A Thematic Study of the Book of Hebrews, Part 4
Understanding Hebrews Chapter 5
Introduction
In Part 3 we were able to complete our outline of the first four chapters of the book of Hebrews. We were also able to identify a number of chiastic structures in those chapters. So far, it turns out that the book of Hebrews consists of one chiastic structure (and/or parallelism) after another! Let’s see if that trend continues. We’ll begin by looking at the outline I developed in Part 3. From there, we’ll look at any thematic patterns we may find.
An Outline of Hebrews Chapter 5
Here is the outline I developed for Hebrews chapter 5:
Hebrews 5 Outline Analysis
As you can see, I’ve broken Hebrews 5 into 6 sections. Let’s begin by looking at sections A–E. I’ll talk about section F later. Our author begins by making the case that Adonai is the one who appoints priests (section A). Next, he informs us of some of the requirements for priesthood (section B). In section C he makes the case that Adonai appointed Yeshua as a priest just as He did Aaron. Furthermore, he gives us two passages from the book of Psalms to substantiate his assertion that Yeshua was appointed by Adonai as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
“I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’ ” (Psalm 2:7).
The LORD has sworn And will not relent, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4).
Please read these two passages again for yourself. Now, let me ask you a couple of questions.
What does Psalm 2:7 have to do with a priesthood?
What justification does the author have in taking a passage from Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 and combining them to say that this proves that Yeshua was called as a priest?
Does it seem that the author is leapfrogging through the Psalms and commandeering texts and applying them as he sees fit for his own purposes? (I’m sure you know that’s not the case.)
The answer is that the author is using thematic connections to establish thematic context and help prove his point. Let me take a moment and define what I mean by thematic context. We are taught that we can never take a Scripture out of its immediate context, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, most expositors consider “context” to be the verses immediately preceding a target text and those immediately following the target text. For the Biblical writers, context is significantly more than the preceding or succeeding text! The prophets of Scripture saw the entire corpus of Scripture as providing context. In other words, context for one passage may be elsewhere in Scripture and not necessarily immediately preceding or succeeding a target passage. So how did they determine which other passages in the Tanakh could be used to provide context for a target passage? They made thematic connections. In other words, they looked for passages that contained the same themes as their target passage and then used those passages they found as “context” (what I call thematic context), even though those newly found passages may be in completely different chapters or books than the target text. Let’s see how this works.
First of all, Psalm 110:4 clearly teaches us that Adonai has called someone to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. The appointment of the priest according to the order of Melchizedek is made by a sworn oath in Psalm 110:4. The question is, “Who is being appointed as a priest?” In order to determine that, we simply need to look at the context of Psalm 110 and then make the appropriate thematic connections. Notice the following themes present in this psalm:
Psalm 110:1—Adonai is calling someone to sit at His right hand. This is a position of kingship and rulership. Coupling Psalm 110:1 with Psalm 110:4 makes it obvious that the priest is also a king!
Psalm 110:2—Adonai will establish the “rod” of the strength of this priest/king who will exercise dominion by ruling “in the midst of your enemies.”
Psalm 110:5-6—Again, these verses speak of the dominion of the priest/king. Also, notice the context of conflict with the nations of the world and that the priest/king will thoroughly subdue the nations.
Now, the question is, “What passage can we find elsewhere in the Tanakh that contains the same themes as Psalm 110?” The answer is Psalm 2!
“Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.” 7 “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel’ ” (Psalm 2:6-9).
As you can plainly see, the thematic context of Psalm 110 and Psalm 2 are exactly identical. Both of them speak of Adonai enthroning someone and empowering them to subdue and rule over the nations. The author of Hebrews saw the complementary themes in these two Psalms and that’s how he knew that Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 are speaking of one and the same person. In other words, the king who is enthroned in Psalm 2 will be the same king who will be made priest in Psalm 110.
But why does our author specifically choose Psalm 2:7—I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’? The key is to understand what it means that Adonai has “begotten” His son. The apostle Paul tells us what this means in Acts 13:32-33:
And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Paul tells us how to interpret the phrase, “Today I have begotten You.” When Scripture says, “Today I have begotten you,” it means today I have raised you from the dead. This is the plain meaning Paul ascribed to Psalm 2:7. Yeshua was begotten in that He was raised from the dead. More proof that this is the correct interpretation is the fact that when the Apostolic writings mention Yeshua as the firstborn, the meaning is that He is the first person to be raised from the dead.
And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence (Colossians 1:18).
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5).
Therefore, when Scripture uses the terms begotten and firstborn, it has nothing to do Yeshua being created or born. Both terms refer to His resurrection from the dead. This completes the logic of the author of Hebrews. Here is a summary:
Psalm 110:4 mentions that Adonai will appoint a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
The entirety of Psalm 110 pertains to someone Adonai will enthrone who will be empowered by Adonai to exercise authority and dominion over His enemies.
Psalm 2 contains the exact same themes as Psalm 110, and therefore, the person being given authority to rule over His enemies in Psalm 2 is the same person given authority in Psalm 110.
Lastly, the one given authority to rule and reign over His enemies in Psalm 2 is one who lives forever with an indestructible life. The author of Hebrews will make this point later in the book, but by 1) understanding what begotten and firstborn mean (resurrection from the dead), and 2) connecting Psalm 2 to Psalm 110, we can already see that the Melchizedek priesthood will be characterized by someone who had power over death!
Section D in our outline mentions how Yeshua was perfected by the things He suffered. In section E we see a recurring theme! Hebrews 5:10 mentions how Yeshua was called/appointed as a priest by Adonai, and quite interestingly, this was mentioned already in Hebrews 5:1. Do you know what this possibly suggests? If you said, “It suggests that this passage is arranged chiastically,” then you’re correct. More on that later.
Earlier I mentioned that I did not end my outline of chapter 5 until Hebrews 6:3. Why? Because, as I’ve stated before, the chapter divisions in the Bible are not inspired. So, you will need to get in the habit of ignoring them sometimes as you follow the themes to their natural conclusions. As you read beginning in Hebrews 5:11, it is obvious that the author’s train of thought continues into Hebrews 6:3.
Chiastic Analysis of Hebrews 5
Now that we have outlined Hebrews 5, it’s time to look at its themes to determine its thematic structure. As noted earlier, the fact that Hebrews 5:1 and 5:10 both mention that Adonai called/appointed Yeshua as a High Priest provides evidence that perhaps this passage is chiastic. I looked for themes in the first half and a reversal of those themes in the second half and came up with the following chiasm:
Again, we analyze a chiastic structure by comparing and contrasting the matching thematic elements on either side of the central axis. Notice the color coding to help you find the connections more easily. In this case, we have a double central axis, elements C and C’ instead of a single passage as the central axis. This occurs often and should not be of any concern. Comparing A to A’, the first thing we learn is that Adonai is the one who appoints/calls someone as a High Priest.
There are four themes that connect elements B and B’. Let’s take a look at each one of them one at a time and see what we can learn.
Theme 1—The High Priest’s Compassion for Sinners
In element B the author states, “He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray.” Because of his own weaknesses, the high priest can have compassion on others. The high priest’s compassion for the wayward is a positive influence, motivating him to work on behalf of others to bring them to repentance and right standing with Adonai. The parallel statement is element B’, where the author states, “He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” Yeshua, as the author of salvation, is the ultimate high priest who has “written the book” on how to bring salvation to sinners! He has the ultimate compassion on sinners and is therefore most effective in bringing them to repentance.
Before covering the other chiastic elements, I’d just like to specifically point out how our chiasm has helped us. We know that the Torah is a shadow on earth, teaching us about the ultimate realities in heaven. We also know that the Levitical high priest is a shadow of Yeshua’s Melchizedek priesthood. In other words, each aspect of Aaron’s priesthood teaches us about some specific aspect of Yeshua’s priesthood. In this instance, the author began with an example of the shadow of the Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 5:2-3), but he did not immediately explain how the shadow typified the reality found in Yeshua. This reality was not found until Hebrews 5:7-9. In other words, after being introduced to the shadow in vv. 2-3, we had to wait until vv.7-9 to learn how the shadow was fulfilled in Yeshua. My point? My point is to illustrate how chiastic structures often function. Sometimes an author will mention something in the first half of the chiasm but will not finish his thought about that something until the matching theme in the second half of the chiasm! This is what we’ve just witnessed. Element B gives us the shadowy image concerning the priest’s ability to have compassion on the people he’s serving. But it’s not until B’ that we learn how the shadow is teaching us about the reality in Yeshua. Thus, chiastic structures are great tools to use for exegesis.
Theme 2—The High Priest’s Weakness
Element B also states, “since he himself is also subject to weakness.” Here, the author gives us the basis for the earthly high priest’s ability to have compassion on others. By comparing this theme to element B’, we see that the matching theme is “who, in the days of His flesh.” Why do I suggest these two are similar themes? Because just as the high priest can have compassion on people specifically because he has the same weaknesses they do, so likewise, Yeshua can have even greater compassion on people specifically because He has partaken in our humanity, where “in the days of His flesh” simply means during the time period where He identified with our human, fleshly existence. This is the second time the shadow is presented in the first half of the chiasm and the reality that it points to is presented in the matching thematic element in the second half. Also, notice that sometimes you have to do a little extra thinking to “find” the themes. They are not always an obvious similar word, phrase, situation, circumstance as in our example here. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that since he himself is also subject to weakness is properly thematically connected to who, in the days of His flesh, being that both phrases focus on that which causes the Levitical priest and Yeshua as priest to be able to have compassion on those they are ministering to.
Theme 3—The Requirement to Make Offerings
Next, still pertaining to elements B/B’, notice how I connected “he is required as for the people, so also for himself,” to “though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.” Why did I see a connection between these phrases? Because both phrases mention a requirement of the priest. The Aaronic high priest was required to make offerings for himself just as he was required to make offerings for others. In Yeshua’s case, He was required to suffer just like everyone else had experienced suffering, again pointing to the fact that both had to deal with weaknesses. The difference being that the Aaronic priesthood dealt with weaknesses due to the priest’s sinfulness. Yeshua was sinless and therefore could not identify with us being sinners. However, He certainly could identify with our temptation and physical sufferings, specifically because He identified with our humanity. This connection captures that.
Theme 4—Sacrifices for Sins
Lastly, notice how “to offer sacrifices for sins,” is obviously thematically connected to “when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears.” Again, similar to the previous connection, this pertains to sins on behalf of the priest, but Yeshua did not sin. So, what is the point? Again, the author is giving us the shadowy image through Aaron’s priesthood to teach us about the ultimate reality found in Yeshua and His priesthood. Aaron offered sacrifices, some of which pertained to his own sins. This is simply meant to teach us that Yeshua had to offer sacrifices also! However, none of His sacrifices were for His own sins.
Some may argue and say, “But Tony, the Scripture states that Aaron offered sacrifices. It does not say Yeshua offered sacrifices. It says He offered “prayers and supplications.” Here is where you need to remember that the entirety of Torah worship was a shadow pointing to other realities. Sacrificial worship in the Tanakh was never solely about offering animals and burning them on an altar. The sacrifices represent deeper truths. Among other realities, sacrifices were a shadowy image (symbolic) of prayer! Yes, sacrifices were a picture of prayer being offered on the behalf of the offeror. Notice the following verses from the Tanakh where sacrifices are thematically connected to (i.e., equivalent to) prayer and a broken spirit, thus enabling us to connect Aaron’s physical sacrifices with Yeshua’s prayers and supplications.
Let my prayer be set before You as incense, The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice (Psalm 141:2).
Take words with you, And return to the LORD. Say to Him, “Take away all iniquity; Receive us graciously, For we will offer the sacrifices of our lips (Hosea 14:2).
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:17)
Now let’s see what we can learn from elements C/C’. There are two themes connecting C/C’. First, “no man takes this honor to himself” (Hebrews 5:4), is quite obviously thematically connected to “So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest” (Hebrews 5:5-6). The author is emphasizing the fact that only Adonai can appoint one as a high priest. In Aaron’s case, he was appointed by Adonai when Adonai gave the Torah which specifically designated that the high priests could only descend from Aaron’s lineage. So what proof do we have that Yeshua did not take it upon Himself to be High Priest? The answer is in our second connection between Hebrews 5:4 and Hebrews 5:5-6. Notice how “but he who is called by God” (Hebrews 5:4), is thematically connected to “but it was He who said to Him: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” 6 As He also says in another place: “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:5-6). When the author quotes the two passages from the Psalms, he is providing proof that Yeshua did not presumptuously appoint Himself as a high priest, because in both of the passages quoted by the author, it is Adonai and only Adonai who is doing the appointing.
Chiastic Analysis of Hebrews 5:11—6:3
This leaves us with element F. As I read Hebrews 5:11–6:3, I couldn’t help but notice some repetitions. After investigation, it seems to me that this passage is written as a parallelism as follows:
Some of the connections in this parallelism are opposites, for example:
Element A/A’—“since you have become dull of hearing” versus “belongs to those who are of full age . . . those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”
Element B/B’—“You need someone to teach you” versus “leaving the discussion of”
Element C/C’—“for he is a babe” versus “let us go on to perfection,” and “unskilled in the word of righteousness” versus “laying again the foundation”
On the other hand, element B/B¢ also contains a synonymous connection:
Element B/B’—“the first principles of the oracles of God” versus “the elementary principles of Christ”
As you can see, we are still moving from one chiastic/parallel arrangement to another as we trek linearly through the book of Hebrews. Eventually, we’ll get to the point where we can determine the overall structure of the book of Hebrews. But for now, let’s enjoy each part as we encounter it. Furthermore, some of the knowledge we gain each step along the way will help us with our ultimate goal of understanding the overall message of the entire book.