In what sense does the author of the epistle call Jesus high priest? At first glance, this comparison can seem like pure allegory. But if one thinks through the symbol used by the sacred writer, one has to admit that it has...
In what sense does the author of the epistle call Jesus high priest? At first glance, this comparison can seem like pure allegory. But if one thinks through the symbol used by the sacred writer, one has to admit that it has a definite spiritual meaning as well, especially in the context of the events during or shortly after which the epistle was written. It was written, it appears, after Paul's death by one of his disciples, and it came to light after the catastrophe of 70 AD, when Jerusalem and the Temple were razed to the ground after the anti-Roman uprising raised by militant messianists, the "zealots." Naturally, Yahwist sacrifices ceased after this, and the history of Yahwism ended: Judaism and Christianity finally separated, nothing any longer bound the Church and the Synagogue together, and each went its own way. Against this background the question inevitably arose: how is one to go on living without the Temple and sacrifices, which for millennia had been the main form of communion with God for Yahwists, and later for Jews and Christians?
The answer to it is the image of Christ as high priest. Of course, the image of the Messiah as high priest was also known to Jewish tradition. But there the issue was that the Messiah, when he came, would take the place not of a ruler, as the earlier and more traditional approach suggested, but of a high priest who would reform temple worship, making it an expression of the fullness of God's presence that would accompany his ministry. The author of the epistle, however, clearly has something else in mind.
He relies on the traditional Yahwist idea of the priestly community as a community of mediators between God and His people. Already in the Book of Leviticus the call sounds for the people "to be holy," to preserve the state of consecration that can be received only at the altar. But the whole people could not remain at the altar constantly; for the overwhelming majority, consecration was only an episode, though a most important one, in their spiritual life. Representatives of the priestly community, however, were at the altar constantly, though of course not all at the same time. And thus a certain part of the people was consecrated constantly, not from time to time as the majority was. And from this small part the whole people, which formed one spiritual body, was also consecrated.
The author of the epistle transfers this traditional idea to Christ: He, unlike any of us, always preserves the full consecration accessible to human nature. Strictly speaking, only He can do this, for sin hinders consecration, and in order to be fully consecrated one must be sinless. And His holiness consecrates the Church, including each of us.
Such a Mediator, of course, the people of God could not have had before Christ's coming: for with all their zeal, priests could not become sinless and be consecrated to the end. With such a Mediator, one did not have to fear even the absence of the Temple and sacrifices: through Him the Church receives the possibility of sharing in the fullness of the Kingdom, which is greater than the fullness of the Temple. And therefore, the possibility of salvation.
4
4:14 Having therefore a great high priest - Great indeed, being the eternal Son of God, that is passed through the heavens - As the Jewish high priest passed through the veil into the holy ofholies, carrying with him the blood of the sacrifices, on the yearly day of atonement; so our great high priest went once for all through the visible heavens, with the virtue of his own blood, into the immediate presence God.