5:4 Having elaborated on the first characteristic
of the high priest, that he is one of the people, the author now turns to
the second: he is appointed (cf. v. 1). The term that is translated “honor” (timē)
is commonly used for public office (LSJ), and it is not necessarily objectionable
to assume such honor for oneself (cf. Luke 19:12). With respect to the high-priestly
office, however, an appointment by God is necessary, as in the case of Aaron
(Exod 28:1).
The audience may have had occasion not
reflect on the contrast between the biblical qualifications for the high priest
and the high priests in Jerusalem. In 174 BCE, Jaso bribed the Seleucid ruler
Antiochus IV Epiphanes to appoint him to the high priesthood (2 Macc 4:7-10).
Subsequent high priests also relied on foreign political rulers in order to
ascend to the office. The author, however, does not hint any criticism of the
high priests that served in the Second Temple. His concern is not with the
corruption of the office but with how Jesus’s high priesthood relates to the
scriptural portrait of the earthly high priest. To him, the physical temple
structure in Jerusalem and the ministry performed there were irrelevant. On the
assumption of a late date for the letter, the reason may be that the temple had
already been destroyed. The irrelevance of the temple may also have something
to do with the author’s understanding of his own and his audience’s sense of
identity. While they maintained relations with the Jewish community, they did
not understand themselves as a part of the community whose worship had centered
around the Jerusalem temple. (Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews [The
Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 279)