le Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus in Early Christian...

7/21/2019 le Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus in Early Christian Sources

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/le-jakob-filtvedt-martin-wessbrandt-exploring-the-high-priesthood-of-jesus 1/19

ZNW 2015; 106(1):96–114

Ole Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt

Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus

in Early Christian Sources Abstract: Das Faktum, dass der Hebräerbrief die einzige neutestamentliche Schriftist, in der explizit von Jesus als Hohepriester gesprochen wird, hat Ausleger zuder Annahme verleitet, dass diese christologische Konzeption auf den anony-men Autor des Briefes zurückgeht. Sowohl textinterne als auch externe Indizienlegen jedoch nahe, dass der Hohepriestertitel seinen Ursprung im Gottesdienstder frühen Kirche hat. Der Autor des Hebräerbriefes scheint die Vertrautheitder Adressaten mit dem Titel vorauszusetzen, wobei bestimmte Eigenheiten desTextes auf eine Verbindung zu einem gottesdienstlichen Kontext verweisen. DieseThese wird durch eine Untersuchung des Gebrauches dieser Konzeption bei denso genannten Apostolischen Vätern untermauert.

DOI 10.1515/znw-2015-0005

1 The Relationship between Early Christian Textsthat Speak of Jesus as High Priest

Even though Jesus of Nazareth, as far as we know, did not come from a priestlyfamily, and even if assuming priestly roles was probably not a major part of hispublic ministry,¹ Jesus is still designated as a “high priest” in various early Chris-tian sources.² In addition to the well-known occurrence of the term in the letter to

1 There are those who have argued that Jesus assumed priestly or quasi-priestly roles in hispublic ministry (O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, Tübingen31963, 82–107),but this is a minority position. The most recent advocacy of this position that we know of isC. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part One, Journal for the Study of theHistorical Jesus 4 (2006) 155–175; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: PartTwo, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (2007) 57–79.2 We will only be dealing with texts thatexplicitly designate Jesus as a high priest and not withtexts where Jesus is arguably portrayed as this, without being so designated.

Ole Jakob Filtvedt : MF Norwegian School of Theology, P. O. Box. 5144, Majorstuen, N-0302 Oslo;[email protected] Wessbrandt : Kastanjegatan 19 C:1003, 224 56 Lund; [email protected]

Brought to you by | Catholic University of America Mullen LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 3 16 15 6:49 PM



Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus in Early Christian Sources 97

the Hebrews,³ the designation is also found in several of the so-called ApostolicFathers; in 1Clem 36,1; 61,3; 64,1; Ign. Phil. 9,1; Pol. Phil. 12,2; and Mart. Pol. 14,3.This raises the question of how the doctrine originated, and how it spread.

If one compares the texts that speak of Jesus as high priest, one is struckby the combination of similarity and idiosyncrasy these texts display. On theone hand, there are clearly some significant similarities in wordings and motifs.However, on the other hand, there are also marked differences. In this paper wewill examine the above mentioned texts, focusing on the following question:whathypothesis would best explain the similarities as well as the independence thatthese texts display? ⁴ There seem to be three major factors to potentially explainthe relationship between the texts in question: (i) direct literary dependence, (ii)authorial creativity, and (iii) influence from some external source(s) unknown tous. In this paper we will assess the explanatory power of all of these factors, andask what factor, or combination of factors, best explains the evidence at hand.

2 The High Priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews

The first known literary source to attribute the title “high priest” to Jesus isHebrews. One possible way of accounting for the fact that Jesus came to be rec-ognized as high priest in some strands of early Christian tradition, would thusbe to assume that the concept originated with the writing of Hebrews, and thatlater Christian tradition was influenced by Hebrews. This hypothesis has themerit of being simple, in that it does not demand that we hypothesize about pos-sible sources that might have influenced Hebrews, and in that it posits one single“source” for the doctrine of Jesus’ high priesthood. Moreover, it seems more thanconceivable, given the general theological creativity of the author of Hebrews,that he could have been the first to articulate the idea that Jesus was high priest.⁵

Furthermore, the fact that Hebrews came to be regarded as canonical could be

3 Hereafter abbreviated as “Hebrews.”4 To our knowledge, there is no full-scale treatment of the high priesthood of Jesus in the NewTestament and the Apostolic Fathers, although there has been some attention given to the rela-tionship between Hebrews and 1Clem. The most thorough treatment we know of is provided byG. Theißen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (StNT 2), Gütersloh 1969, 33–52.

5 For the argument that the priestly Christology is the product of the creativity of the author ofHebrews, and designed as a response to a particular situation, see B. Lindars, The Theology ofthe Letter to the Hebrews, Cambridge 1991, 64–66.126. Others argue that Hebrews might havebeen the first to depict Jesus as high priest, but that it was drawing on broader Jewish traditionsin doing so. Thus E. F. Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and





98 Ole Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt

seen to strengthen the hypothesis that Hebrews influenced later Christian tradi-tion. Finally, the fact that Hebrews uses so much space to explain and develop thedoctrine of Jesus’ high priesthood, could be taken as indication that the doctrine

was unknown to the addressees.⁶ In this view, the author is out to persuade andconvince the addressees that Jesus really is high priest, although that idea waspreviously unknown to them.

We would argue, however, that some of these arguments are less persuasivethan what they appear to be, and that there are even better reasons for think-ing that the author of Hebrews is drawing on earlier traditions about the highpriesthood of Jesus, which were already familiar to the addressees. The idea thatHebrews influenced later Christian tradition by virtue of its “canonicity” – anidea that might subconsciously influence our judgment even if never articulatedas an independent argument – is probably anachronistic, in that it makes the latercanonization of Hebrews premise for historical developments that predate theinclusion of Hebrews into the New Testament canon.⁷ Furthermore, the way thedoctrine of the high priesthood of Jesus is introduced in Hebrews, does not seemto suggest that the author is trying to convince the audience to accept a doctrinewhich was unknown to them. The high priesthood of Jesus is directly mentionedfor the first time in 2,17: “therefore, he had to become like his brothers in everyway, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate the

sins of the people.”⁸ It is notable that the high priesthood of Jesus is not argued foror explained in 2,17, but simply put forward without further comment.⁹ The sameis true of 3,1, where the high priesthood of Jesus is mentioned without explana-tion. In 4,14–16 the author even makes the high priesthood of Jesus, and the veryfact that the addressees “have” a high priest, the key premise for his exhortation.The exhortation given in 4,14–16, echoed also in 10,19–25, sums up the heart ofthe author’s message.¹⁰ It would not have been rhetorically efficient to base thesepivotal exhortations on a premise not shared by the addressees. The high priest-

the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (StTDJ 74), Leiden 2008, who argues that thepriestly Christology in Hebrews is influenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.6 Thus C. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 36),New York 2001, 127.7 On the late inclusion of Hebrews into the New Testament canon, and its ambiguous status, seeW. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols. (WBC 47A–B), Dallas 1991, 1:cl–clv.8 Biblical quotations are from New American Bible, Revised Edition unless otherwise indicated.9 Although the priesthood of Jesus is not explained in 2,17, it is arguably anticipated in severalways. Thus K. Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine exegetische Untersuchung(SESJ 33), Helsinki 1979, 30–37.10 A. Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Series Rhetorica Semitica), Miami 2011, 31–33.






hood of Jesus is thus not presented in Hebrews as something strange, unfamiliaror controversial, which needs to be explained, argued for, or defended; it is ratherpresented as a shared premise, on which the author could develop his argument.

This suggests that the doctrine of the high priesthood of Jesus was known to theaudience before they received Hebrews.¹¹The fact that Hebrews uses so much space to develop the doctrine of Jesus’

high priesthood does not necessarily suggest that the doctrine was unknownto the audience. A more plausible hypothesis is that the author held that theaddressees had not fully comprehended thesignificance of the fact that Jesus ishigh priest. Much space in Hebrews is used to present Jesus as a superior highpriest after the order of Melchizedek (7,1–28). The claim that Jesus is a priest afterthe order of Melchizedek is not only extensively developed and legitimized inHebrews, but also defended against the possible objection that Jesus belongs tothe tribe of Judah, a fact which might suggest that the doctrine of the priesthoodof Jesus is at odds with the Torah (cf. 7,11–19). The notion of Jesus as high priestafter the superior order of Melchizedek thus seems to be something the authorneeded to explain and defend, suggesting that it was not previously known to theaddressees.¹² It thus is notable that no mention of Melchizedek is found in either2,17, 3,1 or 4,14–16.¹³

Another feature of the high priesthood of Jesus which is developed at length

is the idea that Jesus fulfilled the Yom Kippur, by being both high priest and sac-rifice at the same time (9,11–28). Hans-Friedrich Weiß argues that the high priestlyChristology probably originated through reflection on the cultic nature of Jesus’death.¹⁴ If this is correct, it follows that there would be no need to posit externalinfluence on Hebrews in order to explain the presence of the priestly Christology.

11 E. Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews,Minneapolis 1984, 195.12 Thus also Lane, who thinks that the addressees were familiar with the title “high priest” at-tributed to Jesus (Lane, Hebrews [see n. 7], 1:65), but who still writes (Lane, Hebrews [see n. 7],1:cxlii): “It can be safely assumed that the original readers were unfamiliar with the concept thatJesus was a priest like Melchizedek.”13 It is also notable how little attention is given to Melchizedek in the earliest history of thechurch, that no mention of Melchizedek is found in the Apostolic Fathers, and that speculationsabout Melchizedek are often known to us through reports about what certain “heretics” believed.For a review of the evidence, see F. L. Horton Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examina-tion of the Sources to the Fifth Century A. D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cambridge 1976,87–113. On Melchizedek traditions and their reception in the church, see also M. Barker, TheGreat High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, London 2003, 26.37.39.51.62.71.75.113.122.144.218.242.248.14 See Hans-Friedrich Weiß, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13), Göttingen 1991, 228–237.






However, William Loader correctly emphasizes that notions about the atoningdeath of Jesus and of his priesthood should be clearly distinguished as separateideas.¹⁵ It is by no means self-evident that reflection on Jesus’ sacrificial death

would encourage anyone to think of Jesus as ahigh priest . It seems more likelythat the sacrificial interpretation of Jesus’ death, and the Yom Kippur typology,is inspired by the conviction that Jesus is high priest, and that the combina-tion of Jesus’ roles as priest and sacrifice represents the creative contribution ofHebrews. In this view, Hebrews has taken a traditional title, i. e. “high priest,”and developed a novel interpretation of Jesus’ death on its basis.¹⁶

The way the high priesthood of Jesus is referred to in Hebrews, thus suggeststhat the concept was familiar to the audience, but that the author held that theyhad not fully perceived the significance or implications of the fact that Jesuswas high priest. The notion that Jesus is high priest after the superior order of Melchizedek , and the idea that Jesus is both sacrifice and high priest at the sametime, seem to represent topics that the author felt that he needed to explain andexpound. In doing this, he could appeal to the high priesthood of Jesus as a keypremise for his argument, trusting that the addressees were already accustomedto thinking about Jesus in priestly categories, while at the same time adding newinsights and ideas.¹⁷ If this scenario is correct, it raises the question ofwhence the audience had learned about the high priesthood of Jesus. There seem to be

three major alternatives:¹⁸ written material which is now lost, oral traditions, or“liturgical material.”¹⁹ We will now argue that there are reasons for thinking thatthe audience had learned about the high priesthood of Jesus through “liturgical

15 W. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Chris-tologie des Hebräerbriefs (WMANT 53), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 203–204.16 For the same conclusion, although through a slightly different route, see Loader, Sohn undHoherpriester (see n. 15), 203–205.17 Thus also H. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia),Philadelphia 1989, 102–103. More generally on how Hebrews should be understood as an effortto develop, expound and apply the significance of already held beliefs, see K. Backhaus, DerHebräerbrief: Übersetzt und erklärt, Regensburg 2009, 138; F. Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung:Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief (BU 15), Regensburg 1980, 9–10.18 Laub, Bekenntnis (see n. 17), 36–41, is entirely correct to argue that alleged priestly Christol-ogy in other New Testament texts fail to explain the priestly Christology in Hebrews.19 Mason surveys previous attempts to argue that the priestly Christology in Hebrews is de-pendent on earlier Christian traditions (Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’ [see n. 5], 43–49), butdismisses this hypothesis as lacking in supportive evidence and as being speculative. Notably,however, he does not even consider the possibility that Hebrews might be drawing on liturgicalmaterial.






material,” by which we mean more or less fixed expressions which were used incommunal worship gatherings.²⁰

One reason for thinking that the concept of the high priesthood of Jesus was

known to the addressees through liturgical material has to do with the priestlyfunctions attributed to Jesus in Hebrews. It is well known that Jesus’ priesthoodincluded a once-and-for-all self-sacrifice according to Hebrews, but it is occa-sionally overlooked that there is also an aspect of continuity pertaining to hispriesthood.²¹ This continuing ministry has to do with Jesus’ role as a heavenlyintercessor and mediator who facilitates worship.²² In 7,25 we read that Jesusalways lives, and intercedes (ἐντυγχάνω) on behalf of those who approach Godthrough him. This should probably be understood in terms of Jesus speaking thecase of those who approach God through him, praying for them and mediatingbetween them and God. In this way Jesus is said to be fully capable of savingthose who approach God through him (7,25).²³ The word used for approach in7,25, namely προσέρχομαι, is worth noting. Although it could be used quite gen-erally to denote anyone who seeks contact with God (cf. 11,6), it is also usedwith a definitive cultic flavor in Hebrews to designate participation in worship(cf. 10,1).

The kind of worship which Hebrews promotes is no longer based on the sac-rifice of animal blood (10,1–10), but on a “sacrifice of praise.” Jesus is presented

as the one through whom such sacrifices should be offered (13,15–16): “Throughhim [then] let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lipsthat confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have;God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind.” The worship which is well pleasing toGod is thus imagined to be mediated by Jesus (cf. δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, 13,15). This recalls themediation function ascribed to Jesus in 7,25, where it is said that Jesus intercedeson behalf of all those who approach God through him (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ). The notion thatlegitimate worship is mediated through Jesus, who intercedes on behalf of his

20 We do not thereby mean to dispute the idea that early Christian worship in many cases couldhave had a more charismatic and spontaneous form.21 This is overlooked, for instance, by P. Wick, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung undEntwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen und Hausfrömmigkeit (BWANT8/10), Stuttgart 2002, 320–321.22 Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester (see n. 15), 142–160, correctly emphasizes this aspect as oneof the two major motifs related to the high priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews.23 A similar motif might be present in 9,24, where it is said that Jesus entered the heavenly sanc-tuary “in order to appear now before God on our behalf.” The adverb νῦν indicates that Jesus’entry into the sanctuary has some kind of abiding contemporary significance. See L. T. Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL), Louisville, 2006, 244.






followers, was widely shared among early Christians.²⁴ In Hebrews that notion isspecifically related to the idea that Jesus is high priest. It is certainly possible thatJesus was never acclaimed or called upon as high priest in the context of worship,

even though that worship was imagined to be facilitated through his high priestlyintercession and mediation, but it seems more likely that belief in Jesus’ priestlyintercession and mediation resulted in concrete expressions of worship whereinJesus was designated as priest.

A further observation, which indicates a relationship between the highpriesthood of Jesus and the worship gatherings of the addressees of Hebrews,is the fact that Jesus is designated as the apostle and high priest τῆς ὁμολογίαςἡμῶν in 3,1.²⁵ There has been some disagreement about what is referred to by theterm “confession.” Johnson suggests that the injunctions to hold on to the confes-sion (4,14; 10,23), should be understood as calls to be steadfast in the veryact ofconfessing to Jesus. He thus takes 3,1 to refer to Jesus as the high priest “whomwe confess,” and he understands 4,14 and 10,23 more generally as encourage-ments to maintain commitment.²⁶ In this view, there is no need to assume that“the confession” had a specific content, to inquire about what its content was,or in what situations the addressees were supposed to confess. There seem to bestrong reasons, however, for taking a different view. We have other early Christiansources that evidence the practice of confessing and calling upon Jesus in the

context of worship.²⁷ If we look at the wider context of both 4,14 and 10,23, wherethe calls to hold on to the confession are found, we are given reasons for thinkingthat the confession which Hebrews refers to, was of a similar type.²⁸

In 4,14–16, the author appeals to the priesthood of Jesus, and the fact that hehas gone through the heavens, in order to encourage the addressees to approachthe throne of grace so that they might receive mercy, grace and help. The notion ofapproaching God is, as demonstrated above, related to worship in Hebrews. Themention of the throne of grace evokes an image of a heavenly sanctuary, wherein

24 Cf. Rom 8,34; 16,27; Eph 3,12; Jude 25. For a fuller treatment, see L. W. Hurtado, The Place ofJesus in Earliest Christian Prayer and its Import for Early Christian Identity, in: Early ChristianPrayer and Identity Formation (WUNT 336), hg. v. R. Hvalvik and K. O. Sandnes, Tübingen 2014,35–56.25 Käsemann, Wandering (see n. 11), 168, takes this as evidence that there was a traditionalconfession which included the title “high priest.”26 Johnson, Hebrews (see n. 23), 107.259.27 Cf. 1Cor 1,2; 12,3; 16,22; Rom 10,9–13; Phil 2,10–11. For discussion, see L. W. Hurtado, LordJesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids 2003, 140–143.28 Thus also S. Nomoto, Herkunft und Struktur der Hohenpriestervorstellung im Hebräerbrief,NT 10/1 (1968) 10–25, esp. 11–13.






God’s throne is imagined to have stood.²⁹ The fact that Jesus’ solidarity with thosein need is emphasized, and the prospect of receiving mercy, grace, and help, sug-gests that the audience is particularly encouraged to approach God in prayer.³⁰ In

10,19–23, emphasis is on the notion that Jesus has made the heavenly sanctuaryaccessible through his self-sacrifice, and the audience is thus called to approachthe holy on a new and living way. Those who approach God are encouraged tocome forth with their hearts sprinkled clean from bad consciousness, and withtheir bodies washed in pure water. This way of designating those who approach,seems to allude to rituals of priestly installation,³¹ and possibly also to baptism.³² The implication is that the addressees are pictured as having been made fit toserve God under the terms of the new covenant, cleansed through the sacrificeof Jesus. Both 4,14–16 and 10,19–23 thus picture the addressees as approachingGod’s heavenly presence, and in both contexts we find that appeals to the highpriesthood of Jesus are made premise for the call to hold on to the confession. Themajority of commentators therefore hold that the confession should be under-stood as a more or less fixed formula, through which Jesus was acclaimed in thecontext of worship.³³ This would explain how the priesthood of Jesus could bepresented as the very reason why the audience should hold on to their confession.

Returning to 3,1, we see that Hebrews assumes an intimate relationshipbetween the high priesthood of Jesus and the confession – Jesus is “the high

priest of our confession.” It is not self-evident, however, what the relationshipbetween the title “high priest” and the “confession” is. The genitive constructioncould be taken to mean that Jesus is explicitly designated as high priest in the

29 On the notion that the holy of holies contained God’s throne, see Barker, The Great HighPriest (see n. 13), 165–168.

30 For a more thorough treatment, see O. J. Filtvedt, With Our Eyes Fixed on Jesus: The Prayersof Jesus and his Followers in Hebrews, in: Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation (WUNT 336), hg. v. R. Hvalvik and K. O. Sandnes, Tübingen 2014, 161–182.

31 Cf. Exod 29,4.21; Lev 8,6.30; Jub 21,16; TestLevi 9,11; mJoma 3,3. 32 S. Byrskog, Baptism in the Letter to the Hebrews, in: Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism. LateAntiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (BZNW 176/I), hg. v. D. Hellholm et al., Berlin/Boston, 2011, 587–604.

33 G. Bornkamm, Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief, in: ders., Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum.Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 2 (BEvT 28), München 1959, 188–203, suggests that we are talking abouta baptismal confession, while N. A. Dahl, A New and Living Way: The Approach to God Accord-ing to Hebrews 10:19–25, Interpr. 5/4 (1951) 401–412, esp. 408–411, suggests a Eucharistic setting.S. Mackie, Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews, NTS 53 (2007) 114–129, esp. 127, is probablycorrect in arguing that a more general worship setting should be assumed as the context. Forthe view that the confession was used in the context of communal worship, see also Käsemann,Wandering (see n. 11), 169; Backhaus, Hebräerbrief (see n. 17), 138; Loader, Sohn und Hoher-priester (see n. 15), 208.






confession, but it could also be taken to mean that Jesus, identified as the one towhom the audience confesses, is a high priest.³⁴ It is certainly conceivable thatthe addressees were familiar with a confessional formula where Jesus was explic-

itly acclaimed as high priest, although that conclusion cannot be inferred simplyfrom the wording of 3,1.³⁵In summary, we are led to the following conclusions. There is reason to think,

based on the internal logic of the argument in Hebrews, that the high priesthoodof Jesus was known to the addressees before they received the homily. The authordoes not explain or defend the notion that Jesus is high priest, but uses this asa key premise in his argument. However, some crucial aspects pertaining tothe high priesthood of Jesus, such as the idea that Jesus is priest after the orderof Melchizedek and the notion that Jesus is both priest and sacrifice, are bothexplained and extensively developed. This suggests a scenario in which the audi-ence was familiar with the idea that Jesus could be called high priest, but wherethe author wanted to develop that doctrine.

Hebrews provides no unambiguous evidence to suggest precisely howthe high priesthood of Jesus was known to the addressees, but two argumentssuggest that this knowledge could stem from liturgical material. To begin with,we have seen that one of the priestly functions attributed to Jesus in Hebrews isto be a mediator and intercessor in worship. This strengthens the possibility that

Jesus could have been called upon and acclaimed as high priest, in the context ofworship. Secondly, we have seen that Hebrews suggests that there is an intimaterelationship between “the confession,” which the addressees are encouragedto hold on to, and the high priesthood of Jesus. This is then further evidence torelate the priesthood of Jesus to a setting of worship, since the confession in ques-tion probably refers to a fixed formula used to acclaim Jesus in worship.³⁶

It must be admitted that the conclusions presented above are tentative. Inorder to assess their plausibility, it is also necessary to examine the ApostolicFathers.

34 Cf. discussion in Laub, Bekenntnis (see n. 34), 27–28. 35 Attridge, Hebrews (see n. 17), 108 n. 49, argues this on the grounds that the title “high priest”probably was traditional and known to the audience before they received Hebrews.

36 There have been attempts at locating hymnic material which refers to the high priesthoodof Jesus in Hebrews, and some of the candidates are 5,7–10, 7,3, and 7,26. However, even if it waspossible to identify the hymnic material in Hebrews, by way of form criticism, it is still impossi-ble to know whether that material was known to the addressees before they received the homily.For discussion, see H. Zimmermann, Das Bekenntnis der Hoffnung: Tradition und Redaktion imHebräerbrief (BBB 47), Köln 1977, 44–82.






3 The High Priesthood in 1Clement

The earliest mention of Jesus’ high priesthood outside the NT is in the letter known

as 1Clem (36,1; 61,3; 64,1), written in Rome circa 90–110 C. E. and addressed tothe ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ in Corinth. Although most scholars would agree that theauthor of 1Clem quotes from, and thus knows, Hebrews,³⁷ it has been a matter ofdiscussion whether he received the tradition of Christ’s high priestly title fromHebrews or elsewhere.³⁸ For instance, Ernst Käsemann states, in his classicalstudy on Hebrews, that on the one hand “[n]aturally,1 Clement is already awareof Hebrews,” while claiming just a few sentences later, regarding the high priestlytitle in 1Clem, that “there is no direct dependence on Hebrews here.”³⁹

Gerd Theißen has argued that the similarities between the two letters can bestbe explained by their dependence on a common liturgical tradition.⁴⁰ Accordingto Theißen, this tradition lies behind 1Clem 33–36; a section that he regards as adistinct unit. Chapter 34 in particular, which speaks of the believers’ “confidence”(παρρησία)⁴¹ in God and the heavenly “service” (λειτουργέω) of angels, followedby an exhortation to “cry out to him earnestly, with one mouth” (v. 7) recalls aworship setting.⁴² Theißen connects these references to worship in Chapter 34to the introduction of the high priesthood of Jesus in Chapter 36, which beginsby proclaiming: “This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation,

namely Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the guardian and helper ofour weakness.”⁴³ As Chapter 36 continues Christ is depicted as one who makes

37 H. Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2), Göttingen 1998, 52–55, lists the different positionsand the scholars that hold to them.

38 G. L. Cockerill, Heb 1:1–4, 1 Clem. 36:1–6 and the High Priest Title, JBL 97/3 (1978) 437–440;M. Mees, Das Christusbild des Ersten Klemensbriefes, ETL 66 (1990) 297–318; A. Lindemann, DieClemensbriefe (HNT 17), Tübingen 1992. According to Lindemann, for instance, the author of1Clem was aware only of Hebr 1, and thus had no knowledge of the concept of Jesus as high priestin Hebrews.

39 Käsemann, Wandering (see n. 11), 170.40 Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 41. This is an argument Theißen has received fromR. Knopf, Die Apostolischen Väter I.: Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, die zwei Clemensbriefe (HNTErgänzungsband 1), Tübingen 1920, 107. According to Theißen this tradition lies behind 1Clem33–36, which he regards as a distinct unit. Part of the reason for this is that he holds the “experi-ential piety” characteristic of the material in these chapters to be very different from the “sobermoralism” that is otherwise typical of 1Clem.41 Cf. Hebr 3,6; 4,16; 10,19.35.42 Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 40.43 All quotes from the Apostolic Fathers are taken from M. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: GreekTexts and English Translations, Grand Rapids 1999.






the congregation visually perceive the heavenly realities (v. 2), enabling them topartake in a worship service with angels.⁴⁴

The idea that Jesus is “the high priest of our offerings,” should probably be

understood as referring to spiritual sacrifices that Clement urges his address-ees to bring forth, such as “a broken spirit” (18,16–17; 52,4) and a “sacrifice ofpraise” (35,12; 52,3). The phrase “sacrifice of praise” is taken from Ps 50,23, whichis quoted just before Jesus is designated high priest: “The sacrifice of praise willglorify me, and that is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God”(1Clem 52,3). The high priestly service of Christ is thus understood – in 1Clem justas in Hebrews – in terms of Jesus facilitating worship. It is in this function that1Clem can say of Christ’s ministry that it is “the way … in which we found oursalvation.”

On the basis of evidence from Chapters 33–36 which seem to have to do withworship, Theißen postulates a “primitive” liturgical source to which 1Clem andHebrews both had access, but developed in different directions. Although itmight be possible to retain some of Theißen’s basic insights, the argument whichsustains those insights must be rearticulated. The theme that dominates Chapters33–36 is not worship, but the need for order and the importance of doing the willof God.⁴⁵ The orderly service of the angels parallels not just the order of God’swork in creation (Ch. 33), but also the order of the army (37,1–3), the human body

(37,5), and the orderly service of the priests in the Jerusalem temple (Ch. 40). Thisobservation implies that Chapters 33–36 fit more smoothly with the wider argu-ment of 1Clem than Theißen allows, a fact which in turn makes the hypothesisabout influence from an external source less helpful.

However, the case for a relationship between worship and the priesthood ofJesus, which Theißen wants to maintain, is strengthened if one turns the atten-tion to the two occurrences of the high priestly title that appear towards the end ofthe letter (61,3; 64). In these verses it becomes apparent that Christ’s high priestlyrole does relate to worship. In 61,3, which concludes the long prayer at the endof the message (59,3–61,3), the author writes: “We praise [you, God,] through thehigh priest and guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ.” At the very end of the letterthere is a benediction containing the words: “grant to every soul … that theymay be pleasing to his name through our high priest and guardian, Jesus Christ”(Ch. 64). That the phrase “high priest and guardian (προστάτης)” (also in 36,1) isa formula that alludes to a liturgical expression has to our knowledge never been

44 Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 40–41.45 Cf. O. M. Bakke, “Concord and Peace”: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clementwith an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition (WUNT 2/143), Tübingen 2001, 170–173.






questioned.⁴⁶ The function of Christ in these passages is thus to be a mediator ofcommunal prayer and worship.

The fact that Jesus is called high priest in these two prayers constitutes a

strong argument to suggest that the title was used in the context of liturgy. Ifwe start fromthis observation, instead of a questionable form critical reading of1Clem 33–36, it seems that the allusions to worship found throughout Chapters33–36 gain explanatory power. The thematic relationship between worship andthe high priesthood of Jesus which isindicated in 1Clem 33–36, is given concreteexpressions in the prayers found in 61,3 and 64, where Jesus is explicitly invokedas high priest in prayer.

However, even if we assume that there is a liturgical source behind 1Clem,which helps to explain why Jesus is called high priest, it is still difficult to knowwhether Theißen is correct to maintain that it is the same liturgical source thatunderlies both Hebrews and 1Clem. It is fully conceivable that both Hebrews and1Clem drew on liturgical material, although not necessary the same material.A key term in the presumably liturgical material in 1Clem, namely “guardian,” isnot found in Hebrews. However, some of the key motifs, such as spiritual sacri-fices, access to the divine realm, and Jesus’ mediation, are found in both docu-ments.⁴⁷ What we do not find in 1Clem, however, is the notion that Jesus is priestafter the order of Melchizedek, or the idea that Jesus is both priest and sacrifice.

The shared elements all have to do with worship.

4 Polycarp and Ignatius

Almost completely neglected by Theißen, in his attempt at tracing the traditionhistory of the high priesthood of Jesus, are the references to the high priesthoodof Christ in the writings connected to Polycarp of Smyrna (Pol. Phil. 12,2; Mart.

Pol. 14,3).⁴⁸ Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians indicates that he was well

46 E.g. H. B. Bumpus, The Christological Awareness of Clement of Rome and its Sources, Cam-bridge 1972, 112; Knopf, Die Apostolischen Väter (see n. 40), 106; Käsemann, Wandering (seen. 11), 170; Lindemann, Clemensbriefe (see n. 38), 110; Lona, Clemensbrief (see n. 37), 390.47 Laub, Bekenntnis (see n. 34), 35–36, entertains the possibility of there being a common litur-gical source behind both 1Clem and Hebrews, but finds it equally likely that the similarities aredue to literary dependence.48 Theißen mentions the occurrence in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, but first dismisses itas being of no explanatory value (Theißen, Untersuchungen [see n. 4], 33). A few pages later hequotes the verse but does not comment extensively on it (p. 50).






acquainted with 1Clem,⁴⁹ ends this with a benediction in the style of 1Clem 64, inwhich he calls upon God the Father “and the eternal high priest himself, the Sonof God, Jesus Christ” to build up believers in faith and all virtue (12,2). According

to Clayton Jeffordet al. “Polycarp’s primary concern in this section is to assure thePhilippians that the resurrected Jesus is in a position to build the faith of the com-munity and mediate on their behalf with God the Father.”⁵⁰ Again we find Christin a mediating role connected to his priesthood.

Many scholars simply assume that the high priestly title used by Polycarp istraditional and few have paid any particular attention to it.⁵¹ What is potentiallyinteresting is that the Martyrdom of Polycarp also calls Christ the “eternal” highpriest (14,3).⁵² As Polycarp is about to be killed he is “bound, like a splendid ramchosen from a great flock for a sacrifice, a burnt offering prepared and acceptableto God” (14,1). At this point he “looked up to heaven” and began praising Godand prayed: “May I be received... in your presence today, as a rich and acceptablesacrifice... I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you, through [διά] the eternal andheavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son” (vv. 2–3). Once again we seehow the priesthood of Jesus is linked to mediation.⁵³

The linking of the divine sonship of Christ and his “eternal” high priesthoodin relation to prayer and praise in Philippians and Martyrdom gives the impres-sion that these expressions are influenced by more or less set formulas. The fact

that the prayers contain what seem to be fixed Christological formulas, and thefact that these are related to the mediating function of Jesus, seems to suggestinfluence from material used in communal worship.⁵⁴ The notion of Christ as apriestly mediator of spiritual sacrifices is thus held in common with both Hebrews

49 Lona, Clemensbrief (see n. 37), 90–92. 50 C. Jefford et al., Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, Peabody 1996, 81. 51 B. Dehandschutter, The Epistle of Polycarp, in: The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction, hg. v.W. Pratscher, Waco 2010, 117–133, esp. 128; C. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testa-ment, Peabody 2006, 136; Käsemann, Wandering (see n. 11), 170 n. 237.

52 We hold to the majority view that the Martyrdom is a genuine circular letter sent by theἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ in Smyrna (prescr.), and was composed soon after Polycarp’s death (150’s/160’sC. E.). Candida Moss has, however, questioned the majority view that the Martyrdom is based oneyewitness accounts and has dated the writing in the third century (C. Moss, The Other Christs:Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom, Oxford 2010, 196–197).

53 The emphasis on sacrificial imagery in the account makes it clear that Christ is the heavenlypriest of Polycarp’s self-offering, ensuring that his sacrifice will be pleasing to God. On the con-nection between martyrdom and sacrifice, see Phil 2,17; 2Tim 4,6; Ign. Rom. 4,2.

54 Although it is possible that the author/s of Martyrdom simply got it from Philippians, it seemsunlikely. Why would they, who knew and worked with Polycarp, have been dependent on thisone short writing of his?






and 1Clem. However, curiously enough, in terms of wording it actually seems thatHebrews resembles the documents related to Polycarp more than 1Clem does,this despite the fact that scholars are generally hesitant about the relationship of

Polycarp to Hebrews.⁵⁵Another mention of the high priesthood of Christ in the Apostolic Fathersappears in Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians (9,1).⁵⁶ The context of the occur-rence is a discussion of the value of the Jewish Scriptures and traditions in rela-tion to the “teaching of Christ” (cf. 6,1). Ignatius writes: “For I heard some peoplesay, ‘If I do not find it in the archives [ἀρχεῖα], I do not believe it in the gospel’”(8,2b). In response to this, Ignatius explains that for him “the ‘archives’ are JesusChrist, the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection andthe faith which comes through him” (8,2c), thus redefining the key term of theopponents.⁵⁷ This statement then moves into a comparison of priesthoods:

The priests, too, were good, but the high priest, entrusted with the holy of holies, is better;he alone has been entrusted with the hidden things of God, for he himself is the door of theFather, through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles andthe church enter in. All these things come together in the unity of God. (9,1)

According to William Schoedel the priests are brought into the argument heresince they served as the “custodians of the Bible.”⁵⁸ What Ignatius is arguing hereis that the proper hermeneutical principle in interpreting the Scriptures is Christand not the principles of the Jewish priests. The “secrets of God” or in Holmestranslation above, the “hidden things of God,” are then, according to Schoedel,“probably exegetical secrets.”⁵⁹ Peter Legarth has for good reasons rejected thisinterpretation. While not denying that the priests did hold such a function, hequestions whether Ignatius would have said that they “too, were good,” in thissense, especially in a passage where he explicitly rejects certain Jewish read-

55 Cf. M. Holmes, Polycarp’s “Letter to the Philippians” and the Writings that Later Formedthe New Testament, in: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (The NewTestament and the Apostolic Fathers), hg. v. A. Gregory and C. Tuckett, Oxford 2005, 187–227,esp. 219–220.

56 The Ignatian letters are usually dated to the first two decades of the second century. There area number of issues related to the authenticity and dating of the letters. For a concise introductionto these matters, see H. Löhr, The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, in: The Apostolic Fathers: AnIntroduction, hg. v. W. Pratscher, Waco 2010, 91–115, esp. 92–95.

57 M. Isacson, To Each Their Own Letter: Structure, Themes, and Rhetorical Strategies in theLetters of Ignatius of Antioch (CB.NT 42), Stockholm 2004, 150.

58 W. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Her-meneia), Philadelphia 1985, 210.

59 Schoedel, Ignatius (see n. 58), 209.






ings of Scripture. Instead the goodness of the priests lies in their position in the“economy of salvation;” as the cultic ministers of the Old Testament they servedas types of the high priesthood par excellence of the new covenant.⁶⁰

As Legarth points out, Ignatius introduces the high priestly title withoutfurther explanation, and it seems safe to assume that it ties in with a traditionalmotif.⁶¹ He notes, however, that the title is not related to atonement or sacrifice.⁶² Instead, “Jesus Christ reveals the God who dwells in the holy of holies and securesmankind’s access to the Father.”⁶³ It is “revelation theology” that determinesIgnatius’ understanding of Christ as high priest. “The hidden things of God”are not, as Schoedel suggested, exegetical insights, but a sense of divine unitythat can only be attained through Christ.⁶⁴ In a similar fashion, Theißen empha-sizes, concerning this passage, that Christ is the mediator between two separaterealms, the heavenly and the earthly. The “holy of holies,” the “hidden things ofGod” and the “unity of God” are all different names for the same thing, which isin Theißen’s words, “die himmlische Welt.” As high priest Christ is the “door”through which believers can enter into God’s heavenly world. The problem is notarticulated in terms of human sinfulness, but in terms of the distance betweenGod and humans. According to Theißen, this is language pertaining to “derGottesdienst.”⁶⁵ In arguing from the Jewish priests, whose primary function wasto be cultic ministers in the temple worship, and by referring to them as such, it is

likely that Ignatius was also thinking of a worship setting in speaking of Christ’spriesthood.How then does the occurrence in Ignatius relate to the others that we have

discussed? Theißen observes a parallel between Ign. Phld. 9,1 and the “Hohe-priesterhymnus” in 1Clem 36, in that they both represent “eine mysterienhafteFrömmigkeit... ohne Bezug zur Sünde und ihrer Vergebung.”⁶⁶ In 1Clem Christrepresents “the way” (ἡ ὁδός) in which salvation is found, revealing the knowl-edge of God, while Ignatius calls Christ “the Father’s door” (θύρα τοῦ πατρός),leading to the “hidden things.” Something similar is found in Hebr 10,19–22where Christ is said to have opened a “new and living way (ὁδός)... through the

60 P. V. Legarth, Guds tempel: Tempelsymbolisme og kristologi hos Ignatius af Antiokia, Århus1992, 324–325.61 Also W. Bauer/H. Paulsen, Die Apostolischen Väter II. Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochiaund der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (HAT 18), Tübingen21985, 86.62 Cf. Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 50–51.63 Legarth, Guds tempel (see n. 60), 327 (our translation).64 Legarth, Guds tempel (see n. 60), 326–330 (our translation).65 Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 48–50.66 Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 51.






curtain” of the sanctuary by his blood. While the differences are obvious, so is thecommon motif behind all of these passages: the high priest secures access intothe immediate presence of God in heaven for all believers.

5 Evidence Which Complicates the Picture:Didachē and Justin

There is one other writing, apart from those discussed so far, in the collectionof the Apostolic Fathers that uses the word ἀρχιερεύς and gives it a “Christian”sense, and that is the document known as the Didachē. However, in the Didachēthe word is not used of Christ but of the “prophets” (13,3), who are said to be“your high priests” (in the plural). The context of this verse is a chapter on thepayment of prophets in which the didachist argues that they have the right tothe “firstfruits” of the congregation: “If you make bread, take the firstfruit andgive in accordance with the commandment. Similarly, when you open a jar ofwine or oil, take the firstfruit and give it to the prophets” (13,5).⁶⁷ If this analogyfurther implies that the prophets held a leading, and perhaps mediatory, rolein the worship service is difficult to determine but not altogether unlikely (cf.

10,7; 15,1–2). In any event, the Didachē does not reveal any knowledge of a priest-hood of Christ, and this despite its preoccupation with liturgy and offices. It isprobably safe to conclude that had this concept been important to the liturgy inthe congregation(s) behind this document, it would have been apparent in thewriting.

Justin Martyr’s use of the title “high priest” is also worth noting. In his Dia-logue with Trypho, the writing in which he portrays himself as debating themeaning of Scripture with a Jewish teacher named Trypho, Justin discusses thematter on two separate occasions. The first is in an argument concerning thecorrect interpretation of Ps 110, where the stress lies on Christ as the “priest ofthe uncircumcised.” This is, according to Justin, what it means to be a “priestin the order of Melchisedech” (32,6–33,2). The point that Hebrews makes fromthis psalm, that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is superior to theLevitical priesthood (cf. 5,5–10; 7), is missing in the Dialogue. Even if Justin knewHebrews, his interpretation of the psalm is different.⁶⁸ Later, in Chapters 115–118,

67 The chapter continues: “As for money and clothes and any other possessions, take the ‘first-fruit’ that seems right to you and give in accordance with the commandment” (v. 7).68 According to Lane, Hebrews (see n. 7), 1:xxx, “Justin clearly knows Hebrews.”






he discusses a prophecy concerning Joshua the high priest (Zech 2,10–3,2) whichhe interprets as speaking of Jesus. That Jesus is called “high priest” by the prophetmeans for Justin that the Christians “are now of the true priestly family of God”

(116,3). The focus in the rest of the section is not really on the high priesthoodof Christ but on the general priesthood of Christian believers and their blood-less sacrifices in the Eucharist (117,1). “God receives sacrifices from no one, exceptthrough his priests,” says Justin (116,3). The proper priesthood has gone from theJews and is now with the Christians (117,1–3). The main focus is thus on the priest-hood of all believers, and Jesus is not presented as mediating Christian worship.The motif of Christ leading believers into God’s heavenly presence is also missing.

The use of the title “high priest” in Didachē and Justin’s Dialogue demon-strates that the title was not part of a universally used and accepted liturgy amongthe Christians at the turn of the first century and early second century. We haveargued that there existed liturgical traditions where Jesus was acclaimed as highpriest, but those traditions were apparently not known to all.

6 Conclusions

Because Hebrews is the first known literary source to attribute the title “highpriest” to Jesus, because Hebrews later achieved canonical status, and becausethe doctrine of the high priesthood of Jesus is given such a developed theologicalinterpretation in Hebrews, there is a strongintuition to suggest that the conceptoriginated with the author of Hebrews, and that all later usage must be tracedback to Hebrews. However, an important finding in this paper is that the influ-ence of Hebrews should not be overstated.

To begin with, probability suggests that the addressees of Hebrews werefamiliar with the title “high priest”, as used of Jesus, before receiving the homily.We tentatively suggested that the title could have been known to them throughliturgy, on the grounds that Hebrews presents Jesus as mediator and intercessorof worship, and because Jesus is presented as the high priest of the confession(3,1) which the addressees are called to hold on to (4,14; 10,23). The notion thatJesus is high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and the idea that Jesus is bothhigh priest and sacrifice at the same time, seem, on the other hand, to be topicsthat Hebrews creatively develops. This hypothesis seems to receive considerableindirect support from the evidence in the Apostolic Fathers.

We have seen that the high priesthood of Jesus is nowhere related to hisatoning death, or to the order of Melchizedek, in the Apostolic Fathers. Thisstrengthens the probability that these are points specifically developed by the






author of Hebrews. Conversely, we have seen that Jesus’ high priesthood isdirectly linked to worship in several of the passages examined in the ApostolicFathers. It is possible to distinguish between two different motifs connecting the

high priest title of Christ to worship in our material: (1) Jesus facilitating the bring-ing forth of spiritual sacrifices, and (2) Jesus providing access to God. In Hebrewsand 1Clem 36 these two motifs are mixed. Ignatius only uses the second motif,whereas the ending of 1Clem and Polycarp use only the first motif. Hebrews,1Clem, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, thusshare a common appreciation for Jesus’ mediating function in worship, and relatethis to his priesthood. In 1Clem, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Mar-tyrdom of Polycarp, Jesus is even directly acclaimed as high priest in the contextof prayer. Of all the documents, Ignatius has developed the high priest conceptin a way which displays the least focus on worship. However, Ignatius uses thepriesthood of Jesus in conjunction with ideas about access to God, which seem tobe influenced by notions of worship.

The evidence thus suggests that there was an intimate link between worshipand the idea that Jesus is high priest, in early Christian imagination and practice.There seems to be a common strand of tradition here, which is hard to explainsimply as a product of authorial creativity or direct literary dependence. A theoryof independent authorial creativity fails to explain why all of the passages relate

Jesus’ priesthood to worship, while a theory of literary dependence fails toexplain why characteristic ideas in Hebrews, such as Jesus being high priest afterthe order of Melchizedek, and Jesus’ atoning self-sacrifice, play no role in pas-sages from the Apostolic Fathers that speak of Jesus as high priest.⁶⁹ Even 1Clem,which is most likely dependent on Hebrews, develops the concept of Jesus’ highpriesthood in a way that is strikingly independent of Hebrews.

A hypothesis of liturgical influence best explains the fact that what is sharedamong the different documents, has to do with worship more generally, or morespecifically with notions of Jesus as mediator and intercessor.⁷⁰ Moreover, giventhe limited influence of Hebrews, liturgical influence helps to explain why Jesusis called high priest in the first place, and why the title always appears withoutexplanation. A broad strand of early Christian tradition, where Jesus was referredto or called upon as high priest in the context of worship, and where ideas about

69 Thus also Käsemann, Wandering (see n. 11), 190; Theißen, Untersuchungen (see n. 4), 51.Were we to construct a chain of literary dependence it would be: Hebrews → 1Clem → Polycarp→ Ignatius. The problem is that we find things in Ignatius that we do not find in Polycarp and1Clem, and Ignatius does not reveal any direct dependence on Hebrews; neither does Polycarp.70 Note that it is unnecessary to claim that we are dealing withidentical liturgical sources forthe hypothesis to be potent.






Jesus’ role as intercessor and mediator of worship were nourished, is the hypoth-esis that best explains the similarities as well as the differences between the earlyChristian texts that speak of Jesus as high priest.

Although we seem to be confronted with a significant early Christian tradi-tion here, relating the priesthood of Jesus to worship, it would still be wrong tooverestimate its spread and significance, and we would certainly not want toargue for the universal presence of Jesus as high priest in early Christian worship.In the Didachē it is the prophets in the congregation who are called high priests,not Jesus. Justin Martyr, who is aware of Jesus’ high priesthood, uses the conceptin an altogether different way from Hebrews and the Apostolic Fathers, and doesnot in any way relate Jesus’ high priesthood to worship. These facts, together withthe silence on the high priesthood of Jesus in most of the sources from the firstand second century, indicates that the shared tradition we have argued for in thispaper, could have been rather limited in scope.

le Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus in Early Christian...

Documents

Transcript of le Jakob Filtvedt, Martin Wessbrandt Exploring the High Priesthood of Jesus in Early Christian...