Ad Hebraeos, The Letter to the Hebrews
The Letter to the Hebrews Should (Must) Enkindle Wonder & Awe in Priests and Lay alike.
The unknown author of the divinely inspired letter to the Hebrews (whose name I believe rhymes with “Paint Ball”…[St. Thomas thinks that too1]) wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit2 an epistle that I believe is perhaps the most underrated in all of the New Testament, considering the manner in which it unlocks and demonstrates to even the modern day reader with a cursory awareness of the Old Testament the reality, majesty, and importance of the New Testament priesthood that abides forever.
There are three things I wish to place forth for your reflection:
1) The exalted nature of the New Testament priesthood
2) The importance of the figure of Melchezidek
3) The restoration of the sense of the sacrificial
The Superior Nature of the New Testament Priesthood
First and foremost, let us briefly consider the majesty of the Old Testament priesthood of Aaron and his sons. It can be heard even in modern times how amazing it would have been to see the events of sacred scripture take place in front of one’s own eyes. Who can disagree that it would have been tremendously amazing to witness the ratification of the Exodus covenant, or to see the presence of God rush into the tabernacle in the wilderness? There is, undoubtedly, a sort of longing that can come about to see these things for oneself.
The letter to the Hebrews tells us: you’re wrong to want to see that, what you have now, Catholics of the 21st century (with all the baggage that comes with being an engaged Catholic that seeks the will of God and the proclamation of the Gospel) surpasses the nature of the Old Testament priesthood in every way.
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, [2] a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord.[3] For every high priest [of the old covenant] is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.[4] Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. [5] They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." [6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second.
Note that the author (who may or not be St. Paul) speaks directly into this longing to see the things of old…the high priests of the old covenant serve merely a copy, merely a shadow of wha is to come. The Eucharist is the reality of what the old covenant prefigured in the manna, the lamb, the numerous other types of offering. The summation of part one is this: The priesthood of Jesus Christ is superior to the Old Testament priesthood, and it should cause the priestly heart to marvel in the gift it has received.
The Figure of Melchezidek
The second suggestion I offer for reflection is the enigmatic Melchezidek, king of Salem and “priest of God most high.”
St. Paul (oops!) writes:
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.
St Thomas comments on the significance of Melchezidek at length, but here are a couple of highlights: “In the OT, whenever mention is made of some important person, his father is named along with the time of his birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchizedek is suddenly introduced with no mention at all made of his birth or anything pertaining to it. This was not done without reason. For inasmuch as it is said, without father, the birth of Christ from the Virgin is signified, for it occurred without a father: ‘That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 1:20). Now that which is proper to God should not be attributed to a creature; but it is proper to God the Father to be the Father of Christ. Therefore, in the birth of the one who prefigured Him, no mention should be made of a carnal father.”
To put it simply, Melchezidek’s somewhat random appearance is significant, in that he appears random, that is, without beginning or end. St. Thomas notes later in the his commentary that Christ’s eternal high priesthood is forever, just as Melchezidek’s was without beginning or end, in a prefiguring way.
Melchezidek’s Exaltation
In addition to the “being without beginning or end”, Melchezidek’s superiority over Abraham is noted by St. Thomas who writes about how it is proper to for the higher to bless the lower, and Abraham, the patriarch, “the father of fathers”, submitted to being blessed by Melchezidek. Now, our priests are priests according to the order of Melchezidek and configured to Christ the Great High Priest. A blessing, a rather cursory and hurried gesture at times in today’s Church, was, in more ancient times, a great gesture of superiority, submission, and the invocation of the power of God. It is the Eternal High Priest who gives our priests the power to bless; it is much greater than the power of Abraham, Moses, or Aaron.
Chrysostom concludes this section nicely:
Henceforward [the author] boldly shows him [Melchezidek] to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? You see how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.3
The Restoration of the Sense of the Sacrificial
I wish to highlight the way that the Letter to the Hebrews can restore in us, today, the sense of the sacrificial. For all the argument seen in yesteryear’s church about whether the Eucharist is a “meal” or a “sacrifice”, this has largely been silenced. Whether the expression of the rite itself does an adequate job is another discussion, but the inseparability of the concept of sacrifice on Calvary and the Eucharist is settled and not up for discussion.
The Letter to the Hebrews tells us unequivocally that it was a sacrificial act that won us our salvation:
12] But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
[13] then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
[14] For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
[15] And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
[16] "This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"
[17] then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more."
[18] Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
[19] Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
[21] and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
[22] let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
The ratification of the Old Covenant was carried out by sprinkling the congregation with the blood of bulls poured out into bowls. The new covenant is ratified by the Blood of Christ, who says “This is my blood of the new and eternal covenant.”
When we draw near to the Eucharist, the heart of Jesus, we draw near to the Lamb who was slain for us in the perfect sacrifice on the Cross. “Sacrifice” is generally a word we use to talk about giving up chocolate for lent, not an act of the virtue of religion. Let us together, with great wonder, continue to marvel at the perfect sacrifice made by Jesus on Calvary. Let us pray for priests especially, that their lives may “imitate what they celebrate, and conform their lives to the mystery of the Lord’s cross.” Let us all offer our lives as living sacrifices to Jesus, who teaches us perfectly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Letter to the Hebrews.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Letter to the Hebrews
Nevertheless, the old doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, accept the words of this epistle as being Paul’s testimony. Jerome, too, acknowledges it as Paul’s epistle. … [T]here are three reasons why Paul did not write his name: first, because he was not the apostle of the Jews but of the Gentiles: ‘He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:8); consequently, he made no mention of his apostleship at the beginning of this epistle, because he was unwilling to speak of it except to the Gentiles. Secondly, because his name was odious to the Jews, since he taught that the observance of the Law were no longer to be kept, as is clear from Acts (15:2). Consequently, he concealed his name, lest the salutary doctrine of this epistle go for naught. Thirdly, because he was a Jew: ‘They are Hebrews: so am I’ (2 Cor. 11:22). And fellow countrymen find it hard to endure greatness in their own: ‘A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house’ (Mt. 13:57). To the second argument the answer might be given that the style is more elegant, because even though he knew many languages: ‘I speak with all your tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:18), he knew the Hebrew language better than the others, for it was his native tongue, the one in which he wrote this epistle. As a result, he could write more ornately in his own idiom than in some other language; hence, he says: ‘For though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge’ (2 Cor. 11:6). But Luke, who was a skillful writer, translated this ornate Hebrew into Greek.
Pius XII, “Divino Afflante Spiritu” 1943
St. John Chryostom, Homily 12 on Hebrews