Paul contrasts the Priest of the temple with Jesus. In the paragraph before this, he describes Jesus as the great high priest. He then talks about the role of the priest:
Hebrews 5.
1Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2He is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness; 3and because of this he must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4And one does not presume to take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was.
Now, Jesus was his own priest and his own sacrifice. Calvin’s commentary on this argues quite closely.
Taken from among men, etc. This he says of the priests. It hence follows that it was necessary for Christ to be a real man; for as we are very far from God, we stand in a manner before him in the person of our priest, which could not be, were he not one of us. Hence, that the Son of God has a nature in common with us, does not diminish his dignity, but commends it the more to us; for he is fitted to reconcile us to God, because he is man. Therefore Paul, in order to prove that he is a Mediator, expressly calls him man; for had he been taken from among angels or any other beings, we could not by him be united to God, as he could not react down to us.
For men, etc. This is the second clause; the priest was not privately a minister for himself, but was appointed for the common good of the people. But it is of great consequence to notice this, so that we may know that the salvation of us all is connected with and revolves on the priesthood of Christ. The benefit is expressed in these words, ordains those things which pertain to God. They may, indeed, be explained in two ways, as the verb kathistatai has a passive as well as an active sense. They who take it passively give this version, “is ordained in those things,” etc.; and thus they would have the preposition in to be understood; I approve more of the other rendering, that the high priest takes care of or ordains the things pertaining to God; for the construction flows better, and the sense is fuller. [84] But still in either way, what the Apostle had in view is the same, namely, that we have no intercourse with God, except there be a priest; for, as we are unholy, what have we to do with holy things? We are in a word alienated from God and his service until a priest interposes and undertakes our cause.
I think that no orthodox person would argue that all the reconciliation that we have revolves around Christ and his intercession on our behalf. He is the high priest: the person that all others are dependent upon for our salvation. Any authority on spiritual issues comes only through him.
Where I think there needs to be another correction is that this authority is not as of right. Calvin again expands this:
… What makes an office lawful is the call of God; so that no one can rightly and orderly perform it without being made fit for it by God. Christ and Aaron had this in common, that God called them both; but they differed in this, that Christ succeeded by a new and different way and was made a perpetual priest…
If one beleives that the church is in this earth to make disciples, to teach and do the work of Christ, it follows that any person leading the church must be called of God. And this call needs to be tested. There is no right of a human to demand a call: there are qualifications for such a call, and it is not our place to break them. For those churches that hold a high view of priests as in an apostolic succession from Peter and Paul themselves, this is especially important, as they claim to stand before the people and intercede on their behalf.
But this is getting lost, particularly in parts of the Anglican and Catholic communions. This kind of service is not seen as part of the kingdom of heaven, but instead part of some form of clerical civil service, and the secular standard of tolerence is seen as replacing the need for call, and indeed the glory of the call. The lectionary today also has the call of Ezekial and Jesus being seen in heaven — and the reaction of the observers (Ezekiel and the Apostles) was trembling fear.
The liberals are claiming as a right what angels themselves fear to be. I hope that they are blinded by their sense of general good-will, for if they are thinking clearly they should know that it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God.