I. What is being confessed in this article?⤒🔗

This article confesses what Jesus has done as a priest to reconcile us to God.

1. As a priest he can be compared to Melchizedek. Just as the latter had no predecessor or successor, neither did Jesus. For that reason he is an “eternal High Priest." God confirmed with an oath that Jesus really is such a priest.
2. In our place he has gone before his Father to appease his wrath. He did this on the one hand by offering himself, and in doing so he fully met the requirements of God for us; also, by shedding his blood, he cleansed us from our sins, which had provoked God’s wrath.
3. In this way the prophecies were fulfilled. Isaiah 53 states that Jesus, even though he was innocent, was nevertheless condemned as a criminal, and in this connection Psalm 69 declares that he has thus restored that which he did not steal (Psalm 69:4b).
4. Both in body and in soul he underwent the terrible punishment that we had deserved. His sweat became like drops of blood and God forsook him — all for the sake of the forgiveness of our sins.
5. Therefore we say with Paul that there is nothing more important than to know Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2), because without further searching or worrying we are assured that he has definitively reconciled us to God through his wounds, and is bringing us to an eternal perfection. That is why God’s angel calls him Jesus, which means “Saviour.” He saves us from our sins, which thwarted our communion with God.

II. Jesus as a priest may be compared to Melchizedek←⤒🔗

1. The Old Testament knew two types of priests. One is that of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. These Levitical priests acted as mediators between God and his people. They represented the people before God when they offered sacrifices on behalf of the people to restore or confirm communion with him. But they also represented God to the people, when they blessed the people on his behalf (Numbers 6:22-27) or propounded God’s law (Deuteronomy 33:10). It was their task to restore, maintain, and deepen the communion between God and his people. It was always about reconciliation with God, but not without satisfaction — in other words., retribution, payment. The atonement had to be paid for with blood — with a living sacrifice: “For it is the blood that makes atonement” (Leviticus 17:11).
   The Old Testament speaks mainly about these Levitical priests, and Israel itself never even had any other priests.
2.  Yet the Old Testament also speaks of an entirely different priest. His name was Melchizedek and he was a contemporary of Abraham who also met him. For further details we refer to Genesis 14:18-24. After this instance he is mentioned once more: in Psalm 110:4. In the New Testament we meet him again in the letter to the Hebrews.
   The remarkable thing is that this priest, mentioned only twice in the Old Testament, turns out to be more important than all the others. The first time the Bible mentions Melchizedek he already appears to be more important than the Levitical priests of the future. Genesis 14 clearly shows that Abraham recognized him as his superior both by allowing himself to be blessed by this priest (and he who blesses is greater than he who is blessed) and by paying this priest a tenth of the spoils. When Abraham did this he essentially did the same as (fore-)father of the tribe of Levi and therefore of the priests. In Abraham, therefore, the Levitical priests already bowed down before Melchizedek before they were even born(Hebrews 7:4-10).
3. There is no reason to assume that Melchizedek’s priestly duties differed substantially from those of the priests mentioned. But why and in what way was Melchizedek greater than Aaron? The letter to the Hebrews explores this difference in more detail. We will only mention two points that are relevant to this topic:
    a. The first point concerns the appointment. The others became priests because it was inherent in the family line. They belonged to the tribe of Levi and it was therefore predictable that they would become one. They succeeded their fathers more or less automatically. But Melchizedek was “without father or mother, without genealogy” (Hebrews 7:3). Of course Melchizedek had those things, but this means that he did not become a priest because his father or mother were priests as well. With him there was no direct family connection to the priesthood, and according to the later law of Moses he could never have become a priest. In that sense he was without father and mother. His appointment came directly from God, and so it was a surprise. This also applies to Jesus, whose parents were not of a priestly family: “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (Hebrews 7:14). Therefore, contrary to everyone’s expectations, Jesus was also directly appointed by God: “For it is witnessed of him: ‘You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek’” (Hebrews 7:17, quoting Psalm 110). God has even confirmed this with a solemn oath (Hebrews 7:20-21).
   And this could not be said of any Levitical priest. This already shows, in his direct and surprising appointment, the superiority both of Melchizedek and of Jesus over Aaron— while for Jesus it is added here that God confirmed this appointment with an oath.
   b. Also in the length of his priestly career, Melchizedek surpasses the other priests. They could only serve as priest temporarily, because death prevented them from remaining in office (Hebrews 7:23). But of Melchizedek we read in Hebrews 7:3 that he is without end of life, and that he continues a priest forever. It seems unlikely to us that this implies that Melchizedek is still a priest today, in heaven. It means that he could not be succeeded by anyone. No one could take over his task, not even when sickness, old age or death prevented him from performing his duties. He was a priest once and forever and in that sense without “end of life.” He took his office, as it were, into death and did not let go of it to hand it over to someone else.
   With Jesus, all of this has been completely fulfilled. He, too, is a priest for life and therefore God said to him: “You are a priest forever” — to eternity (Hebrews 7:21). “He holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Hebrew 7:24). This has rich implications for us, for “he is able to save to the uttermost ["at all times"] those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
   Both points mentioned under (a) and (b) above are indicated in the first sentence of this article: “We believe that Jesus Christ was confirmed by an oath to be a high priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."

III. The error of the Socinians about Jesus as priest←⤒🔗

The fact that Jesus has reconciled us to God through his suffering was not disputed during sixteen centuries of church history. This lasted until the time of the great reformation when Socinianism arose. It was named after Lelio and Fauso Sozzini, respectively uncle and nephew. They opposed the teaching that Christ appeased God’s wrath. The basic arguments used at that time are still widely used today and that is why we need to be aware of them. We limit ourselves to the two most important ones:

1. We need to reject the idea that God would be angry on account of our sins and therefore would demand punishment. After all, God is love and therefore he does not demand satisfaction in the form of retribution or payment with blood. We already encountered this reasoning in the previous article, when discussing Article 20, in Section IV, point 1. When God sent his Son, God himself was already reconciled. Jesus merely came to tell and show us how much God loved us. The fact that God allowed his Son to be killed by men was proof of how strong his love was for us, but his death did not serve as payment.
   In opposition to this error, the article states that Jesus presented himself before his Father “to appease God’s wrath by his full satisfaction.” For further argumentation we refer to Section IV below.
2. A second argument is that it is considered impossible for someone to undergo the punishment for someone else’s sins. You can not do that when it comes to petty mischief. Even if a boy were willing to serve a sentence of house arrest for his guilty brother, it is still inconceivable that a fair instructor would accept this and would keep an innocent person inside the house while the actual rascal enjoys a pleasant evening. So also the punishments we deserve could never be taken over by anyone else. The idea of substitution is thus rejected. Jesus would never take upon himself the punishments we deserved.
   In contrast, this article confesses that he “presented himself in our place before his Father." For further arguments we refer to Section V below.

IV. As a priest, Jesus appeased God’s wrath←⤒🔗

Over against the denial of God’s wrath and the consequent denial of the atonement through satisfaction (see Section III,  point a, above), we state the following:

1. God cannot overlook sin, for his anger over it is something other than an emotion, a feeling, or impulse, which his love might overcome. God’s wrath is his holy and perfectly just aversion to sin. That has to be satisfied first. For “the soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). God will not depart from this decree, “for he cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).
2. Hebrews 9:12 clearly shows that payment was necessary to restore access to God. On the day of atonement, the Levitical high priest was allowed to approach God in what was called the Holy of Holies, where the ark had been placed. The prerequisite for this was that he carried a bowl with the blood of a sacrificial animal in front of him. This was only allowed once a year. But Jesus “entered once for all into the holy place [here referring to heaven]... by means of his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.”
3. Hebrews 9:26 states that sin really had to be removed and done away with: Jesus “appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” And only in this way could he “appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (Hebrews 9:24).
4. In Romans 5:9, Paul states that “we have been justified (in other words, acquitted) by his blood” and therefore “saved by him from the wrath of God.”

V. Jesus bore our punishment as a priest←⤒🔗

The idea of substitution, rejected by many (see Section III, point b, above), is clearly taught by Scripture and that is sufficient for us.

1. According to Isaiah 53 Jesus suffered in our place: The punishment we had to bear was upon him, (Isaiah 53:5) “[a]nd the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). Jesus’ soul “makes an offering for guilt” (Isaiah 53:10). Therefore also, according to this article, he had to be condemned as a criminal by Pontius Pilate "though he had first declared him innocent.” Thus “[h]e restored what he had not stolen,” but what we had stolen. That is what he needed to restore (Psalm 69:5).
2. An eloquent sign that human guilt could be transferred was the laying of the hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (Leviticus 1:4). Doing so signified: that the priest transferred the people’s guilt to this animal, which will soon be killed in their place. That sacrificial animal pointed to Jesus, for he is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
3. Hebrews 9:28 says that Jesus offered himself “to bear the sins of many,” and 1 Peter 2:24 says that he “bore our sins in his body on the tree.”

VI. Jesus is our only and perfect priest←⤒🔗

1. The article speaks in a reverent way about “the horrible punishment” that Jesus experienced. In order for us to comprehend as much as possible the gravity of his suffering, two things are pointed out: Jesus suffered as a righteous person both in body and in soul, in other words, as a fully human being. Furthermore, two signs of his suffering are mentioned: his sweat became like great drops of blood, and he cried out, "My God, why have you forsaken me?” He endured all this “for the forgiveness of our sins."
2. There is a lot of knowledge that is also useful. But the worth of knowing Jesus Christ exceeds everything. Compared to this, all other knowledge, though valuable in itself, is to be regarded as "rubbish" ("worthless"). So says Paul in Philippians 3:8. It is as with the precious cargo of a ship that is about to sink because of its weight. Then the cargo is thrown overboard in order to save life. In the same way, the knowledge of Christ crucified makes all other knowledge pale and useless, when it comes down to it.
3. A benevolent peace emanates from the following words: “We find comfort in his wounds, and have no need to seek or invent any other means of reconciliation with God.” All other searching and worrying has been put to rest. Jesus has definitively reconciled us to God through his “only sacrifice, once offered.”
4. The rich character of all of this is expressed in the name Jesus, which means Saviour, Redeemer, and Deliverer. But even the last words of this article accurately convey that this is about the redemption from our sins, which provoke God’s wrath and are therefore the cause of all further misery.

Points to discuss←⤒🔗

1. We have stated that the priestly duties of Aaron and Melchizedek are substantially the same. Yet it is said that with Melchizedek the emphasis is less on the work of atonement than with Aaron. Melchizedek would represent more the general priesthood, which consists in consecrating oneself to God, which needed to be done before the fall and until eternity, see also Heidelberg Catechism, answer 32.
   Does article 21 mean this distinction when we read what Jesus has accomplished, being a priest in the order of Melchizedek? Cf. the first sentence of the article with the second.
   Does such a distinction of duties appear in the letter to the Hebrews? See Hebrews 9:12-15, 25-28.
2. Jesus descended from Judah and of the family of David. Was this necessary? See Acts 2:30. So Jesus could not possibly have descended from Levi at the same time; was it therefore some kind of a "fall-back" solution that he became a priest after the order of Melchizedek? Please explain.
3. The Socinians deny that God’s anger against our sins needs to be appeased. In his book Atonement as Change, pages 40-41, H. Wiersinga similarly asserts that the gods of paganism had to be appeased, but not Israel’s God. That would be the significant difference. In Israel, then, God would not be the subject but only the object of reconciliation. He alone would be the giver of the atonement.
   Why is this a half-truth and therefore a complete lie? Take into account what was said in Article 20 about the two ways of speaking(see the previous article in this series, Section V, point 3).
4. ​The Socinian argument against the idea of substitution returns in full force with Wiersinga who claims, “If Jesus could think on the cross: ‘I am dying for the salvation of the world…’ he would stand on a stage playing a precarious part, only to pick himself up again, get into his car and to drive to his hotel.”
   What conception is behind these impudent words? Why is this unbiblical? See also Section V and the strong expressions used in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13.
5. Wiersinga explains the words that “the Messiah had to suffer” (Luke 24:26), in this way: considering the sad fate of all the prophets before him, Jesus just had to suffer; it was logical. There would therefore be no question of a direct obligation because of the reconciliation through satisfaction.
   Show from Matthew 16:21 that this interpretation of the word "had to" is impossible. It concerns the words “and that he must be raised to life on the third day."
6. Deniers of the doctrine of “atonement through satisfaction” also say, in view of Matthew 1:21, that Jesus saves his people from their sins. But then how does Jesus realize this salvation, according to their reasoning?