Angelic Priests

More recently it has been suggested that ‘the Jewish tradition of angelic heavenly priests provides the most probable background for the High Priest Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. As we have already seen, the author’s understanding of the heavenly sanctuary (e.g. 8:1-5; 9:11-12) belongs within the context of Jewish apocalyptic mysticism where the celestial temple often plays a major role. Moreover, given that angels are regularly regarded as the priests of the celestial temple in these traditions (e.g. 4Q400 I i 1-20; 1 En. 14:23; T. Levi 3:5-6), it seems likely that the author would have been familiar with this particular facet of apocalyptic angelology. Indeed, this is overtly indicated by the author’s descriptions of angels as λειτουργοι (Heb 1:7; cf. 1:14), a term which has sacerdotal import in Hebrews (see 8:2, 6; 9:21; 10:11; cf. T. Levi 3:5; Jub. 2:2). It is perfectly plausible, therefore, that this notion provided a conceptual framework for developing a high priestly Christology. This said, given the author’s emphasis upon Jesus’ humanity (e.g. Heb 2:5-18) and distinction from angels (1:4-14), it is unlikely that the tradition of angelic priests can fully explain the origins of Christ’s high priesthood.

Hannah has further suggested that the identification of Michael as the heavenly priest in apocalyptic (e.g. 3 Bar. 11-16) and rabbinic (e.g. b Ḥag. 12b) literature, along with the ‘probable’ identification of Michael with Melchizedek at Qumran, points to the pre-Christian origins of Michael’s heavenly high priesthood, and probably helped the early Church articulate the significance of Christ. Although the identification of Michael with Melchizedek is somewhat less certain than is sometimes implied, the possibility that Michael’s heavenly high priesthood was an idea circulating in the First Century CE seems plausible, although, as Hannah notes, there is no direct evidence that this tradition was known to the author of Hebrews.