11 Heb 13:22, ‘a word of exhortation’ (λÞγοσ τƒσ παρακλÜσεωσ); cf. Acts 13:15; 15:32. For
the classification of Hebrews as a homily see H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
Hermeneia (Philadephia: Fortress, 1989), p. 14.
12 See R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: DLT, 1961), pp. 387–474;
A Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica 35 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1969).
13 So Cody, op. cit., p. 72.
14 Mary Beard and John North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World
(London: Duckworth, 1990), p. 7, suggest that ‘mediating between men and gods’ was also one of
the defining functions of pagan priesthood.
15 Heb 9:3–4, unlike its biblical sources (cf. Exod 30:6–7; 40:5,26; Lev 16:16–19), places the
altar of incense inside the holy of holies. See H. W. Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 234–8, who claims that
such an interpretative tradition was already established in first century Judaism. Cf. 2 Bar 6:7.
16 See M. E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
JSNTS 73 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 206–19.
17 See B. S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1974), pp. 509–11.
18 See Isaacs, Sacred Space, pp. 213–16. Unlike other NT writers, Hebrews does not link the
(new) covenant theme with the Last Supper and its Passover associations. This epistle displays
no particular interest in the Eucharist. See R. Williamson, ‘The Eucharist and the Epistle to the
Hebrews’, NTS 21 (1975), pp. 300–12.
19 For a resumé of contemporary interpretations of τελειου~ν and cognates in Hebrews see
D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: CUP, 1982, pp. 3–20). He convincingly refutes the sug-
gestion that here it is used in the sense of ‘to fill the hands’ (cf. LXX Exod 29:9; Lev 4:5 τελειου~ν
τaσ χε…ρασ), i.e., to consecrate as a priest. For a discussion of what ‘filling the hands’ might have
originally signified see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 346–8.
20 ’ΑπαρÀβατοσ is better translated actively as ‘permanent’ or ‘unchangeable’ (so NRSV,
RSV, NEB, Knox, Windisch, Wilson et al.) rather than passively, ‘without successor’ (contra
Phillips, TEV, Héring, Spicq, Montefiore, Moffatt), for which there is no evidence in contemporary
Greek usage. Most early Greek fathers understood the term to mean ‘intransmissible’. P. E. Hughes,
A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1977), suggests that here
it conveys both active and passive meanings. ‘The priesthood of Christ does not pass to another,
precisely because it is a perpetual priesthood’ (p. 269, n. 34).
21 See F. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth
Century and the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: CUP, 1976). For the Melchi-
zedek tractate from Codex 1X of the Nag Hammadi library (not included by Horton), see B. A.
Pearson, Nag Hammadi Codices 1X and X (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 19–85.
22 Zedek was probably the name of a Canaanite deity. See S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s
Worship (NY: Harper and Row, 1960), Vol. 2, p. 132, n. 85. The name ‘Melchizedek’ thus signifies
‘Zedek’s king’. See F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, p. 43.
23 See Rom 8:34 which also links Jesus’ session with his intercessory activity.
24 J. H. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTS 49
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), p. 90.
25 Contra A. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New
Testament (Petersham, Mass.: St Bede’s, 1986), p. 65, who argues for an on-going priesthood on
the grounds that it is not explicitly denied in the NT.
26 H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 288. Contra A Vanhoye, Old Testament
Priests, ‘… the participation of all believers in the priesthood of Christ is affirmed’ (p. 230).
27 J. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, p. 205.
28 J. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, pp. 140–9.
29 See M. E. Isaacs, Sacred Space, pp. 87–8; D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, p. 162.
30 ‘A sacrifice of praise’, like LXX Ps 49(MT50):14 which it echoes, is in contrast to animal
sacrifices; cf. LXX Ps 49:12–13. Cf. 1 Pet 1:5, ‘spiritual sacrifices’.
31 ‘The fruit of lips which acknowledge his name’ refers to hymns of thanksgiving; cf. Ps Sol
5:2–3; 2 Macc 10:17.
62 MARIE E. ISAACS

32 See A. E. Harvey, ExpT 84 (1973), p. 203.

33 A Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, p. 209.
34 As examples of works which concentrate on the theme of pilgrimage, see E. Käsemann, The
Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1984); R. Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (NY: Pilgrim,
1981); W. G. Johnson, ‘The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews’, JBL (1978), pp. 239–51.