In order to fully grasp the
implications of this passage, it is important to first of all consider the
context into which Hebrews was written. Hebrews is not a divine textbook meant
to answer all questions regarding the relationship between the various
covenants. Rather it needs to be appreciated that Hebrews is a written address
and an example of “epideictic rhetoric”; written to encourage its hearers to
take a different court of action. It is widely thought that the letter’s Jewish
audience was tempted in the face of persecution to abandon the teaching of
Christ, returning to their previous practice of faith. For this reason, the
writer begins by employing a practice known, in ancient forms of rhetoric, as synkrisis:
a process of comparing and contrasting two alternative actions, beginning with
the least controversial arguments in order to gain a hearing. By Hebrews 7, the
writer has reached one o the more contentious issues, and the now familiar execution
of synkrsisis is again put to use, comparing the old and new priesthoods
on a number of points before climaxing with a resounding note of praise for
Jesus’ “better covenant” (Heb 7:22). However, the writer of Hebrews does not
seek to belittle this other covenant; synkrisis compares two subjects of
similar quality, to demonstrate the eminence of the one. The writer does not contrast
the good with the bad, but the good with great. Therefore the argument being
put forward seeks to assert the brilliant stature of Jesus’ priesthood, not
primarily the pointlessness of the Levitical system.
It cannot then be said that the
Levitical priesthood had been “replaced” nor that it had “failed” as many
commentators attempt to do. . . . it is often said that Christ “fulfilled” the
Levitical priesthood. The use of this term is quite obscure, as it seems to be
used by all parties and burdened with a wide variety of meanings. Some speak of
fulfillment in the sense that it had been brought to an end, while others speak
of fulfillment as the effectuation of the old Levitical system which was insufficient
in and of itself. Though this latter view pays recognition to the relationship
between the two priestly orders, it still misses the mark. The ministry of the
Levitical priesthood was effective, when administered faithfully, and is said
to be so throughout the Hebrew canon (The point here is not that the Levitical
system did not need Christ or point to him, but rather to accommodate the wider
witness of Scripture into an interpretation of Hebrews. Clearly those worshipping
before Christ did experience salvation in a real way [e.g., Ps 51:11-12], yet
Christ is the fullest expression of their faith and hope). Christ’s priesthood
is the richest and purest enactment of that faithfulness, and so it becomes
impossible to hold to one without the other. To underscore this point Hebrews 7
must be examined closely to see how and in what ways the Christ’s priesthood is
”better.”
Hebrews 7 presents two different
kinds of priestly orders, Levi’s and Melchizedek’s. The question that must be
asked of the passage is how and to what extent they are different? Frank
Thielman contends that there are two differences; first he says that Jesus’
priesthood is different because it was perfected through suffering, and second
because unlike the sacrifices of the Levites, Jesus’ sacrifice was fully effective
for salvation (Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, 602). In
responding to his first point, this study has sought to show that the Levites
were to suffer hardship and without doing so it was impossible for them to
fulfill their role faithfully. As for Thielman’s second argument, there is
nothing to suggest that the sacrifices of the Levites were by their very nature
ineffective, except when they were offered in a spirit different from that
exhibited by Christ.
The main difference expressed in
Hebrews 7, is that Jesus’ priesthood is a Messianic or royal priesthood.
Melchizedek is the only other person who functions both as a king and a priest,
and he upholds the Levitical order because he came before it. The story of
Melchizedek therefore does not undermine the Levitical priesthood but supports it,
and it is impossible, on this basis, to argue that Christ’s priesthood then “supersedes”
that of the Levites. Christ’s priesthood is different because he could also function
as a king, and his kingship was different because he could function as priest,
as no other king was permitted to do. The passage also makes it clear that, Christ’s
priesthood is different because it is eternal, but it cannot be said for the
text that it is different in essence. (Nicholas Haydock, The Theology of the
Levitical Priesthood: Assisting God’s People in Their Mission to the Nations [Eugene,
Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], 67-68, 69-71)
