Continuing the theme of the Savior's high priesthood, the author of the epistle compares Him with Moses (vv. 1-6), which of course is not accidental. Indeed, it was with Moses that the Sinai theophany and the making of that covenant-union were connected, the covenant that made the Jewish people the Old Testament Church. Moses himself, as is well known, was a prophet, a man of God, a charismatic leader who headed his people in very difficult times and, with God's help, was able to lead them out of Egypt. More than that, he brought the people to the very threshold of the land promised by God to Abraham, the land that already in the days of Joshua and the early prophets was associated in the eyes of the Yahwists with the Kingdom that it was one day to become. The later prophets said more than once that the transformation of the promised land into the Kingdom would take place under the leadership of the Messiah sent by God, who would come in His time and complete what Moses had begun. In this context, the comparison of Christ with Moses looks entirely logical. This comparison also evokes allusions to the Savior's words at the Last Supper, when He said that He no longer called His disciples slaves but friends, as well as to the many parables about the good and bad steward. The author of the epistle connects Moses precisely with the good steward of the Gospel parable, while also pointing to the fact that the prophet himself nevertheless remains only a servant in the house entrusted to him, whereas Christ governs it not as a servant but as a Son and lawful heir (vv. 3-6).
It is in this sense that the author of the epistle calls Him an apostle ("messenger") and high priest, apparently wishing to say that Jesus Himself bears within Himself that fullness of God's presence which now sanctifies His people. Such a statement was evidently especially relevant in an age when the Temple had already been destroyed and the temple sacrifices, with which the Yahwists associated God's presence that had sanctified the people for centuries, had ceased. The author of the epistle emphasizes that this is not yet the end, that the fullness of Christ surpasses the fullness of Yahwism and includes it within itself, so that even in the absence of the Temple Christians can still preserve normal, full spiritual life, receiving everything necessary for it through direct communion with the Risen One in the breaking of bread. The way into the Kingdom was not closed by the destruction of the Temple, for the fullness of the Kingdom was brought into the world by the Savior, who does not change promises once given or a covenant-union once made.
