Martin Luther's Understanidng of the Authorship and Warning Passages in Hebrews

The PDF for this can be accessed from Academia.edu by click here

Martin Luther’s lectures on Hebrews make up a fascinating interaction with the Biblical text. Luther’s lectures were written around 1516-1518. Luther in his lecture notes and his preface to the book of Hebrews, seek to deal with the concepts of authorship, canonicity, and the warning passages. Luther’s hermeneutic to interpret scripture with scripture and his Pauline bias lead him to deny Biblical authority and the canonicity of the book of Hebrews.

Martin Luther

First, it must be noted that Martin Luther never published his notes on the book of Hebrews, and his “own lecture notes are not extant.”[1] In fact there are only two manuscripts from two students of Luther, still in existence today.[2] It is important to realize the students’ copies of Luther’s notes, may not necessarily be Luther’s original thought.  The original lectures were in Latin; in fact Luther had special copies of the Latin vulgate printed off for his students. Kenneth Hagan explains:

Luther lectured on Hebrews, as he had done on the Psalms, Romans and Galatians, in traditional manner by dividing his material into Gloss and Scholium…For his preparations Luther glossed his special copy of the Latin Vulgate by inserting short summary and descriptive phrases between the lines of the text (traditionally know throughout the Middle Ages as the interlinear gloss) and by adding more extended exegetical material in the margins (traditionally known as the marginal or ordinary gloss). Luther also worked out his own extensive exegetical and theological interpretation of Hebrews (Traditionally known as scholium)…Each student had his own copy of the Vulgate, which Luther had had printed especially for his class. The student then glossed his own text with the interlinear and marginal Glosses as well as with the scholium that Luther dictated.[3]

Thus, since the students were writing Luther’s dictation, these lectures are more or less based on these two particular students’ understanding of what Luther was teaching.  This becomes even more evident when one realizes that Luther’s Glosses contained word or passage studies, grammatical and or philological issues, and moral/ethical issues.[4] Meanwhile, the Scholium is essentially Luther’s interpretation of the text and his “exposition.” [5] Secondly, it must also be noted that this paper was researched based on the English translations of the American Edition of Luther’s Works. Therefore it is also important to know that the editor Jaroslav Pelikan decided to leave out all the glosses, and only translate the scholia. Thirdly, it must be noted that Luther’s lectures on Hebrews only cover Hebrews chapters 1-11.

Authorship

            Luther has had several thoughts on the authorship of the Book of Hebrews. Originally, he was content with a Pauline authorship. Hagen, interprets an older version of Luther’s notes from a German translation. It states,

we should note that Paul in this epistle exalts grace and contrast it with the  arrogance of legal and human righteousness.  He shows that without Christ, neither the law nor the priesthood nor prophecy nor even finally the ministry of the angels was sufficient for salvation. In fact all these were established and provided in reference to the coming of Christ. Therefore, everything considered, he proposes that one should teach Christ alone.[6][bold added]

It is probably best to note here Luther’s positive understanding of the book of Hebrews. Now compare this to Luther’s later understanding of Hebrews from his 1522 preface to the book of Hebrews, where Luther states, “in the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or any other apostle…who wrote it is not know, and will probably not be known for a while; it makes no difference.” In other words, Luther’s most recent comments on the book are that Paul did not write it and neither did any other apostle. There is also speculation that Luther thought possibly that Apollos was the author of Hebrews. According to David Allen, Luther, in one of his (Luther’s) sermons on Hebrews 1:1-4, argued that Apollos was the author of Hebrews in 1522.[7] This seems to be problematic though, because Luther publishes in the same year where He very definitively states “who wrote it is not know, and will probably not be known for a while.” Allen then shows that Luther’s commentary on Genesis attributes the book of Hebrews to Apollos.[8] This must also be taken with a grain of salt since these Genesis lectures were also notes taken from Luther’s students. Yet, despite whether Luther thought the book of Hebrews was written by Apollos or by an unknown author, his conclusion remained unchanged – that the author of Hebrews (at least according to Luther) was not an apostle.  This belief will play an important role in Luther’s understanding of the book of Hebrews.

The Warning Passages in Hebrews

            Like many modern reformed theologians, Luther starts off with the presupposition that the ones who are being discussed in the warning passages are not Christians - at least that is what it seems at first.  Later he argues and denies canonicity and the scriptural authority of the book. Moreover, the concept of losing one’s salvation, not being able to repent or no longer having a sacrifice as expressed in Hebrews 6 and 10, are completely foreign ideas. Since Luther’s lectures only cover Hebrews 1-11 this study will only cover the warnings in 4 of the 5 warning passages. This means that the two original texts left from his notes did not contain the last two chapters, because Luther cites them in his other works.  Also, these lectures were written between 1516-1518, where he still held to Pauline authorship and held to this book as being apostolically inspired. However, his thoughts on the source of this book changes after 1522 when he publishes his introduction to the New Testament books. Luther goes as far as to place Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations as uninspired New Testament apocrypha. This change in Luther’s understanding of authorship does play an important role in his hermeneutic of the warning passage.

            The first warning Luther expounds on is found in Hebrews chapter 2:2-3, which is translated, “For if the message declared by angels was valid, [and every transgression and disobedience received a just retribution].”[9] Luther sees this passage as dealing with the Law. In Luther’s theology he breaks down the word of God into two categories: one of Law and Gospel. The law in Luther’s “law and Gospel” theology functions as God’s wrath on the sinner.[10]  Paul Althaus explains,

The Law was originally not a means of God’s wrath. In primeval state man could still fulfill it. Therefore, it was not a burden for him but a joy. Since the fall however, everything is different man. Man is no longer able to fulfill the law. For this reason the law which for men was once a means of community with God, now becomes the instrument of God’s wrath.[11]

This is exactly how Luther proceeds to formulate his theological understanding of this passage.  Luther first cites Romans 8:3, which his translations and comments state, “‘For what the law could not do, in that it was weakened, because of the flesh,’ that is, was not fulfilled but was rather neglected.” As Altheus stated in the quote above, “since the fall” that man has not been able to fulfill the law. Luther also links this warning passage with the fourth and final warning in Hebrews 10. Luther states, “the Law is said to be established and ratified, and, on the other hand, to become invalid, as below in

ch. 10:28, where a man is making void the law of Moses is mentioned.”[12] Luther sees these people as people who tried to earn righteousness on their own strength, by trying to fulfill the law as a means of salvation. Luther states, “The result was that they fulfilled the Law only out of fear of punishment or out of love of reward. But to fulfill the Law in this way is to practice pure hypocrisy.”[13] In the end Luther understands these people, the “hypocrites”, to be unbelievers. To Luther, he sees these actions are inevitable for “every man who is outside of Christ.”[14] Therefore, while he does not directly come out and say that the ones receiving a just retribution are unbelievers it is implied.

            This does not mean though that, the punishment or the “just retribution” is eternal damnation or hell. Rather, for Luther, this punishment is an external punishment. External punishment is an earthly punishment or physical punishment that is dealing with the inward man. To Luther there is the Law and the Gospel, the law is the left hand of God which serves the purpose of regulating and coercing activities. It is there to cause people to perform good works, but to Luther all these works are external works. The external works by no means help with salvation. Thus, the punishment for not obeying external laws by doing external works according to Luther was an external punishment, and or external reward. Luther believed it was just as much a sin to do good works for rewards - thinking one can earn one’s way to heaven, as it is to live a sinful life. This is why Luther calls these people hypocrites. Moreover, Luther viewed salvation as being acquired through only one work - the work of Christ. This is the only internal work for Luther. While the punishment for this passage is not eternal damnation, the result is still the same because according to Luther these people are not in Christ. Hell will be their end result, but it will not be on account of their external transgressions but on account of their unbelief.

            The second verse in this warning passage is Hebrews 2:3, which Luther interprets, “[How shall we escape] if we neglect such a great salvation?”.  Luther goes on to explain his law and gospel understanding of this warning in more detail on the comments on this verse. He states, “The Law and the Gospel also differ for this reason, that in the law there are very many works- they are all external- but in the Gospel there is only one work- it is internal-which is faith…therefore the whole substance of the new law and its righteousness is that one and only faith in Christ.”[15]  Luther in this passage is not even discussing eternal issues such as heaven or hell, because he understands verse 2 to be dealing with disobedience to external works. One might ask that since this is referring to external, rather than internal, disobedience and has nothing to do with hell or damnation, then why does it imply that these people have to be unbelievers? Luther, like many reformed theologians, believe “it is impossible for faith in Him (Christ) to be idle; for it is alive, and it itself works and triumphs, and in this ways works flow forth spontaneously from faith.”[16] This is another reason why this passage according to Luther cannot be talking about true Christians, because a Christian’s faith would cause the external good works to spontaneously generate. 

            In the following warning passage Hebrews 3-4, Luther, being an Old Testament scholar, immediately notices the link between the wilderness generation and the warning passage. Luther takes Hebrews 3:10 to mean that in the future there will be a people that God is just as displeased with as the wilderness generation; but he does not clarify whether the future people are Christians or not.[17] Later in verse 3:12 which states, “Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart.” Luther takes this as to mean again someone who is not saved. For example, Luther then directly references Titus 1:15, which he translates, “To the impure nothing is pure, but their minds and consciences are corrupted.” In other words, Luther understands these people with unbelieving hearts to be unbelievers because they have an impure heart. Luther in his comment goes on to say,

For one falls away from the living God when one falls away His Word, which is alive and gives life to all things, yes, is God himself. Therefore they die. He who does not believe is dead. But falling away comes about through unbelief. And thus it is clear what an ‘evil heart’ of unbelief is. It is a heart which nothing is good, but everything is evil, because it departs from everything that is good.[18]

This is probably one of the clearest statements made by Luther on the warning passages. Here one can see that Luther clearly understands these people who miss the rest as people who have nothing good in their hearts and this is due to unbelief.  Therefore, for Luther, this is not a matter of losing one’s salvation because these people did not have faith; if they did, they would be producing work as noted earlier.

            This point is explained even more clearly in Luther’s comments on Hebrews 4:12 which states, “for the word of God is living and powerful.”[19] This according to Luther has a twofold meaning. First that for the believer it is power, it is an enabling power for those who believe it in faith. Luther states, “it is the ‘powerful,’ because it makes those who believe able to do everything.”[20]  For Luther, the word of God is the proclamation, the oral word spoken and if one is a believer he will have responded positively to that word. If one is an unbeliever, then he or she has responded negatively to that proclaimed word. To respond positively to the proclaimed word, one has to have a purified heart.[21] For the unbeliever, this passage is one of judgment of wrath. Luther states this passage is “better…understood as a threat of cruel punishment for unbelievers.”[22] Luther goes on by quoting John Chrystom, “indeed, it is cruller than any sword: for it will fall upon (that is, will cut) the souls of those inflicting cruel wounds and fatal cuts.” Luther also links this passage of the word of God being living and powerful, back to the warning in Hebrews 2:3 about escaping the great salvation. He asserts, “Therefore since the Word of God is above all things, outside all things, within all things, before all things, behind all things. Therefore everywhere, it is impossible to escape to any place.”[23]  Moreover he links it to eternal punishment. Luther continues by explaining that this punishment because it is “living” is also “eternal,” which results in never ending “punishment.”[24] This again directly fits into Luther’s concept of Law and the Gospel. Luther understood the law to be just as much the word of God as the Gospel, combined one brings wrath to unbelievers and crushes them. Meanwhile, the Gospel kills one’s self on the cross of Christ and make alive and the one who does respond in faith to the Gospel, the word of God. In the end, Luther understands this warning to be two fold, for believers need to prepare for Christ’s (the High Priest) return, because when He does some will receive eternal punishment, while others will receive the implied rest.[25]  Luther does not explicitly define rest, but the implication seems to be eternity with Christ. 

            In the second warning in chapters 3 and 4, Luther talks about an evil heart. For Luther, the one’s heart is evil because it did not listen to the oral or the proclaimed word of God. This is all based on Luther’s understanding of faith. This is the key to understanding to whom this warning is talking. Kenneth Hagen explains,

Luther holds that the key to [3:12] is the word ‘Heart.’ He interprets the verse as an exhortation for one to be sure that his heart is ‘clean.’ Faith cleanses the Heart. Through faith united to Christ who is verbum dei man becomes ‘clean,’ ‘pure,’ ‘just,’ ‘wise,’ ‘good,’ and so on.[26]

Thus the warning is for the unbeliever who has not responded in faith to Christ. This results in never being purified, justified and never being saved. Therefore, to Luther, these evil unbelieving hearts refer to unbelievers. Meanwhile, those who do respond to the oral proclaimed Word of God, those are purified. While other commentators from the Middle Ages like, “Aquinas, Tarantasia and Lyra” explained these verses to mean one needs to perform good works, this is contrary to Luther’s understanding of faith.[27] Luther’s interpretation was a major shift in medieval thought as he had split away from the teaching that these passages called for people to perform good works. Luther saw that through faith one could keep one’s heart strong. Hagan translates Luther’s thoughts, “Just as man’s body cannot become strong without bread, so also his heart cannot become strong without the bread of God’s Word.”[28]  Luther also makes a major shift in even inserting faith into the concept of cleansing one’s heart. Luther argues in Hebrews 9:14 that one’s conscience or heart is cleansed or purified through faith.[29] This is an important transition, Hagan states, “With the exception of Aquinas, faith is not mentioned by medieval exegetes in their interpretation of” Hebrews 9:14.[30]

This then opens the reality that the warning is not focused toward believers (Christians), because Luther believes that one can only respond to the Word of God through faith. In Hebrews 3:7 Luther seems to clarify this idea for his students, he comments, that, “it is perverse…for one to hasten to works before God works in us, that is before we believe.”[31]  Therefore, for Luther these passages are not talking about those who are Christians because if one was a Christian he or she would be purified and would have already been performing good works.

With regards to the following two warnings, Luther begins to have his shift in thoughts about the book of Hebrews and decides that it is not Pauline. For instance, in 1522 about 4 to 6 years after Luther’s lectures in his preface to the epistle to the Hebrews Luther states, “Up to this point we have had (to do with) the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”[32]  In other words, Luther is denying its canonicity. He argues in part due to the next two warning passages Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-27. Luther states,

“Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that chapters 6[:4-6] and 10[:26-27] it flatly denies and forbids to sinners any repentance after baptism; and in chapter 12[:7] it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This [seems, as it stands, to be] contrary to all the gospels and to St. Paul’s epistles; and although one might venture an interpretation of it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient.”

This is important to keep in mind, because Luther’s comments while not this strong, will seemingly be leaning toward this idea. In his notes, he does not even deal with verses 3 or 4, but instead skips to verse 6, which he translates, “To restore again to repentance those who have fallen away.”[33] First, Luther disagrees with changing the word “impossible” to “difficult” trying to be as literal as possible.[34] Next, he makes a confusing statement that, “it is no less difficult for God to justify any godless person again, and it is impossible for man to rise from any sin.”[35] This statement creates a paradox of justified godless people whom God would have to justify again. As noted in the preface to Luther’s works, he no longer holds this view. Instead, Luther stated above in the preface that he believes the author to be wrong about repentance. Even in his lectures, he seems to be leaning towards this thought. Luther proceeds to cite multiple verses that begin to show how God brings the sinner back to Him, and back to repentance.

In the final passage, Luther’s commentary really only deals with Hebrews 10:26, which he translates: “For [if we sin] deliberately [after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins].”[36] Luther believes that this passage along with the warning in chapter 6, can only be understood “on the basis of other scripture passages.”[37] Luther does this because he believes that others might be “contentious” and argue for other interpretations.[38] Therefore, Luther knew this verse could cause controversy to some degree. From here Luther continues with his understanding of Pauline Biblical theology rather than exegeting the passage. Luther goes back to his theology of Law and the Gospel, by arguing that one cannot “sin against faith.”[39] He gives the example of David who is known for deliberately sinning. Luther explains that David’s sin was not “against faith”, but only against the fifth and sixth commandment.[40] While this seems rather flippant to say “Oh he only broke two commandments”; that is not Luther’s point. Rather, Luther is arguing from the concept of Law and Gospel. For Luther, David’s sins and most other sins were a result of external or horizontal worldly sins. Luther believed these sins get punished by external punishments as stated earlier. Luther explains that this type of sin is probably a mortal sin (which he bases off of Hebrew 10:29) and death to Luther is an external punishment. Luther cites 1 Corinthians 13:7; specifically the fact the love bears all things, and to Luther all things mean all things including external sins. He then argues that in 1 John those “who are born of God do not sin,” which is a traditional reformed understanding.

Luther then turns the argument on its head in opposition to the Armenians’ point of view. He argues that “he who is outside Christ cannot repent.”[41] He continues, that one “must understand that there is perseverance; that, is, just as he who is in grace cannot sin, no matter what he does, but remains in grace, so he who is in sin, cannot do good, no matter what he does, but remains in sins.”[42] Namely, it does not matter what one who is in grace does, because if he sins he is still under grace and dies under the work of Christ, and the end result is heaven. This is synonymous to the sinner as it does not matter how much he sins or does not sin, he is going to die apart from Christ and the end result is hell. For Luther, in the end, our actions here on earth are basically irrelevant to eternal realities, such as heaven. Moreover, there are two “state of affairs” which one can live in, either in Christ or not.[43] In conclusion, Luther sees the impossibility to be one of a change of state rather than of repentance.

Conclusion

            In the end, Luther’s interpretation was more influenced by his dogmatism and proof texting. Luther, throughout his lecture notes uses scripture to interpret scripture, and several times argued for a more literal interpretation even when it was not popular among the commentaries of his day. Yet despondently, Luther, being a Biblical theologian, used his Pauline Biblical theology as a mold in which to try and fit the book of Hebrews. The end result of this as seen in his preface to the book of Hebrews was a rejection from the cannon. Granted, Luther still appreciated and loved the book for the author’s understanding of faith and Christ as the great high priest. In the end, Luther’s theology of the warning passages was more of a list of proof text to argue why he is right and why other interpreters are wrong, than a true verse by verse interpretation. In the end his Pauline presuppositions, which were not necessarily wrong, got in the way of allowing him to truly create an exegetical exposition of the passages in Hebrews. This might also be just Luther’s response to a more Armenian understanding of the text that was prevalent during his time. But despite the reason, Luther was overly dogmatic in his exposition, which affected his ability to interpret the Hebrew text; and in the end it eventually caused him to reject Hebrews’ canonicity along with that of James, Jude and Revelation.   

---

[1] Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament In the Young Luther: the Lectures on Hebrews, (Leiden;Brill, 1974),6.

[2] Hagen, Lectures on Hebrews,6.

[3] Hagen, Lectures on Hebrews, 6.

[4] Pelikan, American Edition of Luther’s Works: Lectures on Titus, Philemon and Hebrews, (Vol 29, Saint Louis; Concordia publishing house,1968) xi.

[5] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews,xi.

[6] Hagen, Lectures on Hebrews, 19-20.

[7] David Allen, Hebrews (NAC; Nashville, Tenn: B&H Publishing, 2010), 46 note 115.

[8] Allen, Hebrews,46 note115.

[9] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 122.

[10] Paul Althaus, The theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia; Fortress Press,1963)255.

[11] Althaus, The Theology, 174.

[12] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews,122

[13] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews,122

[14] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 123.

[15] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews,123.

[16] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews,123.

[17] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 152.

[18]Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 153.

[19] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 163.

[20] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 164.

[21]Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 164.

[22] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 164.

[23] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 165.

[24] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 165.

[25] Pelikan, Lectures on…Hebrews, 146-167.

[26]Hagan, Lectures on Hebrews, 76.

[27] Hagan, Lectures on Hebrews, 76.

[28] Hagan, Lectures on Hebrews, 77.

[29] Pelikan, Lectures…on Hebrews 209.

[30] Pelikan, Lectures on Hebrews,78.

[31] Pelikan, Lectures on Hebrews, 148.

[32] E. Theodore Bachmann, The American Edition of Luther Works: Word and Sacrament I, (Vol 35, Philadelphia;Fortress Press,1960), 394.

[33] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 181.

[34] Pelikan, Lectures on …Hebrews.181.

[35] Pelikan, Lectures on …Hebrews 182.

[36]Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 227.

[37] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 227.

[38] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 227.

[39] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 228.

[40] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 228.

[41] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 228.

[42] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 228.

[43] Pelikan, Lectures on… Hebrews, 228.

Bibliography

Allen, David. Hebrews . NAC; Nashville, Tenn: B&H Publishing, 2010.

Althaus, Paul. The theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia; Fortress Press,1963.

Bachmann, E. Theodore. The American Edition of Luther Works: Word and Sacrament I, Vol 35, Philadelphia; Fortress Press,1960.

Hagen, Kenneth. A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: the Lectures on Hebrews, Leiden; Brill, 1974.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. American Edition of Luther’s Works: Lectures on Titus, Philemon and Hebrews, Vol 29, Saint Louis; Concordia publishing house,1968.

Christology in Hebrews

Christology in Hebrews

Christology is the study of Christ, and this study can never be complete without a thorough study of the epistle of Hebrews. Hebrews presents Christ through several motifs. Throughout the epistle, Christ is shown as the creator, sustainer and revealer of and to creation. The author of the epistle also portrays Christ as human and divine - showing Christ in his hypostatic union. Therefore, Hebrews portrays Christ as eternally preexistent - as creator and sustainer of creation, as a suffering sacrifice and as the priestly king.

Christ as Preexistent Creator and Sustainer

The author begins Hebrews 1:1-3b by stating:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. [Bold added]

This section refers to Christ the Son of God and expresses Christ as the preexistent creator and sustainer of the world, and the revealer to the world in the last days. The phrase “through whom also He made the world” shows Christ as pre-existing the creation of the world and time itself. This concept continues in Hebrews 1:10-12 where the author portrays Christ as the one who created time and all of creation. It states, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb 1:10). The phrase, “in the beginning,” presupposes Christ existed before time was even created. Secondly, the author continues to express this idea of Christ’s eternality through an inclusio which begins in verse 1:10 and ends in verse 1:12. Here, Christ is shown to be the One who “will remain,” and states in Hebrews 1:12b, “But you are the same, and your years will not come to an end.”  In other words, Christ the Son of God did not have a beginning and was before the beginning and will continue till the end and even beyond the end, because He is eternal.

            Another Christological reality found in these verses is showing Christ as creator of creation. As mentioned earlier in verse 10, Christ created both the physical creation or realm, and the spiritual realm “the heavens” which are the “work of his hands” (Heb 1:10).  This concept is an important one since later Christ is understood by the author as also being a high priest who serves in tabernacles created not by men, but in a tabernacle that was made by Him (Heb 8:2; 9:11). Moreover, this idea crosses over to chapter 3 where Christ is compared to Moses. Both build houses (or houses of worship) and both were faithful; Moses was faithful as a servant but Christ was faithful as the Son of God (Heb 3:1-6). In other words, Christ created this spiritual tabernacle, and Moses’ tabernacle along with the priesthood of Aaron were nothing more than “copies” or “shadows” of this heavenly tabernacle(Heb 8:5).  Finally, this idea of God creating things is expressed in Hebrews 11:3A which states, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God.”

These verses express Christ as not just the creator, but also as the sustainer or the one who “upholds all things by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3b). The phrase, “word of his power” can also be understood as a powerful creative or directive word. As it states in BDAG, ῥῆμα is a dative that in this context conveys the idea of “Command(ment), order, direction … of God.”^[1] Thus, Christ is continually directing creation, sustaining it until the end of time.  Also this passage is conveying the idea that Christ is Lord over all creation and has power, authority and dominion over it. This concept is expressed in Hebrews 2:8, showing that everything and all things are in subjection to Christ.

Christ as a Suffering Sacrificial Servant

This section expresses Christ’ humanity while the first section portrayed His divinity. First, we see Christ’s sacrifice is first alluded too in Hebrews 1:3B which states, “When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” While this section shows Christ as being exalted and in a position of authority, it is important to notice the phrase, “He had made purification of sins.”  First, Christ becomes the God-man the incarnation. Hebrews 2:7 states, “You have made him for a little while lower than the angles; you have crowned him with glory and honor.” The idea is that he is now able to die for he became flesh. But interestingly, similar to Hebrews 1:3b Christ still receives the “glory and honor” in the end. This concept of Christ as the suffering servant is expressed in greater detail in Hebrews 2:9,10 where the author states:

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. [Bold added]

In other words, Jesus became a man and died and suffered so that he could bring salvation to sinful humanity, who in the following verses are called the brothers of Christ (Heb 2:11-14). Furthermore, this passage explains the reason why Christ is eternally crowned with glory and honor, because of his sacrificial death and suffering. In verse 14, the epistle clearly states another expression of Christ’s humanity by explaining the fact that Christ came in the flesh and in blood, just as we are flesh and blood (Heb 2:14).  This suffering and sacrifice resulted in Christ rendering Satan powerless and enabling those who are his brothers to overcome the slavery of sin. In the end this whole process of suffering and sacrifice was so that Christ could die, being a “propitiation for the sins of people” that He, then overcoming sin, is glorified at the right hand of the father(Heb 2:17). Finally Christ suffered and was tempted, yet He never sinned in order that he could become our help in time of our need. The ideas conveyed in Hebrews up to this point is leading up to Christ as being the perfect and complete High Priest.

Christ as the Perfect and Eternal High Priest/King

As shown previously, Christ is the preexistent eternal creator and sustainer of all things, and He is both entirely human and entirely God at the same time. He was he who suffered and was made to sit in a position of honor at the right hand of God, which He did for the purification of sins. These points are a summary of Christ’s main role as the perfect High Priest. The author seems to portray Christ as a high priest through two types: Moses, and Melchizedek.

First, Hebrews shows Christ as a high priest who is faithful to God and to those who are as Hebrews says his brethren (Heb 2:17, 3:2,6,14;10:23). His faithfulness is the reason why each Christian (the Brethren) can hold to his confession in Him (Heb. 10:23).  Secondly, because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, He is the mediator of the brethren (8:6;9:15;10:12). In other words, Christ is each Christian’s priest whose complete sacrifice of death allows each brother who partakes of his confession to:

1.      Be freed from the fear of death, and the slavery of sin (2:15-17; 9:14; 10:17-22).

2.      Have Christ’s aid and sympathy for them when they (Christians) are tempted or in weakness (2:18; 4:15-16). He ministers to the saints in these times of need (6:10).

3.      Have a direct ability to enter into the perfect tabernacle(house) of God where Christ reigns and is High Priest(1:3;2:9;3:1-6;4:14-16).

4.      Possess a High Priest who intercedes for them (7:25).

5.      Be able to finally offer praise and thanks, through this high priest(13:15), who equips each Christian for every good work(13:21).

All of these are realities that each Christian is able to obtain through and in Christ because of His death and suffering, resurrection and ascension to the role of High Priest.

            Moreover, the author of Hebrews is arguing that Christ is a completely perfect high Priest, like Melchizedek. This is not saying that Christ was Melchizedek but that He was not from the line of Aaron, but rather Christ is the righteous “King of peace” who was without a father or mother or genealogy, nor having a beginning or an end (7:2b-3). This is not to say that Christ did not have a mother as in Mary; but rather, that Christ is preexistent and has no beginning and He will have no end. In addition, Jesus was made a High Priest. Hebrews 5:5-6 states:

So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”; just as He says also in another passage, “You are a Priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek.”

 Christ was made a high Priest by God the father. The author reiterates this concept by stating that Christ was appointed by the oath of God’; as stated, “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind You are a Priest forever”(Heb 7:21) In other words, Christ is, from this point on, eternally the perfect priest of the new and better covenant (Heb 7:23-28).   This is proven by the fact that Christ is holy, innocent, undefiled, and because He is continually interceding for Christians as their mediator (Heb 7:22-28). He continually does it because he has overcome the power of death and can now serve as God’s faithful Son over God’s house.

Conclusion

 In conclusion, Christ is the perfect High priest because He is a part of a complete covenant that can save; because unlike the priests of old, who had to perform a sacrifice to cleanse themselves of sin, Christ was holy and pure did not need a sacrifice for Himself. Rather, He was the sacrifice (Heb 9:11-15). In the end it is Christ’s death and ascension to High Priest that enables believers “through his own blood” to be able to enter “the holy place once and for all having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12). As the author of Hebrews states, “let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” because we have a faithful High priest (Heb 10:22).   In the end this eternal suffering faithful son of God, Jesus Christ, is the perfect High Priest who mediates and intercedes for the sins of the brethren. He is indeed “the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb 7:25; 13:12), who is there in their time of need and weakness (2:18; 4:15-16;6:10).

---

^[1] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 905.