Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation
of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7 ^*

In a recent essay¹ I compared the priesthood of the monarch in ancient Israel with that of the high priest as he is presented in the Priestly writings of the Pentateuch², and came to the conclusion that the two priesthoods were of a different order. Whereas the priesthood of the high priest was what might be termed a functional priesthood, that of the monarch I termed ontological. That is to say, the high priesthood according to its depiction in P was a more intense version of the ordinary priesthood, and the significant characteristics of the ordinary priesthood were that those who bore the title of ‘priest’ were men employed at a sanctuary where they actually functioned on a day-to-day basis as attendants of the deity. Their priesthood was effectively a job of work, hence the designation ‘functional’ to refer to it. There is no evidence in P that the high priest, any more than any other priest, had to be endowed with the Spirit of God in order to enable him to function in his particular priestly role, nor is there evidence that the high priest enjoyed a relationship of especial intimacy with the deity. Rather, although he undoubtedly had a mediating role in cultic contexts on behalf of his people, this mediatory function arose out of his position as the priest par excellence, which meant that he was the functionalist par excellence. Above all, it was his supreme tie to the sanctuary rather than any sense of friendship with the deity which made his mediation efficacious, since his task was to ensure that the sanctuary was cleansed from the defilement of sin, thereby ensuring the continuation of the divine presence in the shrine and so among the people³. By contrast, however, the priesthood undertaken by the monarch arose from his being understood as the son of God in some sense, and this did not merely link him to the sanctuary but actually gave him a privileged relationship with the deity (cf. Ps 89,27-28 [Eng. 89,26-27]). Additionally, in order for the monarch to fulfil his kingly duties, which included mediation for his people in cultic contexts, he was endowed with the Spirit of God, an endowment symbolised in the anointing with oil which formed part of the coronation ritual. The priestly status itself was bestowed upon the monarch by means of an oath sworn by the deity at the king’s coronation:

The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:
You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110,4).

This meant that unlike the ordinary priests around him, for whom it was possible to be of priestly descent and yet not actually function as priests (cf. Deut 18,6-8; Lev 21,17-23), the monarch had no choice as to whether or not to fulfil the priestly responsibility of mediation laid upon him; he was a priest for ever, whether he liked it or not, because of the sonship granted to him by the deity. He was not of priestly descent inasmuch as he was not of the tribe of Levi, nor was he a priest in the sense of someone who was actually employed as a sanctuary attendant and was carrying out sanctuary duties on a day-to-day basis. However, his priesthood was more permanent and enduring than that of any other priest, since whether or not he was functioning in the sanctuary and ‘doing the job’ of priest, he was by definition a mediator between people and deity for the rest of his life. His priesthood was part of his identity as son of God; it was ‘ontological’, part of his very being.

Such an analysis has important consequences for the interpretation of the passage in Heb 7, where an extended comparison is drawn between Jesus and the priest-king Melchizedek. At first sight, the writer appears to be interpreting the figure of Jesus in terms of the Levitical (Aaronic) high priesthood as it appears in P, and to be arguing for Jesus as the perfect expression of high priesthood as it is there understood. That is, Heb 7 seems to be defining Jesus in terms of primarily priestly categories; although Jesus is portrayed as a priest of a different order from the traditional Levitical hierarchy, he is nevertheless shown above all as a priest. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that in Heb 8,1–10,18 the writer goes on to present an elaborate exposition of Christ’s saving work in terms of the function of the Aaronic high priest on the Day of Atonement. The christology of these chapters, and indeed of Hebrews as a whole, appears to be unique among the New Testament documents in its explicit emphasis on priesthood⁴, raising the question of what if any antecedents to it may have existed. However, when Heb 7 is examined in the light of the above comparison between the priesthood exercised by the high priest and that exercised by the monarch, an answer to the question of antecedents suggests itself. The characteristics of Jesus’s priesthood which are enumerated in the extended description of him as ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ are those not merely of high priesthood but of royal priesthood; in other words, rather than being the description of a high priest, the picture of Jesus given in Heb 7 depicts what modern scholarship would call a sacral king. In this way, the two major christological strands in Hebrews of Sonship and of priesthood are seen to belong together, since both divine sonship and priesthood are elements of the ancient royal ideology. Indeed, such a convergence of sonship and priesthood has already been presented at 5,5-6, where the writer uses two OT quotations to speak of Jesus’s installation as heavenly high priest. Here the pattern of sacral kingship is immediately recognisable, as the writer quotes Ps 2,7, where God declares his adoption of the monarch-to-be as his son, followed by Ps 110,4, where the new monarch’s priestly prerogatives are bestowed upon him by divine oath⁵. It should therefore be no surprise to find royal elements in the more detailed exposition of Jesus’s high priesthood in Heb 7, especially since the ancient royal ideology was a major defining component of messianism. The result is thus a presentation which despite its apparently overwhelmingly priestly character is consistent with the traditional messianic expectation of a son of David, that is, a royal figure, even if it is not expressed in terms of explicitly Davidic categories⁶. This comes out very clearly when a point-by-point comparison is made between the priesthood of the ancient monarchs as portrayed in the Old Testament and the description of Jesus’s high priesthood in Heb 7. The present study is in two parts: first, a discussion of the significance of Melchizedek as a paradigm of royalty in Heb 7, and secondly, an examination of the features of Jesus’s priesthood as they appear in Heb 7.

I. Melchizedek as a paradigm of royalty in Heb 7

When assessing the christological significance of the Melchizedek presentation in Heb 7, the most important point to note is that the writer’s choice of Melchizedek as the model for Christ’s priesthood has in itself royal overtones. This is not necessarily an obvious conclusion, since in view of the varied and sometimes supernatural presentations of Melchizedek in Jewish writings of the late Second Temple period⁷, it would not be surprising to find something similarly speculative in the presentation of Melchizedek in Hebrews. Indeed, it has been suggested by a number of scholars that there is a link between the presentation of Melchizedek in Heb 7 and his portrayal in the Qumran scroll 11QMelch, where he appears as an angelic being and an eschatological redeemer⁸. However, there is little evidence in Heb 7 for the influence of such ideas⁹, either as positive models for the portrayal of Melchizedek or as negative concepts against which the writer polemicizes¹⁰. Instead, rather than being based on contemporary eschatological or angelological speculation about Melchizedek, the interpretation of Melchizedek in Hebrews is rooted firmly in the picture of this mysterious figure as he appears in the Old Testament¹¹. In his exegesis, the writer of Hebrews confines himself to Gen 14,18-20 and Ps 110,4, the only two OT references which mention Melchizedek, and bases his comments entirely upon what can legitimately be understood from them according to contemporary canons of exegesis¹². It is this firm reliance on the OT tradition that gives the exegesis in Heb 7 its royal flavour, since according to the OT tradition, Melchizedek is not merely a priest but a king (Gen 14,18). The royal component of Melchizedek’s identity is a factor which is often overlooked in the interpretation of Heb 7, but an examination of the way in which the writer takes up the OT tradition will demonstrate that the element of royalty is a highly significant aspect of what is often regarded as an overwhelmingly priestly christology.

1. Melchizedek in Gen 14,18-20 (Heb 7,1-3)

The first part of the OT Melchizedek tradition to be expounded in detail in Heb 7 is that which appears in Gen 14,18-20, where Melchizedek appears (and disappears!) as king of Salem and priest of God Most High. The writer begins his presentation in Heb 7 by summarising the details about Melchizedek as they appear in Gen 14,18-20 (Heb 7,1-2a), and then adding some exegetical comments of his own upon the Gen narrative (Heb 7,2b-3). It is true that some of the exegesis may seem somewhat fanciful when compared with the methods of present-day historical criticism, for example, the idea that because Gen 14,18-20 makes no mention of Melchizedek’s birth or death or parentage, it is legitimate to claim that these verses portray him as an eternal figure (Heb 7,3)¹³. However, it is equally true that the writer of Hebrews cites, and makes no attempt to deny, the plain statements which are made about Melchizedek in Gen 14,18-20, including the description of him as ‘king of Salem’ (Gen 14,18)¹⁴. In fact, a positively messianic slant is given to this description, as the writer cites etymologies which interpret the name ‘Melchizedek’ and the title ‘king of Salem’ as ‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of peace’ respectively (Heb 7,2b)¹⁵. Commentators have long noted that righteousness and peace are qualities which have strongly messianic connotations¹⁶ and such associations would explain why the writer drew attention to these etymologies in the context of an exposition concerning Jesus: Melchizedek is being presented as an earthly type (or antitype) of the heavenly Son of God, the Messiah, who like Melchizedek will be a king of righteousness and peace¹⁷. There should be no mistaking the royal overtones of this description. Apart from the explicit use of the term ‘king’, the qualities of righteousness and peace were closely associated in ancient times with the rule of the ideal king, as is evident from a psalm such as Ps 72, where the two qualities are listed together in a prayer for the king: ‘In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound till the moon be no more!’ (Ps 72,7)

Coming as they do, therefore, right at the start of the exposition in Heb 7, the etymologies of Melchizedek’s name set a definite royal tone which is all too easily overlooked in the rush to concentrate on the priestly aspects of the exposition¹⁸.

2. Melchizedek in Ps 110,4 (Heb 7,11-22)

The second aspect of the OT Melchizedek tradition to be expounded in Hebrews is that of Ps 110,4, the famous divine oath: ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’. The question of whether this reference can be regarded as having royal significance in the context of Heb 7 is more complicated than it was for the Gen 14 reference. From the point of view of modern scholarship, it is clear that Ps 110,4 does have royal significance. Although some have argued that Ps 110 dates from the Maccabaean period and was written to legitimate the kingship of the high priest Simon Maccabee, the more compelling conclusion is that it is an early royal psalm which legitimises the priestly prerogative of the monarch. In other words, it is not about a priest who is being made king but about a king who is also being declared a priest. It addresses a king in the first verse (110,1), and then goes on to swear in this royal figure as a priest for ever, citing Melchizedek the king who is also a priest as the model for the priesthood of the monarch (110,4)¹⁹. However, it is questionable whether the writer of Hebrews would have regarded the psalm in this way, and perhaps more importantly, whether it would have made any difference to the exegesis even if he had, given his exegetical technique whereby OT texts are used as proof-texts and their original context and meaning are not necessarily determinative. The genre of Ps 110 as determined by twentieth-century scholarship cannot therefore be appealed to in support of a ‘royal’ interpretation of its use in Heb 7. Nevertheless, it seems that the psalm was regarded by both Jews and the early church as messianic²⁰, which implies the recognition of elements of royal ideology in it. The writer of Hebrews certainly seems to be aware of this ‘messianic’ character, since he uses Ps 110,1 as one of his proof-texts about the superiority of the Son to the angels (Heb 1,13), and alludes to the same verse on three other occasions in his argument (Heb 1,3; 8,1; 10,12). But while Ps 110, 1 is used elsewhere in the New Testament with obvious messianic connotations²¹, Ps110,4 is not used in this way in any other NT document apart from Hebrews. This raises the question of whether the psalm’s messianic significance was thought to reside only in its first verse, which in the light of the ‘proof-texting’ technique of exegesis already mentioned would certainly be a possibility. However, the writer makes Ps 110,4 the centrepiece of his argument about Jesus’s priesthood (Heb 5,6, 10; 6,20; 7,15-17.20-21), and it is very difficult to conceive of him using a text which was not already acknowledged as messianic in order to put across his understanding of how the messianic hope as foreshadowed in Scripture had been fulfilled in Jesus. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the high priestly christology of Hebrews was based on early Christianity’s express veneration of Christ as high priest, a veneration to which Ps 110,4 may have been a contributory factor²². It therefore seems likely that Ps 110,4 as well as Ps 110,1 was regarded as messianic, at least in the circles from which Hebrews originated and to which it was addressed. Hence, inasmuch as the writer of Hebrews can be said to be using a messianic understanding of these verses he can be said to be using their royal character, since as already noted messianism was an outgrowth of royal ideology.

It is also undeniable that the writer of Hebrews uses the presentation of Melchizedek in Gen 14 to explicate the identity of Melchizedek in Ps 110, and that a significant element in the Gen 14 picture, as already noted, is that of Melchizedek as king of Salem, foreshadowing the messianic king of righteousness and peace. Hence, in the context of Heb 7, the use of Ps 110,4 becomes a continuation of the messianic note already struck by the use of Gen 14, inasmuch as the psalm, like Gen 14, involves Melchizedek who is a messianic prefiguration. Hence, although Melchizedek undoubtedly serves in Hebrews as a model for Jesus’s priesthood, a fact made especially clear by the use of Ps 110,4, the very fact that it is Melchizedek who is used as a model indicates that what is being portrayed for Jesus is a royal priesthood²³.

3. Melchizedek in Heb 7,1-3

An additional argument for the royal aspect of the priesthood at issue can be found in the very structure of the description of Melchizedek in Heb 7,1-3. In Greek, these three verses form a single sentence, which consists of the statement Ou|toj ga_r o( Melxise/dek ... me/nei i(ereu_j ei)j to_ dihneke/j, with a series of descriptive and relative clauses referring to Melchizedek inserted between the subject Melxise/dek and the verb me/nei, as follows:²⁴

7,1a	Ou[toj ga_r o( Melxise/dek,
b	basileu_j Salh/m,
c	i(ereu_j tou= qeou= tou= u(yi/stou,
d	o( sunanth/saj 'Abraa_m u(postre/fonti a)po_ th=j koph=j tw=n       basile/wn kai_ eu)logh/saj au)to/n,
7,2a	w|| kai_ deka/thn a)po_ pa/ntwn e)me/risen 'Abraa/m,
b	prw=ton me_n e(rmhneuo/menoj basileu_j dikaiosu/nhj e!peita       de_ kai_ basileu_j Salh/m, o# e)stin basileu_j ei)rh/nhj,
7,3a	a)pa/twr a)mh/twr a)genealo/ghtoj,
b	mh/te a)rxh_n h(merw=n mh/te zwh=j te/loj e!xwn,
c	a)fwmoiwme/noj de_ tw=| ui(w=| tou= qeou=,
d	me/nei i(ereu_j ei)j to_ dihneke/j.

The clauses in 7.1b-3c could be taken as purely descriptive, and their function interpreted as merely filling out the picture of Melchizedek who has by this point in the epistle been mentioned three times without any explication of his identity (5,6.10; 6,20). However, they could also be regarded as causal clauses which not only define who Melchizedek is but also give the grounds for Melchizedek’s perceived status as an eternal priest; their force would then be, ‘This Melchizedek, inasmuch as all these things are true of him, remains a priest for ever’. In other words, the features attributed to him in 7,1b-3c are not merely accidental characteristics, but they are the constituent elements of his identity as it is portrayed and expounded in the context of Heb 7; without them, he could not be an eternal priest, but with them he cannot fail to be. That this is a genuine interpretative possibility is indicated by the fact that the main-clause statement about Melchizedek remaining a priest for ever (7,3d) is clearly dependent upon facets of his identity which have previously been expressed in the list of subordinate clauses, namely, his identification as a priest (7,1c), and the view that he has no earthly beginning or end (7,3a-b). Additionally, the statement about Melchizedek blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham (7,1d-2a) is used in the subsequent verses as an argument that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham himself (7,4-8), so that in the context of Heb 7,1-3 this too can be seen as a contributory factor in his identity as priest for ever. Given, then, that these elements in the series of subordinate clauses clearly do have a causal relationship to the main statement of the sentence, it would not be unreasonable to interpret the whole series as causal. In that case, Melchizedek’s remaining a priest for ever would not only be on the grounds of his priesthood, his meeting with Abraham and his lack of earthly origins or end of days, but also on the grounds of his being king of Salem, king of righteousness and king of peace, which are the other characteristics cited in the list of subordinate clauses. And if he possesses (eternal) priesthood inasmuch as he is a king, then clearly the priesthood being described is that of a sacral king. Hence, the royal aspect of his character is an important part of his own priesthood, and therefore also of the priesthood of the one to whom he is likened.

II. The Nature of Jesus’s Priesthood

Having examined the figure of Melchizedek who serves as the basis for the exposition of Jesus’s priesthood, the second part of this study consists of an examination of that priesthood itself as it is described in Heb 7,11-22. There are several features of this description which echo characteristics of the priesthood of the ancient monarchs, pointing to the conclusion that this ‘priesthood after the order of Melchizedek’ is not a new kind of priesthood which has never before been seen. Instead, it is in reality a reprise of the ancient royal priesthood, which is thoroughly appropriate for a messianic figure such as Jesus.

1. Jesus, Royal Priest from the Tribe of Judah (Heb 7,14)

Perhaps the most obvious correspondence between the priesthood of Jesus and that of the monarchs is in the line of descent of both monarchs and Messiah. While Jesus is evidently regarded in Heb 7 as fulfilling a priestly role, he is equally clearly noted as being a descendant of a non-Levitical tribe in connection with which there is no stipulation in the Law about priesthood. However, the significance of this observation lies not only in Jesus’s lack of Levitical descent, but also in the tribe to which he is said to belong, namely, the tribe of Judah (Heb 7,14). This was also true of the sacral monarchs of the Davidic line, who represented their people before God in the capacity of high priests, yet who were descended not from the traditional priestly tribe of Levi but from the tribe of Judah. Again, most commentators are sensitive to the messianic overtones of the mention of the tribe of Judah, and indeed to those of the phraseology which is used to indicate Jesus’s descent from Judah — he is said to have ‘arisen’ (a)nate/talken) from that tribe, a word derived from the root a)nate/llw which occurs in the LXX to denote the appearance of a messianic figure²⁵. Commentators have also noted that the ancient monarchs used to undertake priestly functions on behalf of their people, including sacrificing at the altar²⁶. But as before, no attempt has been made to capitalise upon these elements for a possible interpretation of Jesus’s priesthood as one which is expressed in terms of sacral kingship²⁷. Instead, many commentators deny that the reference to Judah has any positive significance in the argument²⁸. Others have attempted to bridge the gap between the priestly christology which appears in Hebrews and the royal christology which appears elsewhere in the New Testament (and indeed, in Hebrews itself in terms of divine Sonship) either by reference to the Qumran ‘doctrine of two Messiahs’²⁹, or by comparison with the second and first century BCE Hasmonaean priest-kings³⁰. However, such comparisons are unnecessary, because the very model from which messianism developed was that of a king from the tribe of Judah who as son of God was required to fulfil a priestly function on behalf of his people, including offering sacrifice on their behalf at the altar and interceding for them in times of trouble. Hence, in being a member of the tribe of Judah who nevertheless fulfils a priestly role in apparent contradiction of the Law, Jesus satisfies perfectly a set of messianic criteria which are readily explicable in terms of the ancient sacral kingship which formed the basis for later messianic ideology.

2. Jesus, Priest in the Likeness of Melchizedek (Heb 7,11.15)

Another aspect of Jesus’s priesthood which corresponds to that of the ancient sacral monarchs is the way in which, according to Heb 7,11.15, it is related to that of Melchizedek. Although Heb 7,11 refers to the priesthood of Jesus in the words of Ps 110,4 (LXX 109,4) with the phrase kata_ th_n ta/cin Melxise/dek, which is often rendered in English ‘after the order of Melchizedek’, in Heb 7,15 the phrase is glossed with kata/ th/n o(moio/thta Melxise/dek, ‘after the likeness of Melchizedek’, implying that this is how the writer interpreted the quotation from Ps 110,4³¹. Such an understanding certainly seems to be nearer the meaning of the Hebrew original than does the traditional English rendering. The relevant Hebrew phrase from Ps 110,4, qdc-yklm ytrbd-l(, is a rather obscure construction, but on balance it most probably means ‘because of Melchizedek’ or ‘for the sake of Melchizedek’ rather than strictly ‘after the order of Melchizedek’. As applied in Ps 110 to the Israelite monarch, the thought seems to be that because Melchizedek was both king and priest in Jerusalem, the king who is now being installed in Jerusalem in his place will similarly fulfil both functions. Hence, Melchizedek serves as the model for sacral kingship and as its definition, rather than being some sort of progenitor or ancestor figure from whom the kings claim descent, which is what ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ would imply. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews glosses the phrase ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ with the phrase ‘after the likeness of Melchizedek’ in Heb 7,15, he recalls the usage of Ps 110,4 in the MT in a way which is highly appropriate for Jesus. Jesus is by no means a direct descendant from this pagan priest-king; however, his priesthood is shown as corresponding to that of Melchizedek, inasmuch as like Melchizedek he is a priest who comes not from the normal Levitical line but from the line of royalty. He is priest by virtue of his identity as king (or Messiah), and the fact that he is not only a king but also a priest makes him a sacral king.

3. Jesus, Priest by the Power of an Indestructible Life (Heb 7,16)

The third area of correspondence between the priesthood of Jesus and that of the ancient sacral monarchs is the way in which such priesthood is bestowed. According to Heb 7,16, Jesus is said to have obtained his priesthood not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. In the context of the argument of Heb 7, this is an exegesis of the phrase ‘for ever’ in Ps 110,4. The writer takes the phrase to imply that the person upon whom the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed must be immortal or, as he himself says, indestructible (a)kata/lutoj), since that person is to be a priest ‘for ever’. Jesus fits this criterion perfectly, since by his resurrection he has been shown not to be subject to the normal processes of mortality and destructibility. Hence, the phrase ‘power of an indestructible life’ is a reference to his resurrection and perpetual life, which is presumably accomplished by the power of God³². Now it is true that the ancient sacral kings were not regarded as being immortal or as the possessors of ‘indestructible life’, but it is equally true that their priesthood was not bestowed as a result of them fulfilling the criterion of bodily descent in the sense of being members of the normal priestly tribe of Levi. Instead, it appears to have been granted as a result of their becoming king, and becoming king involved being anointed and receiving the power of the spirit of God as a sanctifying and enabling force (1 Sam 16,13; cf. 2 Sam 1,14-16; Ps 89,21-22 [Eng. 89,20-21]). Hence, the priesthood of the sacral monarch could be regarded as stemming from the power of an indestructible life, since the spirit of God which sanctified and empowered the monarch is quite clearly the life-force which animates and re-animates, and is an expression of the primary characteristic of God as a being of indestructible life. In the context of the present comparison, this endowment with the Spirit can be seen as being echoed in the manifestation of divine power which was centred on the person of Jesus in and through the events of Easter. Jesus’s priesthood ‘by the power of an indestructible life’ (Heb 7,16) can therefore be seen as an alternative expression of the concept of priesthood by the power of the Spirit, so that in this respect too there is an important correspondence between the nature of the ancient royal priesthood and the messianic priesthood of Jesus as portrayed in Heb 7.

4. Jesus, Priest Addressed with an Oath (Heb 7,20-22)

Finally, the priesthood of Jesus is granted with an oath, which ensures its permanency (Heb 7,20-22). This too is a major characteristic of the priesthood of the sacral monarch, who will remain a priest until the day of his death due to the oath which has been sworn to him, and the responsibility which has therefore been laid upon him, by God. The oath is an expression of what was described above as the ‘ontological’ priesthood of the monarch, in other words, the identity of being which the monarch bears as priest. It does not simply make it possible for him to function as a priest, and carry out the duties of attendance at a sanctuary; it makes it impossible for him not to be a priest, since his divinely appointed destiny is to be such. It means that his very nature is to be a priest and that he is designated as a permanent representative and mediator for his people before the deity³³.

The net result of Jesus’s priesthood being described in terms of these four characteristics is that it is shown as being of a different order from that of the Levitical priests. It is qualitatively different from theirs³⁴, just as the priesthood of the monarch was qualitatively different from the priesthood of the Levitical priests, including the high priest — the former was ‘ontological’, the latter ‘functional’. Hence, the correspondence between the priesthood of Jesus as described in Heb 7 and the priesthood of the ancient sacral monarchs is complete; and the picture of Jesus as both Son and High Priest can be regarded as being well within what might be called ‘messianic norms’.

A potential difficulty for this reading of Heb 7 is that having supposedly described Jesus in terms of a sacral monarch, the writer then goes on in Heb 8–9 to describe Jesus’s priestly function in terms of that of the Levitical (Aaronic) high priest, making particular use of the analogy of the Day of Atonement (9,6-14.24-26). In other words, the ‘sacral monarch’ theme is not continued throughout the priestly analogy, which as remarked earlier is probably one reason why commentators have so consistently read chapter 7 as the description of a primarily priestly figure. Certainly, attention to context is an important hermeneutical principle which acts as a control against atomistic and distorting exegesis of isolated passages. However, the priestly context of chapter 7 need not preclude the reading of that chapter which has just been offered, for two reasons. First, although the writer does use a priestly analogy for his exegesis in chapters 8–9, the analogy is not consistent. Rather, there is a mixture of metaphors in order to bring out the the multivalence of Christ’s saving work. Christ is certainly portrayed in terms reminiscent of an Aaronic high priest; but he is also portrayed as the sacrificial victim, at the same time as he is shown functioning as high priest (9,11-14). If Christ can be both victim and priest at the same time in the exegetical scheme of Hebrews, there seems to be no reason why he should not also be both king and high priest, especially since there is more correspondence between the roles of king and priest than there is between the roles of priest and victim.

Secondly, the shift from royal motifs in chapter 7 to priestly motifs in chapters 8–9 can be understood on the basis that chapter 7 describes who this priest is, while chapters 8–9 describe what he does in his capacity as priest. His priestly duties are naturally expressed in terms of the Jewish cultus, because that is what the writer is familiar with, but that need not exclude the possibility that he is a different kind of priest from the usual cultic servants. Thinking back to the sacral monarch and the high priest of old, both served as mediators for their people in cultic contexts before the deity, despite the different bases of their priesthood. However, the point of the argument in Hebrews is that even though the same duties are carried out by Christ and by the earthly priests and high priests, there is a qualitative difference between the duties carried out by the earthly priests and those performed by Christ in his capacity as high priest: Christ’s ministrations are definitively efficacious in a way that those of the ordinary priests are not (9,13-14.24-26; 10,11-14). Hence, just as in chapter 7 the priesthood of Christ was set over against the Levitical and Aaronic priesthood as being of a different order, in chapters 8 and 9 the priestly ministry of Christ is set over against that of the earthly cultic personnel as being of a different order. When viewed in this light, the link between chapters 7 and 8–9 becomes clear: all three chapters use the earthly cult as a foil for their descriptions of Jesus’s work in terms of a new and better priesthood. It is true that the appeal made here to sacral kingship in order to explain the different order of priesthood in chapter 7 could not be sustained as a paradigm for the different order of ministry in chapters 8–9. Nevertheless, this should not obscure the important point that in chapters 7–9 the cult is not the norm to which Jesus’s ministry is being assimilated, but the element with which it is being contrasted; and those contrasts take whatever form the writer deems appropriate for conveying his understanding of Jesus’s person and work. Hence, supposed discontinuity between the ‘royal’ and ‘priestly’ paradigms need be no barrier to adopting the reading of chapter 7 proposed in this paper.

* * *

It seems, then, that in this portrayal of Jesus as an alternative high priest, there is no contradiction or reinterpretation of traditional messianic categories. Rather, inasmuch as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has shown Jesus as an exalted figure of sacral monarchy, he has depicted him as a truly messianic figure, in whose person the lines of both priesthood and monarchy converge. This is entirely consistent with the emphases in Hebrews on Sonship and priesthood, since taken together these two are the major elements of the royal ideology out of which messianism grew. There should therefore be allowed more room in Hebrews for royal ideology than traditionally seems to have been the case.

SUMMARY

In Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus as a high priest, not according to the line of Aaron but of Melchisedek, there is no reinterpretation of traditional messianic categories. Rather, inasmuch as Hebrews has shown Jesus to be an exalted figure of sacral monarchy, it has depicted him as a truly messianic figure, in whose person the lines of both priesthood and monarchy converge. This is, in turn, entirely consistent with the emphases in Hebrews on Sonship and priesthood, since taken together these are the two major elements of the royal ideology out of which messianism grew. There should, therefore, be allowed more room in Hebrews for royal ideology than traditionally seems to have been the case.

NOTES

^* I am indebted to the members of the Old and New Testament Seminar at King’s College London and the Graduate Seminar at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, for their pertinent and helpful comments on pre-publication versions of this paper.

¹ D.W. ROOKE, "Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy", King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. DAY) (JSOTSS 270; Sheffield 1998) 187-208.

² The so-called Priestly writings (hereafter referred to as P) are the only place in the Old Testament where the institution and theology of high priesthood are described in detail. It is presumably possible that other ideologies of high priesthood existed in ancient Israel, but nothing of these has survived, which implies that P’s construction represents the dominant high priestly ideology. The parts of P relating to the high priesthood are found in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.

³ For further discussion of this interpretation of the Priestly theology, see J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York 1991) 253-260.

⁴ M.C. PARSONS, "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews", EvQ 60 (1988) 195-215, esp. 208.

⁵ Cf. H.S. SONGER, "A Superior Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14–7:28", RExp 82 (1985) 345-359, esp. 348: ‘[T]he author’s assumption is that high priesthood is a part of the role of Jesus as Son’.

⁶ Commentators have noted the lack of explicitly Davidic categories in Hebrews; see B.F. WESTCOTT, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London ²1892) 182; G.W. BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews. Translation, Comment and Conclusions (AB 36; Garden City 1972) 124; H. BRAUN, An die Hebrдer (HNT 14; Tьbingen 1984) 209; H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1989) 201; ELLINGWORTH, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids 1993) 376. However, even if the terminology is absent, the ideology is certainly present, as will be argued below. In this respect the comment of M.E. ISAACS, "Priesthood and Hebrews", HeyJ 38 (1997) 57, is apposite: ‘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’.

⁷ For the range of ideas about Melchizedek which existed at the time, see F.L. HORTON, Jr, The Melchizedek Tradition. The Melchizedek tradition. A critical examination of the sources to the fifth century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge 1976); R. LONGENECKER, "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought", Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology. Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (ed. R. GUELICH) (Grand Rapids 1978) 161-185, esp. 162-171. Many commentators also include an excursus on the figure of Melchizedek in contemporary thought; so P.E. HUGHES, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids 1977) 237-245; BRAUN, An die Hebrдer, 136-140; H. HEGERMANN, Der Brief an die Hebrдer (THKNT 16; Berlin 1988) 146-150; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 192-195; W.L. LANE, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Dallas 1991) 160-163; H.-F. WEIЯ, Der Brief an die Hebrдer (KEK 13; Gцttingen 1991) 381-387.

⁸ So Y. YADIN, "A Note on Melchizedek and Qumran", IEJ 15 (1965) 154-156, esp. 155-156; M. DE JONGE – A.S. VAN DER WOUDE, "11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament", NTS 12 (1966) 301-326, esp. 320-323; J.A. FITZMYER, "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11", JBL 86 (1967) 25-41, esp. 41.

⁹ L.D. HURST, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge 1990) 58-60, argues that there is little evidence for a connection of any kind between the Melchizedek thought of Hebrews and that of Qumran.

¹⁰ In the light of 11QMelch, it has been suggested that the Melchizedek treatment of Heb 7 can be seen as an exhortation to Essene converts who were hankering after their former beliefs, which included the concept of Melchizedek as a heavenly redeemer figure. The portrayal of Melchizedek in Hebrews and his comparison to Christ who is the true Redeemer would then be an attempt to correct such misconceptions. See M. DELCOR, "Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews", JSJ 2 (1971) 115-135, esp. 126-127 and LONGENECKER, "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", 172-179. However, this is unlikely for a number of reasons, not least because the use made of Melchizedek in Hebrews is entirely positive and contains no polemic against erroneous views of him. See G.L. COCKERILL, The Melchizedek Christology in Heb 7:1-28 (Diss., Union Theological Seminary; Virginia 1976) 184-188; HURST, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 55.

¹¹ So HORTON, The Melchizedek Tradition, 152-164, 170-171; HURST, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 55.

¹² Cf. J.A. FITZMYER, "‘Now this Melchizedek...’ (Heb 7:1)", CBQ 25 (1963) 305-321, esp. 305-306.

¹³ This is usually interpreted as an example of the exegetical principle that even silence is significant in the prophetic word of God — quod non in thora non in mundo. See WESTCOTT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 172; J. MOFFATT, The Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh 1924) 92; FITZMYER, "‘Now this Melchizedek...’", 316; F.F. BRUCE, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1964) 137-138; H.W. MONTEFIORE, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London 1964) 119; LONGENECKER, "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", 176; R.McL. WILSON, Hebrews (NCB; Basingstoke 1987) 122; PARSONS, "Son and High Priest", 213; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 190; ELLINGWORTH, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 357-358. By contrast, COCKERILL, The Melchizedek Christology, 62-63, argues that an appeal to this kind of argument from silence is insufficient to explain the description of Melchizedek in Heb 7,3, because from 7,4-10 it is evident that the writer believed in Melchizedek’s eternity in a literal rather than an allegorical sense.

¹⁴ It is interesting to note that the writer omits any mention of Melchizedek bringing out bread and wine for Abraham as recorded in Gen 14,18, presumably because this part of the description was not germane to his exegetical purposes, despite its evident potential as eucharistic imagery. This makes the mention of ‘king of Salem’ more significant, because it too could presumably have been omitted if it were regarded as irrelevant.

¹⁵ Similar etymologies are found in Philo, Leg. all. 3.79, and Josephus, Ant. 1.180. Both writers give the translation of Melchizedek as ‘righteous king’, and in addition Philo interprets the title ‘king of Salem’ as ‘king of peace’.

¹⁶ WESTCOTT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 172; MOFFATT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 92; O. MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebrдer (KEK, 13; Gцttingen ⁵1960) 162; BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews, 118-119; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 189; LANE, Hebrews, 164; ELLINGWORTH, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 357; E. GRДЯER, An die Hebrдer. II. Hebr. 7.1–10.18 (EKK 17/2; Zьrich – Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993) 18.

¹⁷ C. SPICQ, L’Йpоtre aux Hйbreux. II. Commentaire (EB; Paris 1953) 182, 183; MONTEFIORE, A Commentary, 119; HUGHES, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 247; J.W. THOMPSON, "The Conceptual Background and Purpose of the Midrash in Hebrews VII", NT 19 (1977) 209-223, esp. 211; SONGER, "A Superior Priesthood", 355; HEGERMANN, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 144. Cf. FITZMYER, "‘Now this Melchizedek...’", 314.

¹⁸ For comments from some of those who regard the etymologies as peripheral to the argument, see MOFFATT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 92; COCKERILL, Melchizedek Christology, 38; ELLINGWORTH, "‘Like the Son of God’. Form and Content in Hebrews 7,1-10", Bib 64 (1983) 255-262 (261); ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 188-189; LANE, Hebrews, 164; WEIЯ, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 375-376; GRДЯER, An die Hebrдer, II, 18.

¹⁹ Cf. FITZMYER, "‘Now this Melchizedek...’", 307-308. For a discussion of Melchizedek in Ps 110, see my forthcoming monograph, Zadok’s Heirs. The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (OTM; Oxford 2000).

²⁰ HUGHES, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 258; LONGENECKER, "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", 175, 176. Cf. Mk 12,35-37.

²¹ Complete citations of the verse occur in Mt 22,44; Mk 12,36; Lk 20,42-43; Acts 2,34-35. Verbal parallels and part citations occur in Mt 26,64; Mk 14,62; 16,19; Lk 22,69; Rom 8,34; 1 Cor 15,25; Eph 1,20; Col 3,1.

²² A.J.B. HIGGINS, "Priest and Messiah", VT 3 (1953) 321-336, esp. 335-336; ID., "The Priestly Messiah", NTS 13 (1966-67) 211-239, esp. 234-236; S. NOMOTO, "Herkunft und Struktur der Hohenpriestervorstellung im Hebrдerbrief", NT 10 (1968) 10-25, esp. 13.

²³ LANE, Hebrews, 164, comes tantalysingly close to recognising this when he states that ‘Melchizedek represented the tradition of sacral kingship; he united in his person the dual honors of royalty and priesthood’. However, he is prevented from pursuing this insight any further by his erroneous belief that in this respect Melchizedek was ‘[u]nlike the Hebrew kings’ (my italics).

²⁴ It has often been suggested that the writer was making use of pre-existing hymnic material in these verses, but there is no general agreement about either the form or the limits of such material, and it seems more satisfactory to attribute the stylised and rhetorical presentation of 7,1-3 to the author’s own literary skill and exegetical purposes. Commentators who favour the idea of a hymnic Vorlage include MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 161, 164; NOMOTO, "Herkunft und Struktur", 14; BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews, 117, 119-120; COCKERILL, Melchizedek Christology, 307-327; ELLINGWORTH, "‘Like the Son’", 259-262; BRAUN, An die Hebrдer, 137-138, 196; ELLINGWORTH, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 352-354; those opposed to the idea include Hegermann, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 142-143; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 189; LANE, Hebrews, 160; GRДЯER, An die Hebrдer, II, 11-12. WEIЯ, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 379-380, argues that the extent of any potential hymnic Vorlage is limited to 7,3a-b, since 7,1-2a is clearly based on the Gen 14 narrative, 7,2b takes up the traditional etymologies already noted, 7,3c serves the author’s own exegetical purposes and 7,3d is a comment on Ps 110,4 which is again to be attributed to the author.

²⁵ So primarily Num 24,17; Zech 6,12. See MOFFATT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 97; BRUCE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 143 n. 42; MONTEFIORE, A Commentary, 124; BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews, 123-124; HUGHES, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 259; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 201; LANE, Hebrews, 182.

²⁶ BRUCE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 146 n. 51; WILSON, Hebrews, 124; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 201.

²⁷ WESTCOTT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 183, is an exception to this general rule, inasmuch as he comments that Jesus’s priesthood is of a completely different type from the Levitical priesthood, ‘not legal but spiritual, not sacerdotal only, but royal’. However, his comments preceded the proposal and general acceptance of the theory of sacral kingship in ancient Israel, and so he was not in a position to follow up this perceptive insight.

²⁸ BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews, 124; COCKERILL, Melchizedek Christology, 96-97; BRAUN, An die Hebrдer, 209; ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 201; WEIЯ, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 397-398; GRДЯER, An die Hebrдer, II, 41.

²⁹ See PARSONS, "Son and High Priest", 208-209. HIGGINS, "The Priestly Messiah", 215-219, argues that the picture of consistent dual messianism at Qumran is based on a misinterpretation of the expression ‘the Messiah of Aaron and Israel’. For a recent treatment of messianism at Qumran, see G.J. BROOKE, "Kingship and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls", King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. DAY) (JSOTSS 270; Sheffield 1998) 434-455, esp. 442-452.

³⁰ This is the line taken by Buchanan in particular throughout his commentary; however, the comparison falls down on two points. First, the Hasmonaeans were themselves priests of the Levitical Aaronide line, not members of the tribe of Judah, despite the fact that Buchanan seems to regard their origin in the area of Judah as equivalent to the genealogical descent mentioned in Heb 7,14 (To the Hebrews, 124). Secondly, the Hasmonaeans were a non-royal family who had pretensions to the throne, and their depiction in I Maccabees especially is intended to portray them as Judah’s new kings, not as her new high priests. Hence, they are an inappropriate model for the christology of Heb 7. For further discussion along these lines, see my article ‘Kingship as Priesthood’ cited above (note 1) and my forthcoming monograph, Zadok’s Heirs.

³¹ For a discussion of the significance of the term ta/cij in Heb 7.11, see ELLINGWORTH, "Just Like Melchizedek", BiTr 28 (1977) 236-239.

³² Cf. SPICQ, L’Йpоtre aux Hйbreux, II, 193; MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 172; BRAUN, An die Hebrдer, 211-212; HEGERMANN, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 154.

³³ Cf. LONGENECKER, "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", 181-182: ‘Theological development reaches its zenith in the Melchizedek argument itself, where our author expands on the theme of the high priesthood of Christ [...] by explicating our Lord’s priestly ministry in ways that go beyond the dominantly functional statements of the earliest Christians and begin to move into more distinctly ontological and metaphysical realms’.

³⁴ WESTCOTT, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 184; SPICQ, L’Йpоtre aux Hйbreux, II, 188-189; BRUCE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 143-144; COCKERILL, Melchizedek Christology, 113, 128; WEIЯ, Der Brief an die Hebrдer, 398.