Introduction

In his classic NT Christology, Oscar Cullmann argues that Hebrews, which is the only NT document that explicitly develops a priestly Christology, presents a picture of the priesthood of Christ that includes three basic aspects: (1) the once-for-all sacrifice, (2) “his present work as the exalted Lord,” and (3) “his future work as the one coming again.”¹ Cullmann indicates that this third aspect is only mentioned in Heb 9:28,² but not substantially elaborated in the epistle. However, it is noteworthy that he calls this underdeveloped aspect “the eschatological side” of Christ’s priestly work, as it describes “the ‘second’ coming of Jesus.”³

To be sure, the language of “eschatological side” is appropriate in the specific sense of eschatological (future) consummation. But when this expression is used without proper qualification to describe one aspect of Christ’s priesthood, this usage tends to overlook the fact that the priestly work of Christ as a whole is delineated in Hebrews from an eschatological standpoint. Indeed, the purpose of the present paper is to systematically articulate an eschatological perspective of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews, since this epistle is the only place in the NT where we find an explicit elaboration of priestly Christology.

Considering the conceptual nature of the present study, I will attempt to accomplish the purpose of this paper by constructively building a reflection in five steps. In this construction I will privilege the discussion of framework of thought and concepts. First, I will elaborate on how eschatology is crucial in the conceptual framework of Hebrews. Second, I will discuss how the eschatological framework of Hebrews is clarified by the concept of the new covenant in the epistle. Third, I will observe how the concept of eschatological new covenant in Hebrews is enriched by an overview of the book of consolation in Jeremiah. Forth, I will articulate with more precision three concepts that appeared in the discussion of the previous steps, namely, priesthood, kingship, and judgment. Finally, in the fifth step I will demonstrate how the framework and the concepts about eschatology and the priesthood of Christ that have been delineated in this study are observed in Hebrews as a whole, in the sense of an epistle focused on pastoral exhortation.

The first step is the discussion of the crucial role of eschatology in the conceptual framework of Hebrews.

Eschatology and the Conceptual Framework of Hebrews

Eschatology has been a key concept in contemporary discussions on the intellectual background of Hebrews. While an overview of this discussion lies beyond the scope of this paper, I must emphasize that an eschatological perspective informs the robust position that challenges the influential view of Neo Platonism as the conceptual background of the epistle. As a matter of fact, Charles K. Barrett’s affirmation of apocalyptic eschatology instead of Philonic ontology is a significant starting point of the history of this debate.⁴ Barrett’s persuasively speaks of “the central place of eschatology in Hebrews,” emphasizing that “the eschatological is the determining element” in the epistle.⁵

Even though the choice of the central theme of Hebrews is debatable in scholarship, several passages of the document seem to give support to the idea that eschatology is a crucial aspect of the conceptual framework of the epistle. Indeed, the very beginning of Hebrews sets the eschatological tone of its content: “in these last days” (ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων) God “has spoken to us in a son” (NET).⁶ Assuming that Hebrews elaborates a rich Christology, the way Christ is introduced in the epistle is eminently eschatological.

In fact, an eschatological conception of Christology seems to be more clearly highlighted in two instances of Heb 9. First, the author of Hebrews indicates in vv. 9-10 that the limitations of the ceremonial regulations of the first covenant (cf. 9:1) lasted “until the time of the new order” (μέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως) (NET; cf. NIV, REB).⁷ The continuation of the argument in 9:11 describes this new order in terms of Christology or, to be more specific, in terms of priestly Christology. In contrast to the limitations of the old order of the first covenant underlined in vv. 9-10, the new order is firstly depicted as Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary by means of His own blood (vv. 11-12; cf. v. 24). The statement that introduces this idea reads, “But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come” (Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν) (NET).

The second instance in Heb 9 where the eschatological conception of Christology is distinctly underscored takes place toward the end of the chapter, namely, in 9:26. The immediate context elaborates on the disparity between the limitations of the first covenant and the sufficiency of the new order, which is the dissimilarity between a never sufficient plurality and a totally sufficient singularity respectively. Instead of the repetition of the services performed by the high priests of the first covenant that entered the sanctuary “every year with blood” (κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι), the sacrifice of Christ is marked by an all sufficient singularity. If priestly Christology were defined by the never sufficient repetition of the first covenant, the author of Hebrews argues that Christ “would have had to suffer repeatedly (πολλάκις) since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ⁸ τῶν αἰώνων) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).

Therefore, the offering of Christ’s sacrifice, His singular suffering death (cf. 9:27-28), is described eschatologically, namely, “at the end of the ages.” To be sure, this is not the final eschatological act performed by Christ. As the immediate context itself indicates, the final soteriological act is His appearing “a second time . . . to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (9:28, ESV). Nonetheless, Christ’s sacrificial offering is still delineated with eschatological contours.

The Eschatological Framework and the New Covenant

One of the key elements that provide conceptual clarity to the eschatological framework in which priestly Christology is elaborated in Hebrews is the notion of new covenant. This notion is explicitly described before (cf. 8:6-13) and after (cf. 10:16-18) chapter 9, and is Christologically interpreted in chapters 8 (cf. v. 6), 9 (cf. v. 15), and 10 (cf. vv. 5-10, 12, 14-18). In fact, we are situated in the section (8:3 – 10:18) where Hebrews develops the teaching about the priestly work of Christ.⁹ This means that His priesthood cannot be understood without the notion of new covenant. The author of Hebrews points out that the new covenant is the eschatological reality that fulfills the intentions and forms of the structures and rites of the first covenant, which had “a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.”¹⁰ A crucial feature of this true form is the reality of effective purification, redemption, perfection, and forgiveness.

The concept of purification seems to be elucidated by its correlation with the other three notions. In 9:14-15 we find a helpful combination of purification and redemption in the discussion of the new covenant. The blood of Christ will purify (καθαριεῖ) our conscience (9:14). “For this reason (Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο) He is the mediator of a new covenant,” because His sacrifice is for “the redemption (ἀπολύτρωσιν) of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant” (9:15, NASB).¹¹ Moreover, in 9:22 purification (καθαρίζεται) with blood is understood in terms of forgiveness (ἄφεσις). Another related concept is to make perfect or complete (τελειόω). In the section about the priestly work of Christ (8:3 – 10:18), all occurrences of this terminology are related to sacrificial offering and believers (cf. 9:9; 10:1, 14), where the sacrifice is expected to perfect believers. The author of Hebrews explains, however, that this expectation does not belong to the sacrifices of the first covenant (cf. 9:9; 10:1), but to the sacrifice of the new covenant (cf. 10:14). Also, it is noteworthy that two of the three instances of τελειόω in this section are connected with the conscience (συνείδησις) of believers (cf. 9:9; 10:1-2), in the sense that to be made perfect is to have the “consciousness of sins” cleansed (verb καθαρίζω) (cf. 10:1-2). When 10:2 is read along with 10:3, the consciousness of sins is conceptualized as a remembrance (ἀνάμνησις) of sins. By contrast, the cleansing of the consciousness of sins in believers means that they will not remember those sins anymore. This would be the meaning of “to be made perfect” by Christ’s sacrifice.

Interestingly, the notion of believers not remembering sins elaborated in this section is similar to the idea emphasized in the quotations about the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31 that appear in the beginning (cf. Heb 8:8-12) and at the end (cf. Heb 10:16-17) of the section on the priestly work of Christ in Hebrews 8:3 – 10:18. In this OT prophetic promise, God will be merciful toward His sinful people and “will remember [verb μιμνῄσκομαι] their sins no more” (8:12; cf. 10:17). Therefore, what is objectively promised on the part of God both at the beginning and at the end of the section will become somehow a subjective reality for believers as well, and this is observed in the discussion of the section. God and, then, believers will remember sins no more, and this is a reality mediated by Christ on the basis of His sacrifice.

In fact, the section not only explains the effects of Christ’s sacrifice on believers but also indicates how it refers to God. Firstly, by quoting Ps 40:6-8, the author of Hebrews points out that the sacrifice of Christ was an offering that fulfilled the will of God (Heb 10:5-10). Secondly, the soteriological meaning of Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary is spelled out in terms of His appearance “in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb 9:24), on the basis of His one sacrifice (9:25-26). Hence, the corporeal sacrifice of Christ as the fulfillment of the will of God and His intercessory activity before God in the heavenly sanctuary seem to provide the Christological rationale for the eschatological promise of God’s forgiveness of sins in Jer 31:31-34. This rationale also specifies in what sense Christ mediates a new covenant, which involves the eschatological reality of the true priest (8:1, cf. 7:11-28), the true sanctuary (8:2; cf. 9:11, 24), and the true sacrifice (9:12-14; cf. 10:4-14). To be sure, all these elements can be observed in the first covenant: priests (cf. 7:5, 11, 23, 28), sanctuary (cf. 9:1-7), and sacrifices (cf. 9:9-10, 13; 10:4). But they are necessary typological pointers¹² to the eschatological reality of the new order mediated by Christ’s priesthood, by which believers truly come to experience God’s forgiveness.

As Richard Davidson helpfully emphasizes,¹³ the author of Hebrews reveals that the eschatological fulfillment of the reality of each one of these three elements are already indicated in the OT. Regarding the reality of the priest, Heb 7:17 and 21 quote Ps 110:4 to substantiate the idea that Christ is the eschatological priest according to the order of Melchizedek. With respect to the sanctuary, Heb 8:5 cites Exod 25:40 to affirm the reality of the true heavenly sanctuary, which assumes an eschatological role with the ascension of Christ the priest (cf. Heb 8:1-2; 9:11-12, 24).¹⁴ As far as the sacrifice is concerned, Heb 10:5-9 quotes Ps 40:6-8 to affirm the eschatological reality of the one sacrifice, which is the offering of the body of Christ as a fulfillment of the will of God.

Overall, these realities are seen from the eschatological perspective of the new covenant, which is also indicated or promised in the OT. In fact, both quotations of Jer 31:31-34 in Hebrews, the first longer (8:8-12) and the second shorter (10:16-17), explicitly mention the eschatological language found in the excerpt from Jeremiah. The longer citation starts with this language, “Behold, the days are coming” (Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται) (8:8). Likewise, the shorter quotation begins with an eschatological tone. While starting at a different point of the excerpt cited in 8:8-12, the quotation of 10:16-17 begins where we find the second usage of eschatological language in the longer excerpt: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days (μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας)” (10:16, italics mine; compare with 8:10).

The Eschatological New Covenant in the Book of Consolation

A general overview of the larger context of these words in Jeremiah confirms that they are correctly understood from an eschatological point of view. Scholars have suggested that Jer 30-31 constitutes an essentially poetical section, which is usually called “The Book of Consolation.”¹⁵ In the words of Gerald L. Keown, “the Book of Consolation stands as a refuge amid the storm of divine wrath that blows through the rest of the book of Jeremiah.”¹⁶ The content of this section “repeatedly deals with the relationship between present suffering, further danger, and future salvation.”¹⁷ Thus, the main point of the Book of Consolation is the hope of eschatological salvation. In the literary structure of Jeremiah, “the Book of Consolation stands between letters that promise a hopeful future to the exiles taken to Babylon in 597 B.C. (chap. 29) and a sign-act in which the deed for Jeremiah’s newly purchased field is sealed and stored as a guarantee of the people’s restoration to the land (chap. 32).”¹⁸

The message of the Book of Consolation starts with a divine eschatological promise. “For behold, days are coming (ִאיםבָּ ָיִמים), . . . when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, . . . and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it” (Jer 30:3, italics mine). The soteriological nature of this eschatological event, which is “a time of distress for Jacob,” is particularly described in 30:7 (italics mine): “That day is so great (םוֹיַּה לוָֹגד) there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it.” In 30:9, Yahweh promises that He will raise up a Davidic eschatological king. In several places in chapter 30 there is the warning that Yahweh’s wrath will come over the enemies of his people (cf. vv. 11, 16, 23-24). Indeed, it is precisely in the emphasis of His wrath that the eschatological language of the section becomes more acute.

Behold the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intentions of his mind. In the latter days (ִמיםיַּהָ ַאֲחִריתבְּ) you will understand this. At that time (תﬠֵבָּ ), declares the LORD, I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they shall be my people. (Jer 30:23-31:1, italics mine).¹⁹

Hence, the covenantal promise of 31:1 regarding the relationship between God and His people is communicated with an eschatological tone and related to His judgment against the wicked. The eschatological language is also observed in the promises of restoration in 31:27 (“Behold, the days are coming,” ִאיםבָּ ָיִמים הנִּהֵ) and 29 (“in those days,” ִמיםיָּבַּ), which are followed by the promise of the new covenant in 31:31-34. As I have already highlighted regarding the use of the new covenant of Jer 31:31- 34 in Hebrews, the promise of this covenant is introduced with an eschatological tone, “Behold, the days are coming” (ִאיםבָּ ָיִמים הנִּהֵ) (Jer 31:31). With this tone, Yahweh promises forgiveness for His people, emphasizing that He “will remember their sins no more” (Jer 31:34).

This brief overview of the Book of Consolation reveals that many themes that appear in this section are articulated in Hebrews also from an eschatological perspective, such as the promise of a Davidic king, God’s judgment/wrath against His enemies, and the new covenant with His people. This seems to suggest that Hebrews does not merely quote the promise of the new covenant but captures in some sense the mindset found in the book of consolation.

In the discussion above about the elaboration on Christ’s priestly work in Hebrews (8:3-10:18), which initiates and ends with quotations of the new covenant in Jeremiah, the mediation of the priesthood of Christ is the key for the understanding of God’s forgiveness in the new covenant. However, Hebrews also associates this priesthood with the idea of a Davidic king and the divine judgment.

Priesthood, Kingship, and Judgment

The combination of priesthood and kingship is already implied in the prologue of Hebrews, where it is briefly pointed out that the Son makes purification of sins and sits at the right hand of God (1:3; cf. 10:12). Overall, the catena of citations from the OT in Heb 1:5-13 emphasizes the kingship of the Son. For instance, the catena mentions His coronation (Ps 2:7 cited in Heb 1:5), His “throne” and the “scepter” of His “kingdom” (Ps 45:6-7 cited in Heb 1:9). More specifically, the quotation in Heb 1:5 from 2 Sam 7:14, where God promises an everlasting kingdom to the house of David (cf. 2 Sam 7:13, 16), seems to indicate that the Son is the eschatological Davidic king. Furthermore, the last quotation of the catena implies that this kingship of the Son involves divine judgment against the enemies. The citation of Ps 101:1 in Heb 1:13 reads, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?” (cf. Heb 10:12). A reading of Ps 110 reveals that a key feature of the divine kingship elaborated in this chapter is the judgment against enemies. While v. 1 highlights the idea of making them a footstool, v. 2 emphasizes the “mighty scepter” of Yahweh and His “rule in the midst of” his “enemies.” The language of judgment becomes more acute in vv. 5-6, “The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.”²⁰

The usage of Ps 110 in Hebrews seems to suggest that the author of the epistle is not simply citing a verse without knowing the tone of the chapter as a whole. While Ps 110:1 is quoted in Heb 1:13 to close the catena of citations from the OT in Heb 1:5-13, Ps 110:4 is quoted in Heb 5:6; 7:17, 21 to underscore the appointment of Christ as everlasting priest according to the order of Melchizedek. In fact, the citation in Heb 5:6 and 7:17 emphasizes Ps 110:4b regarding the priest according to the order of Melchizedek (“You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”), whereas the citation of Heb 7:21 emphasizes Ps 110:4a concerning the divine appointment of this everlasting priest (“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’”). Thus, by referring to Psalm 110, the author of Hebrews is able to connect the concepts of kingship (initially from Ps 110:1) and priesthood (from Ps 110:4), associated with the perspective of divine judgment against enemies (from Ps 110:1).

It is noteworthy that the notion of “order of Melchizedek” makes room not only for an understanding of priesthood, but also of kingship. The author of Hebrews properly describes Melchizedek as “king of Salem” and “priest of the Most High God” (Heb 7:1). Curiously, this is the initial description of Melchizedek in Hebrews, which is followed by the statement informed by Gen 14:17-20 that he “met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him.” Actually, in the Genesis narrative, Melchizedek also blesses God for having delivered the enemies of Abraham in his hands (Gen 14:20). Therefore, even without a clear articulation, priesthood is associated with judgment or the destruction of enemies.

Even in the context of the Dead Sea scrolls, namely, the Qumran fragment 11QMelchizedek from the first century AD, the figure of Melchizedek is associated with judgment. As Eric Mason argues, this fragment portrays Melchizedek as a heavenly, angelic figure,” who is “an eschatological priest and warrior . . . making atonement for God’s people and delivering them while bringing judgment on God’s foes.”²¹ Regarding the idea of an eschatological Day of Atonement associated with an eschatological figure of Melchizedek in this first century apocalyptic Jewish tradition, James VanderKam claims that “the writer of 11QMelch” probably “used a series of biblical passages and themes that allowed him to connect Melchizedek, the day of atonement, and sabbatical and jubilee periods.”²² As VanderKam explains, “the last jubilee” (“the tenth one”) is “when the judgment takes place.”²³

Without entering into the discussion on how specifically Hebrews and 11QMelchizedek are similar and different in their portrayal of Melchizedek, I am just pointing to the general idea that eschatological judgment is also associated with the figure of Melchizedek in this first century Jewish background, and this idea seems to be consistent with the use of Psalm 110 in Hebrews, where the themes of kingship, priesthood, and judgment appear. Obviously, the argument of Hebrews is not that Melchizedek is an eschatological figure, but the eschatological priest who comes according to the order of Melchizedek. In other words, the argument of Hebrews is explicitly Christological.

Eschatology, Pastoral Exhortation, and Christ’s Priesthood

How are these ideas useful for the understanding of Hebrews as “a word of exhortation” (Heb 13:22)? Which pastoral exhortations could be highlighted from an eschatological perspective of the priesthood of Christ? How are they relevant for the audience of the epistle “in these last days” (cf. 1:2)? Two seemingly paradoxical notions are key for the answer of Hebrews, namely, a great time of opportunity and a great danger of judgment. This apparent eschatological tension is insightfully encapsulated in the question, “how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (2:3). The question is a penetrating combination of danger of judgment and time of opportunity.

From this crucial standpoint, we need to “hold our original confidence firm to the end” (3:6). In this time of opportunity, we need to keep in mind that there remains an eschatological rest for God’s people (4:9). But there are negative examples of people who rejected the rest promised by God, who eventually faced His judgment (cf. 3:7-4:2, 11-13). In fact, the main problem of this people was not their weaknesses, but their unbelief in the power of God (cf. 3:12, 19). In this sense, they did not hold their original confidence. In this time of opportunity, to hold our original confidence means to take advantage of the reality of Christ’s priesthood who may help us in our weaknesses (4:14-16).

The time of opportunity does not merely look forward to the eschatological reality, but is already a truly eschatological experience by means of Christ. Believers are already enabled to receive a kingdom (12:28), to share “in the Holy Spirit,” and to taste “the heavenly gift” and “the powers of the age to come” (6:4-5). But this incredible opportunity is not a guarantee against God’s wrathful judgment, if they reject the Son of God (6:6). Therefore, the author of Hebrews urges his audience “to have the full assurance of hope until the end” (6:11). Indeed, the time of opportunity is already a truly eschatological experience because the priestly work of Christ mediates the inauguration of a new covenantal relationship with God (8:6, 8-12), a “time of the new order” (9:10, NET) characterized by the “good things to come” (10:1). By means of this priesthood, God’s forgiveness can be a reality in the life of believers (10:22).

However, this is not the end yet. The Day is drawing near (10:25). This is the final judgment, “a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries” (10:27), and this applies to God’s own people (10:31). The warning is, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay” (10:37). Christ will come in the context of judgment to save His people (9:27-28). This final salvation is the full effect of His soteriological priesthood. On the other hand, this final judgment against the adversaries means that the enemies are being made finally footstool for His feet (cf. 1:13; 10:13). In other words, eschatological consummation brings the kingship of Christ to its full measure and His priesthood to its full soteriological effect.

Conclusion

More could be said about the relationship between the eschatological priesthood of Christ and the exhortations of Hebrews, but the main point has been indicated. Barrett correctly affirms that warnings in Hebrews are “reinforced by eschatological considerations.”²⁴ I would add that these considerations not only alert about the danger of divine judgment but also emphasize the time of opportunity we have in the new order already mediated by Christ’s priesthood, an opportunity of divine forgiveness and of an initial experience of the reality of this order. Viewed from the perspective of opportunity, the judgment means positively the full measure of Christ’s kingship and the full measure of the soteriological effect of His priesthood.