Intercession of Jesus in Hebrews: The Background and Nature of Jesus' Heavenly Intercession in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161610967, 9783161617560, 3161610962

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

585

Abeneazer G. Urga

Intercession of Jesus in Hebrews The Background and Nature of Jesus’ Heavenly Intercession in the Epistle to the Hebrews

Mohr Siebeck

Abeneazer G. Urga, born 1984; 2006 BA in Foreign Language and Literature, Hawassa University; 2014 MDiv; 2021 PhD in Biblical Studies, Columbia International University; currently faculty member at the Evangelical Theological College in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and an adjunct professor at Columbia International University. orcid.org/0000-0002-8277-2674

ISBN 978-3-16-161096-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-161756-0 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161756-0 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to my dear wife Jessica and my delightful children Daniel and Sophia for their patience, compassion, support and love.

Preface This work is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis, completed at Columbia International University in May 2021. Many people have trekked with me in my journey of writing this work. I would like to thank my family in Ethiopia for interceding on my behalf during these past four years. I especially want to thank my younger brother Mulubirhan G. Urga for his prayers and encouragement, particularly in 2017–2018 during a severely challenging time. Similarly, I am grateful for Mehari Korcho, Nahom Tegene, Mekdes Haddis, Jason and Shelby Rickey, Tyler and Miriam Levan, Jacob Rodriguez, Yonathan Zeamanuel, Tizita Zenebe, Kidist Bahru, Sigurd Grindheim, and the faculty and staff members of the Evangelical Theological College in Ethiopia for their prayers, emails, phone calls and handwritten notes to encourage my family and me during the research and writing of my dissertation. I am also thankful for Grace Church of Columbia, Clemson Presbyterian Church, Lake Morton Community Church, and Salt and Light Church for their faithful support and encouragement over the years. Thank you to the Udall family for allowing my family and me to stay with them during the last months of my dissertation writing process. Thank you to Georg Gäbel for alerting me to William R. G. Loader’s latest article and for his encouraging email during the initial stage of my research. Thank you to the staff and faculty members of Columbia International University who have been hospitable and welcoming to my family and me. To Dr. David Cashin, for his genuine hospitality in his office and at home. To the Smithers, the Noonans, Dr. Brian Gault and the CIU Library staff for their friendship, hospitality and encouragement during my time at CIU. To the late humble, faithful and meticulous scholar, Dr. William Larkin Jr., who challenged me to become faithful and diligent in my own scholarship. To Dr. Gareth L. Cockerill, my external reader, thank you for your insightful and helpful comments. To Dr. John D. Harvey, thank you for making my transfer to CIU smooth, and thank you for the encouraging and significant lessons you shared with me as a scholar, pastor, teacher, dean and if I may, as a friend. To Dr. David Croteau, thank you for your leadership and administration in running the Ph.D. program and for your welcoming spirit. To Dr. Don N. Howell, my Doktorvater, for his academic hospitality, constant encouragement, availability and support during my Ph.D. research and writing. Thank you all.

VIII

Preface

I would also like to thank the editors at Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, particularly Jörg Frey, for including this study in their series. Finally, I am grateful to Messiah Jesus, who has been and continues to intercede on my behalf so that I can withstand Satan, sin, temptation and spiritual apathy. Thank you for your advocacy at the Father’s side. Ğ¿¼ÅÁ¸ĖÊň½¼ÀżĊËÌġȸÅ̼ÂòË»įŸ̸ÀÌÇİËÈÉÇʼÉÏÇÄñÅÇÍË»Àφ¸ĤÌÇıÌŊ ¿¼ŊբÈÚÅÌÇ̼½ľÅ¼ĊËÌġëÅÌͺÏÚżÀÅĨÈòɸĤÌľÅ. Hebrews 7:25 June 2022

Abeneazer G. Urga

Table Of Contents Table of Contents

Preface ...................................................................................................... VII List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. XV

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research ............................. 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this Study .......................................................................... 1 1.3 Research Methodology ....................................................................... 2 1.4 Anticipated Contribution .................................................................... 3 1.5 Questions to be Answered .................................................................. 3 1.6 Precedent Research ............................................................................ 4 1.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 4 1.6.2 From Philip E. Hughes to David M. Moffitt (1977–2020) ........... 5 1.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................31

Chapter 2: The Motif of Intercession in the Old Testament.........33 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................33 2.2 Definition of Intercession ..................................................................33 2.3 Abraham’s Intercession for Sodom (Gen 18:20–33) ..........................36 2.4 Moses’ Intercession for Israel ...........................................................40

X

Table Of Contents

2.4.1 Exodus 32:7–14 .........................................................................40 2.4.2 Exodus 32:25–35 .......................................................................43 2.4.3 Numbers 13–14 ..........................................................................45 2.5 Aaron’s Intercession (Lev 16:20–22) ................................................49 2.6 Amos’ Intercession for Israel (Amos 7:1–6) ......................................53 2.7 The Suffering Servant’s Intercession (Isa 53:12) ...............................57 2.8 Jeremiah’s Intercession .....................................................................60 2.8.1 ‘Do Not Intercede for This People’ ............................................61 2.8.2 Jeremiah Prayed for the People ..................................................64 2.9 Daniel’s Intercession ........................................................................69 2.10 Angelic Intercession ........................................................................72 2.10.1 Job 5:1; 33:23–28 .....................................................................72 2.10.2 Zechariah 1:12–17 ...................................................................75 2.11 Conclusion ......................................................................................76

Chapter 3: The Motif of Intercession in the Second Temple Literature ...................................................................................79 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................79 3.2 1 Maccabees .....................................................................................79 3.3 2 Maccabees .....................................................................................81 3.3.1 Intercession, Sacrifice and Martyrdom .......................................81 3.3.2 Interceding for the Dead ............................................................84 3.3.3 The Intercession of Dead Saints .................................................84 3.4 3 Maccabees .....................................................................................85 3.4.1 The Intercession of Simon the High Priest (3 Macc 2:1–20) ......85 3.4.2 The Intercession of Eleazar (3 Macc 6:1–15) .............................87 3.5 The Testament of Levi .......................................................................88

Table Of Contents

XI

3. 6 1 Enoch ............................................................................................89 3.6.1 The Intercession of Enoch ..........................................................90 3.6.2 Angelic Intercession...................................................................92 3.7 The Mishnah .....................................................................................95 3.7.1 Mishnah Berakhot ......................................................................95 3.7.2 Mishnah Yoma ...........................................................................95 3.7.3 Mishnah Taanith ........................................................................96 3.7.4 Baba Qamma .............................................................................97 3.7.5 Mishnah ’Abot ...........................................................................98 3.8 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Intercession in The Genesis Apocryphon ......98 3.9 Intercession in Philo ....................................................................... 101 3.9.1 Abraham .................................................................................. 101 3.9.2 Moses ...................................................................................... 102 3.9.3 The High Priest ........................................................................ 103 3.9.4 Flaccus ..................................................................................... 104 3.10 Conclusion .................................................................................... 104

Chapter 4: Jesus’ Intercession in the New Testament outside of Hebrews ................................................................................... 107 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 107 4.2 Jesus’ Earthly Intercession ............................................................. 107 4.3 Jesus’ Intercession for Peter (Luke 22:31–32) ................................ 108 4.4 Jesus’ Priestly Intercession and Consecration (John 17:1–26) ....... 110 4.4.1 Jesus’ Prayer for Himself (John 17:1–8) ................................. 113 4.4.2 Jesus’ Intercession for His Disciples (John 17:9–26) ............... 115 4.5 Jesus’ Intercession at Gethsemane .................................................. 118 4.5.1 “Watch and Pray”: A Warning against Temptation ................. 118 4.5.2 The Agony of Jesus in the Garden............................................ 120 4.5.3 Jesus Offers up Intercession ..................................................... 122

XII

Table Of Contents

4.6 Jesus’ Intercession on the Cross (Luke 23:34a)............................... 126 4.6.1 The Authenticity of Luke 23:34a ............................................. 126 4.6.2 Jesus Intercedes on the Cross ................................................... 128 4.7 Jesus’ Final Intercession on the Cross (Luke 23:46) ....................... 131 4.7.1 The Rejection and Acceptance of Jesus as Mediator ............... 131 4.7.2 The Apogee of Jesus’ Pain and His Loud Intercession ............. 132 4.8 Jesus’ Heavenly Intercession........................................................... 135 4.9 The Son of Man Intercedes in Heaven (Acts 7:55–56) ..................... 136 4.9.1 The Trial and Execution of Stephen ......................................... 136 4.9.2 Jesus Standing at God’s Right Hand ........................................ 138 4.10 Christ’s Heavenly Intercession for Us (Rom 8:34) ........................ 142 4.10.1 The Hostility against Christians ............................................. 143 4.10.2 The Works of Christ and the Perseverance of Christians ........ 146 4.11 Jesus Christ Our Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1–2) ........... 148 4.11.1 The Purpose of 1 John ............................................................ 148 4.11.2 The Danger of Deception and Sin .......................................... 149 4.11.3 Confession and Christ’s Intercession as the Solution to Deception and Sin .................................................................... 150 4.12 Conclusion .................................................................................... 154

Chapter 5: Jesus’ Heavenly Intercession in the Epistle to the Hebrews ................................................................................... 155 5.1 Introductory Questions .................................................................... 155 5.1.1 Authorship ............................................................................... 155 5.1.2 Date and Provenance ............................................................... 156 5.1.3 The Identity and Situation of the Recipients of Hebrews .......... 157 5.2 Exegesis of Texts ............................................................................. 160 5.3 Hebrews 1:3c–d, 13 ........................................................................ 160

Table Of Contents

XIII

5.3.1 Jesus’ Death as the Basis for Purification, Exaltation and Heavenly Intercession ................................................................... 160 5.3.2 The Completion of Sacrifice and the Resumption of Intercession................................................................................... 162 5.4 Hebrews 2:17–18 ............................................................................ 164 5.5 Hebrews 3:1–6 ................................................................................ 168 5.5.1 Moses and Jesus: The Faithful Servants of God............................ 168 5.5.2 The Place of Moses in the OT, STL and NT ................................. 170 5.5.3 The Apostolicity and Priesthood of Moses and Jesus.................... 172 5.6 Hebrews 4:14–16 ............................................................................ 176 5.6.1 The Wilderness Generation as the Object Lesson ..................... 176 5.6.2 Jesus the Great High Priest ...................................................... 177 5.7 Hebrews 5:5–10 .............................................................................. 184 5.7.1 Qualifications for High Priesthood ........................................... 184 5.7.2 Christ the Appointed High Priest ............................................. 186 5.7.3 Die priesterlichen Leiden and Intercessions ............................ 187 5.8 Hebrews 6:19–20 ............................................................................ 195 5.8.1 Spiritual Immaturity and the Danger of Apostasy .................... 195 5.8.2 The Hope of the Christian and the Eternal High Priest ............. 196 5.9 Hebrews 7:25 .................................................................................. 200 5.9.1 Jesus the Melchizedekian High Priest ...................................... 200 5.9.2 Jesus’ Perpetual Intercession in Heaven ................................... 202 5.10 Hebrews 8:1–4 .............................................................................. 209 5.10.1 Completed Sacrifice and Perpetual Intercession ..................... 209 5.10.2 The Seated and Interceding High Priest in Heaven ................. 210 5.11 Hebrews 9:11–12, 24 .................................................................... 213 5.11.1 Jesus the Better Mediator ....................................................... 213 5.11.2 Jesus the Better High Priest and the Better Sacrifice in a Better Tabernacle .................................................................................... 214 5.11.3 Jesus Appears in Heaven to Intercede on Our Behalf (Heb 9:24) ......................................................................................... 218

List Of Abbreviations List Of Abbreviations

AB ABR ABRL AbrN AJJS AnBib ANF ANTC AOAT AOTC APOT ApOTC ArBib ASE AT AUSS BCOTWP BDAG BDB BDF BECNT BHGNT Bib BibInt BJRL BNT

Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Anchor Bible Reference Library Abr-Nahrain Australian Journal of Jewish Studies Analecta biblica Ante-Nicene Fathers Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Apollos Old Testament Commentary The Aramaic Bible Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi Altes Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the OT Blass, Debrunner, Funk Greek Grammar of the New Testament Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments

XVI BNTC BQ BSac BSB BST BTCP BTS BZ BZAW BZNW CbNT CBQ CBQM CC CCSS CSB CurBR CurTM Did DSS EBC ECC EDNT EGGNT EGL and MWBS

EKK Enc ERT EsprVie EstBíb ESV ETR EVV ExpTim

List Of Abbreviations

Black’s New Testament Commentary The Baptist Quarterly Bibliotheca Sacra Berean Study Bible The Bible Speaks Today Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation Biblical Tools and Studies Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Concordia Commentary Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Christian Standard Bible Currents in Biblical Research Currents in Theology and Mission Didaskalia Dead Sea Scrolls The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Eerdmans Critical Commentary Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encounter Evangelical Review of Theology Esprit et vie Estudios bíblicos English Standard Version Études théologiques et religieuses English Versions Expository Times

List Of Abbreviations

FM FN FoiVie GCS GNT HALOT HAR HCOT HNT HThKNT HTR HTS HUCA IBS ICC IKaZ Int ISV IVPNTCS JBL JBTh JETS JPS JSJ

JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JTS JTSA Judaica

KD KEK

XVII

Faith and Mission Filología neotestamentaria Foi et vie Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Greek New Testament The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Hebrew Annual Review Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Interpretation International Standard Version IVP New Testament Commentary Series Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society The Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Judaica: Beiträge zum Verständnis des jüdischen Schicksals in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über

XVIII

KJV LNTS LSTS LW LXX MSS/mss MT NA28 NAC NACSBT NASB NCBC NCCS Neot NETS NICNT NICOT NIDNTTE

NIDOTTE

NIGTC NIV NIVAC NKJV NLT NovT NovTSup NRSV NSBT NTD NTL NTS OBO OBT

List Of Abbreviations

das Neue Testament King James Version The Library of New Testament Studies The Library of Second Temple Studies Luther’s Works Septuagint Manuscripts Masoretic Text Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland, 28th ed. New American Commentary New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology New American Standard Bible New Cambridge Bible Commentary New Covenant Commentary Series Neotestamentica New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version NIV Application Commentary New King James Version New Living Translation Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version New Studies in Biblical Theology Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library New Testament Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology

List Of Abbreviations

ONTC OT OTL OTP PBM PG PNTC PRSt QD RB REJ RevExp RevQ RNT RSR RTL SB SBL SBLDS ScEs ScrHier SCS SJT SNTSMS SP SPAW

STL StBibLit StPB

SwJT TDNT TDOT Th THAT

XIX

Osborne New Testament Commentaries Old Testament Old Testament Library Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Paternoster Biblical Monographs Patrologia Graeca Pillar New Testament Commentary Perspectives in Religious Studies Quaestiones Disputatae Revue biblique Revue des études juives Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran Regensburger Neues Testament Recherches de science religieuse Revue théologique de Louvain Subsidia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Science et esprit Scripta hierosolymitana Septuagint Commentary Series Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Second Temple Literature Studies in Biblical Literature Studia Post Biblica – Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Southwestern Journal of Theology Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologia Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament

XX THOTC ThTo TJ THKNT TLNT TLOT TNTC TOTC TWOT TynBul TZ VT VV WBC WMANT WTJ WUNT WYC ZAW ZECNT ZNTW ZNW

ZThK

List Of Abbreviations

Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary Theology Today Trinity Journal Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Verbum Vitae Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wycliffe Bible Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

Introduction and Precedent Research 1.1 Statement of the Problem In his 1994 essay, “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship,” J. C. McCullough called the Epistle to the Hebrews “the Cinderella of New Testament Scholarship.”1 In the subsequent decades, as scholars have increasingly turned their attention to this book, its image is changing.2 Recent scholarship on Hebrews has focused on Christ’s sacrifice, resurrection, atonement and priesthood. As a result of David M. Moffitt’s Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the discussion of Christ’s heavenly priesthood and offering has garnered heated discussions among Hebrews scholars.3 Though these discussions focus on the pre-and-post ascension mediatorial role of Jesus, there has been minimal attention paid to “intercession” as the present mediatorial task of Jesus in heaven. Jesus’ heavenly intercession as a High Priest is mainly assumed, but not clearly and adequately connected with his sacrificial death and bodily resurrection and ascension. The focus on death, entry and offering does not culminate into the crown of Jesus’ mediatorial function, that is, intercession. The discussion, unfortunately, appears to cease in midair. In a similar vein, scholarly discussions regarding the background and the nature of Jesus’ intercession, prior to Moffitt’s monograph, were also given scant attention, resulting in the need for an in-depth and fresh examination of this important aspect of Christ’s priesthood.

1.2 Purpose of this Study This study explores the heavenly intercession of Jesus in Hebrews in order to to find out the background and the nature of Jesus’ intercession in heaven as a high priest for believers. The study will help us understand the continual high 1

J. C. McCullough, “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship,” IBS 16 (1994): 66–86, here 66. George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews in its First-Century Contexts: Recent Research,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, eds. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker/Apollos, 2004), 414–443. 3 David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

priestly task of Jesus Christ in heaven so that we can accurately understand Jesus’ heavenly intercession as his primary function as a high priest.

1.3 Research Methodology In this study, I will examine the background and nature of Jesus’ intercession in Hebrews in the broader context of Jesus’ mediatorship/priesthood. Hence, I will survey recent scholarship on the priesthood of Jesus and his mediatorial works precisely concerning intercession in the Epistle to the Hebrews. An investigation of intercession as carried out by priests, prophets and angels in the Old Testament, extra-canonical and Second Temple Literature will follow to delineate the portrayal of intercession in the literature and the reasons for intercession. I will also examine Jesus’ intercession on earth and in heaven in the Gospels and in the epistles outside of Hebrews. Finally, I will discuss the intercession of Christ in general but also his heavenly intercession, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I will argue that his heavenly intercession is his primary function as a high priest in heaven. In this study, I have avoided the typical exegetical examination of “intercession” that centers only on explicit and known lexemes that express the idea of intercession. The investigation here also incorporates concepts, phrases, and ideas that convey the notion of intercession. For this method, Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains has been insightful.4 However, Bryan R. Dryer is correct that their work suffers from a lack of “incorporating evidence from LXX, contemporary Greek writers (Philo, Josephus), or even classical writings.”5 In this study, semantic field is utilized in studying the idea of intercession in Hebrews. Nevertheless, since the author did not write in a vacuum, the LXX, STL and NT outside of Hebrews are incorporated to bring the literary and theological background of intercession in Hebrews to the fore. Doing so will enable us to identify the similarities and differences of intercession between the LXX, STL, NT outside of Hebrews and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here a caveat on methodology is necessary as the discussion on the background of Hebrews is a contentious subject. This study avoids the two extremes that either consider the author of Hebrews as a Philonist (uncritically dependent on STL materials) or as oblivious to his literary, cultural

4 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), vi–xx. 5 Bryan R. Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Its Context of Situation, LNTS 568 (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2017), 52.

1.4 Anticipated Contribution

3

and theological milieus (writing his pastoral epistle in a vacuum).6 Instead, I contend that the author’s primary sources were the OT (LXX proper) and the NT outside of Hebrews, while he was at the same time cognizant of his context in addition to the authoritative texts.7 To conclude, the study will employ an inquiry of intercession in scholarly works between 1977–2020, an in-depth exegetical study of relevant biblical texts and an overview of relevant extra-canonical and Second Temple Literature in examining the term “intercession” and its semantic domain to shed light on the term’s literary and theological significance in Hebrews.

1.4 Anticipated Contribution 1.4 Anticipated Contribution

This study will contribute to the ongoing discussion of the Priesthood of Christ by shedding light on the neglected concept of the intercessory role of Christ in heaven. In so doing, the conversation will go one step further, moving from his death, resurrection, and ascension to his primary heavenly role as the interceding High Priest based on his sacrificial-victorious work.

1.5 Questions to be Answered The study aims to answer one crucial question: What is the background and nature of Jesus’ intercession in heaven as a high priest for believers in the Epistle to the Hebrews? In order to answer this question, five key questions will guide the investigation: How are the high priestly/mediatorial intercessions portrayed in the OT and STL? What do the OT and STL suggest as to why priestly intercession is necessary? How does the NT outside of Hebrews present Jesus’ high priestly intercession? How is Hebrews’ presentation of Jesus’ high priestly intercession similar to and different from that of the OT, 6

Celsus Spicq, L’Epître aux Hebreux: I. Commentaire (Paris: Gabalda, 1952), 39–91; H. W. Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, BNTC (London: A&C Black, 1964); James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews, CBQM 13 (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), represent the maximalist group that perceives a strong influence of Philo on the author of Hebrews. On the contrary, Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), represents those who have a minimalist view of Philonic influence on Hebrews. Instead, he argues that the Jewish tradition heavily influenced the author of Hebrews. 7 The importance of works like Philo in studying Hebrews with a cautionary position is represented by Harold W. Attridge, “Heard Because of His Reverence (Heb 5:7),” JBL 98/1 (1979): 90–93; Ronald H. Nash, “The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” WTJ 40 (1977): 89–115.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

STL and the rest of the NT? What does a grasp of Jesus’ heavenly intercession contribute to accurately understanding the primary function of Jesus in heaven as a high priest?

1.6 Precedent Research 1.6 Precedent Research

1.6.1 Introduction In 1991, John M. Scholer observed that the Priesthood of Christ was the dominant topic among Hebrews’ scholars.8 The priesthood motif has never been on the decline. Recent scholarly output proves this fact. However, many of the recent works mainly focus on the death, entry and offering of Christ while overlooking the vital function of Christ in heaven: intercession.9 Indeed, the notion of intercession is not entirely absent in the scholarly discussion. In 2004, Howard Griffith provided a full-orbed explication of the motif in his dissertation.10 Yet even his discussion is confined to the understanding of intercession among five prominent Reformed theologians and his critical evaluation of their perspectives on the topic. Nicholas Moore and David Moffitt provide the most recent discussion on Jesus’ intercession in Hebrews.11 Their essays, however, either confine the background of Jesus’ heavenly intercession in Hebrews to Leviticus to the neglect of other OT mediators’ intercessions as possible background or deny the Day of Atonement as a background for the discourse of intercession in Hebrews, as is the case with 8

John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 9. 9 Moffitt, Atonement; R. B. Jamieson, “When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself? A Taxonomy of Recent Scholarship on Hebrews,” CurBR 15 (2017): 338–368; Michael Kibbe, “Is It Finished? When Did It Start? Hebrews, Priesthood, and Atonement in Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Perspective,” JTS 65 (2014): 25–61; Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews, BZNW 222 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016). 10 Howard Griffith, “Priest in Heaven: The Intercession of the Exalted Christ in Reformed Theology, Analysis and Critique” (PhD diss. Westminster Theological Seminary, 2004). 11 David M. Moffitt, “It is Not Finished: Jesus’s Perpetual Atoning Work as the Heavenly High Priest in Hebrews,” in So Great a Salvation: A Dialogue of the Atonement in Hebrews, eds. Jon C. Laansma, George H. Guthrie and Cynthia Long Westfall, LNTS 516 (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2019), 156–175; David M. Moffitt, “Wilderness Identity and Pentateuchal Narrative: Distinguishing between Jesus’ Inauguration and Maintenance of the New Covenant in Hebrews,” in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, eds. Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce and Francis Watson, LNTS 565 (New York/London: T&T Clark, 2017), 153–171; Nicholas J. Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession: The End of Christ’s Offering in Hebrews,” JSNT 42/4 (2020): 521–541; David M. Moffitt, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest and Sacrifice in Hebrews: A Response to Nicholas Moore,” JSNT 42/4 (2020): 542–552.

1.6 Precedent Research

5

Moore. Moreover, although he notes that intercession is implicitly present in Leviticus, Moffitt fails to see the clear evidence for explicit high priestly intercession on the Day of Atonement. Major commentaries on Hebrews and a few important articles indeed deal with the motif – albeit briefly and not comprehensively. As such, their understanding of Christ’s intercession will be delineated in this study. This study will incorporate notable works related to Jesus’ (high) priesthood and his intercessory role published between 1977– 2020. The argument of each work will be presented and assessed in order to place this study at the table where the conversation has already begun. 1.6.2 From Philip E. Hughes to David M. Moffitt (1977–2020) Philip E. Hughes. In his discussion of intercession, Philip E. Hughes notes in his 1977 Hebrews commentary that Christ is the inimitable mediator and is the intercessor par excellence in contrast to angelic intercession.12 Hughes argues that Christ’s intercession is based on his death and offering on the cross and that the sacrificial function of his priestly ministry was concluded at Calvary.13 As such, Hughes insists that the cross is the epicenter of Christ’s priesthood as opposed to preparation for Christ’s heavenly functions. Christ’s finished work on the cross is followed by his session at the right hand of God. Therefore, there is no more perpetual sacrificial offering as was true of the ineffective Levitical priestly work. Hughes argues against those who propose perpetual offering and intercession as Christ’s heavenly function. He states that Christ’s continual intercession is based on his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. Thus, Christ’s intercession is by mere appearance on our behalf before God. Hughes posits that “intercession” in 7:25 and “appearance” in 9:24 convey a similar notion. He reiterates that Christ does not plead a sacrifice but just sits at God’s right hand and claims the result of his work on the cross. Hughes provides three major functions of Christ in heaven: representation, benediction, and intercession. Hughes’ support for the function of “representation” in heaven is Hebrews 9:24. As noted earlier, however, he argues that “intercession” and “appearance” communicate the same concept. Thus, representation should be subsumed under intercession. When Christ intercedes on our behalf, he is carrying out his representational/mediatorial task in heaven. Hughes postulates that Christ’s heavenly intercession and the Spirit’s earthly intercession are geared toward “bringing many sons to glory” (2:10).14 Hughes points out that the notion of high priestly intercession is clearly seen “in the prescriptions for sacerdotal garments which Aaron was to wear” 12

Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 270. Ibid., 346. 14 Ibid., 351. 13

6

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

(Exod 28:6f.).15 The garment wearing symbolizes that the people are represented and remembered through the high priest’s actions. The better high priest, nevertheless, delivers more effective and infallible intercession. Hughes also asserts that Christ’s intercessory role is unique and no angel or saint can replace this heavenly priestly function. For Hughes, what necessitates intercession is the pilgrims’ already-butnot-yet state of salvation. In this life, the believer is yet to complete his or her journey. It is at this juncture that Christ’s intercessory function plays a significant role in assisting the believer to overcome “sin and imperfection.”16 Hughes’ helpful discussion of intercession does not do justice to the meaning of the term ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ, as he inclines to understand intercession to mean “presence.” He repeatedly asserts that it does not mean “pleading.” His definition is influenced by his attempt to fend off those who devalue the centrality of the cross and the once-for-all redemptive sacrifice of Christ. As a result, he obscures the meaning of the term. He also does not provide a single piece of evidence to indicate that intercession means presence. It is vital to answer whether ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ has ever been understood as presence in the NT, LXX, STL or classical literature. It appears that Hughes’ definition of intercession is also influenced by the symbolic prescription of the names of the twelve tribes on Aaron’s breastplate. But could the author’s concept of intercession and its meaning be informed by the intercession of mediators as delineated in the LXX and the STL? Ronald H. Nash. In the “Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Ronald H. Nash presents Jesus’ mediatorship against the backdrop of Alexandrian Judaism. Nash attempts to hold a middle ground between Celsus Spicq and Ronald Williamson.17 Nash ably delineates 15

Ibid. Ibid., 383. 17 Nash, “The Notion of Mediator,” 91–92. Celsus Spicq, “Le philonisme de L’Épître aux Hébreux,” RB 56 (1949): 524–572, here 542, notes that Grotius is the first scholar to point out the Philonic influence on Hebrews in 1644: “…Philonem quem legisse videteur hic scriptor.” Later, in agreement with his predecessor, E. Ménégoz, Spicq argues: “Au total, nous souscrivons à la formule de Ménégoz: ‘[l’auteur de épître] est un philonien converti au christianisme,’” Spicq, Hébreux, 1:91. Also, Montefiore, Hebrews, 8–9, argues in a similar line with that of E. Ménégoz and Celsus Spicq. For more discussion on Spicq’s proposal, see J. C. McCullough, “Some Recent Development in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” IBS 2 (1980): 141–165, here 143–145; McCullough, “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship,” 73–74; cf. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 45–48; Guthrie, “Hebrews in its First-Century Contexts,” 427– 429. On the contrary, Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 579, argues that “The Writer of Hebrews had never been a Philonist, had never read Philo’s works, had never come under the influence of Philo directly or indirectly.” Similarly, L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, 16

1.6 Precedent Research

7

the similarities and differences between the Hellenistic mediators and Jesus’ mediatorship in Hebrews. He observes a similarity between Hebrews’ implicit and Alexandrian Judaism’s explicit use of Wisdom and Logos Christology.18 Observing the comparison of Jesus with the angels, Moses, Melchizedek and the Aaronic priesthood, Nash surmises that the purpose of the epistle is to present Jesus as the better mediator vis-à-vis “the assorted mediators of Alexandrian Judaism.”19 Though Hebrews comprises some aspects of Alexandrian mediatorship, Nash posits that Hebrews also contains concepts that clash with a Platonic understanding of mediatorship; for instance, Hebrews presents Jesus not as an abstract mediator “but [as] a specific individual historical person”20 who was a fully incarnate man. Jesus is also portrayed as the mediator who sympathizes with his brothers because he himself knows temptation, suffering, and even death. Nash is on point when he indicates the purpose of Hebrews: to present Jesus as the superior mediator. His article, however, does not address the pinnacle of Jesus’ mediatorship: intercession in heaven. Harold W. Attridge. According to Harold W. Attridge’s 1989 Hebrews commentary, Christ the intercessor is reliable and trustworthy.21 Attridge argues that “expiation for sin” does not rely on Jesus’ heavenly intercession but on his death on behalf of sinners.22 Yet, he acknowledges that some scholars propose a few OT passages that indicate the connection of intercession and expiation.23 Nevertheless, he contends that expiation and intercession are not conflated in the epistle.24 In an excursus, Attridge delineates preHebrews high priestly Christology. Regarding high priestly intercession, Attridge notes that the Second Temple literature reveals angels as heavenly intercessors who “offer propitiatory bloodless sacrifice for sinners.”25 Attridge argues that the high priestly Christology of Hebrews has a complex Jewish basis. As such, there is some similarity between Hebrews’ ChrisSNTSMS 65 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990), 4, cf. 7–42, argues that the author of Hebrews is influenced more by the LXX rather than by Philo when he writes: “The theological locus of Hebrews appears to have been shifted in the direction of Plato and Alexandria before the exegetical work has been undertaken.” 18 Nash, “The Notion of Mediator,” 92–99. 19 Ibid., 99; cf. 101, 115. 20 Ibid., 105, italics original. 21 Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 95. 22 Ibid., 96. 23 Ibid., n. 193; see also, Stanislas Lyonnet, “Expiation et intercession: A propos d’une traduction de S. Jér‫۾‬me,” Bib 40 (1959): 885–901; Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 141–146. 24 Attridge, Hebrews, 96 n. 193. 25 Ibid., 99.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

tology and Second Temple Judaism’s priestly Messiah. Hebrews’ presentation of Christ’s intercession and self-sacrifice, however, are missing from the STL’s portrayal of the priestly Messiah. Attridge states that “the immediate sources of Hebrews’ Christology are not to be found here [in the STL],”26 nor does he find Philo convincing as the background of Hebrews’ high priestly Christology. Philo’s discussion of angelic intercession, nonetheless, sheds light on the Jewish understanding of angelic priesthood but even more on Philo’s conception of angelic intercession. Thus, there is some similarity between Philo and Hebrews. Attridge suggests that the author of Hebrews gleaned the motif of priesthood from Jewish sources on angelic priesthood and contextualized the concept of priesthood and its functions in his corpus. Attridge proposes that other New Testament documents could be sources for Hebrews’ notion of Christ’s priesthood and his functions, but he dismisses them as improbable because the notion already existed outside of the New Testament. He also rejects Isaiah’s Suffering Servant as a possible background for Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus’ high priesthood. He reiterates that “the traditional high-priest title and the image of the priest as heavenly intercessor are not drawn from the servant complex.”27 Attridge also points out that Hebrews shares some similarities with the priestly Christology in the rest of the NT, but Hebrews’ priestly Christology stands out. Attridge asserts that though some passages in Hebrews associate Christ’s exaltation and his priesthood, he signals that, in Hebrews 4:14–16 for instance, Christ is seen as a high priest on earth. Hence, he observes a tension in this seemingly contradictory conception of Christ’s high priesthood. He believes that the tension is a result of the author’s appropriation of various traditions. Nevertheless, he notes that any attempt to find out exactly when Jesus became a high priest needs to be cognizant of the question’s complexity. Yet, if one is determined to reach a conclusion, Attridge states, the beginning of Christ’s high priesthood should be located in “the complex ‘moment’ in which death and exaltation are combined.”28 Attridge comments that “intercession is the primary function of the priest.”29 In Hebrews, intercession points to Christ’s main task as a high priest in heaven. His intercession is effective because he is a God-Man who prays both for the forgiveness of sins of believers but even more to help believers get through temptation and trials. Christ’s entry into the heavenly 26

Ibid. Ibid., 103; contra Attridge, Abiola Mbamalu, “Jesus the Interceding High Priest: A Fresh Look at Hebrews 7:25,” HTS 71/1 (2015): 1–6, proposes that both Psalm 110 and the Isaianic Servant Song (52:13–53:12) are the background for the notion of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews. 28 Ibid., 147. 29 Ibid., 211. 27

1.6 Precedent Research

9

tabernacle and his appearance is in order to intercede and make access to God possible. Attridge is correct to note that he identifies intercession and self-sacrifice as the two major functions of Christ’s priesthood. He is also on point that intercession is the primary task of the priest and by implication that it is the main function of Christ in heaven. Attridge, however, does not address either the background or the nature of Christ’s intercession in Hebrews adequately. Could one glean from the intercession of Abraham, Moses and the prophets of the OT and infer the possible nature of Christ’s intercession? Attridge’s observation helpfully identifies texts from the STL that have some parallels to the priesthood Christology of Hebrews; however, his incorporation of the OT material in his discussion is not satisfying. Jacques Schlosser. In his article, “La médiation du Christ d’après l’épître aux Hébreux,” Jacques Schlosser argues for the centrality of mediation in Hebrews.30 As a mediator, Jesus is a representative of both God and man at the same time. This “double mouvement” is expressed in the term mesitƝs (ļÊţ̾Ë). Schlosser’s investigation of the term starts with 1 Timothy 2:5, where Jesus is identified as mesitƝs, which is rendered as “médiateur de Dieu et des hommes.”31 He notes that mesitƝs appears only six times in the New Testament, three of which are found in Hebrews (Gal 3:19, 20; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He argues that “En Ga 3, 19.20 le substantif est utilisé deux fois dans un contexte qui évoque le don de la loi; le médiateur visé n’est sans doute pas Moïse, comme on le pense d’ordinaire, mais un intermédiaire angélique. Dans les quatre autres occurrences, c’est-à-dire dans le texte des Pastorales déjà mentionné (1 Tm 2, 5) et en He 8, 6 ; 9, 15 et 12, 24, mesitès désigne le Christ.”32 Schlosser points out that, according to Oscar Cullmann, the term mesitƝs is another way of expressing the dominant motif, namely, the priesthood of Christ.33 The term is employed along with another vital term diathƝkƝ

30 Jacques Schlosser, “La médiation du Christ d’après l’épître aux Hébreux,” RSR 63/3– 4 (1989): 169–181. 31 Ibid., 170. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., “L’importance de ce thème [le thème du sacerdoce du Christ] aux yeux de notre auteur paraît d’ emblée être une raison supplémentaire de valoriser le titre de mesitès.” In a recent essay Jerome H. Neyrey, “Jesus the Broker in Hebrews: Insights from the Social Sciences,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students, eds. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 145–170, argues that terms like “priest,” “mediator,” “guarantor,” etc., express the notion that Jesus is a broker between God and man by locating Hebrews’ mediatorial theme in the socio-historical context of Greco-Roman patron-client relations.

10

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

(»À¸¿ŢÁ¾) which also expresses the “‘alliance’ entre deux partenaires.”34 Schlosser also identifies egguos (캺ÍÇË) as another variation of mesitƝs . Schlosser, nevertheless, asserts that the term mesitƝs cannot provide a robust theological proposition for “le Christ jouant un rôle actif dans une double direction, selon le mouvement descendant de Dieu aux hommes et selon le mouvement montant des hommes de Dieu.”35 Thus, he proposes that the study of the theme of Christ’s mediation should incorporate a closer examination of the epistle beyond lexical analysis. Schlosser insists that the term mesitƝs does not express “à savoir celui d’une médiation entre deux parties,” for this is a later theological development.36 He reaches such a conclusion based on the appearance of mesitƝs with its qualifying term diathƝkƝ. Schlosser remarks that the LXX reveals that diathƝkƝ does not convey “le contrat établi entre deux parties, l’engagement réciproque de deux partenaires. Il désigne essentiellement la disposition prise unilatéralement, l’établissement d’un ordre ou d’un régime.”37 As such, Schlosser appears to resist the double movement, namely, the movement from man to God. To this end, the remaining section of Schlosser’s article explicates the double movement of Christ between God and men, and the character of Moses in comparison to Christ. Schlosser states that “Moïse apparaît comme le médiateur par excellence dans le judaïsme contemporain des origines chrétiennes.”38 Yet he also notes that the term mediator is not applied to Moses in the Old Testament nor is the expression “médiateur de l’alliance” in Hebrews. Thus, he concludes that “Moïse n’apparaît que comme relais ou agent de Dieu.”39 Jesus identifies with humanity – he suffered on behalf of sinners – and is able to sympathize and appear before God as their representative. This movement is, according to Schlosser, highlighted by the deployment of the prepositional phrase »ÀŠ + genitive. In addition to this phrase, the replacement of the old physical sacrifices with that of spiritual ones (“a sacrifice of praise to God” [Heb 13:15]) points out the efficacious work of Christ.40 Jesus also represents God among humanity. He is appointed by God to be a priest, a mediator: “Un individu n’accède pas au sacerdoce par choix ou décision

34

Ibid., 171. Ibid., 170. 36 Ibid., 181, cf. 170. 37 Ibid., 172. 38 Ibid., 175. 39 Ibid., 176. 40 Ibid., 179, Schlosser stresses the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ when he writes, “Etant donné que le Christ a atteint la plénitude du sacerdoce et du sacrifice, il ne peut plus y avoir après lui de sacrifices répétitifs et inefficaces de l’ancien genre, de l’ancienne économie.” 35

1.6 Precedent Research

11

personnels.”41 In other words, God takes the initiative in installing the mediator, and by implication, God takes the initiative to provide salvation for sinners through the sacrificial death of Christ.42 Schlosser observes that “La sollicitude du Christ pour les siens culmine dans l’exercice de son sacerdoce céleste.”43 He correctly identifies that Hebrews 7:25 and 9:24 portray the apex of Christ’s priestly activity in heaven on our behalf. Nonetheless, his emphasis in confining Jesus’ heavenly appearance and intercession to the notion of solidarity falls short of explaining the author’s argument that Christ’s heavenly priesthood is characterized by intercession as his primary function. Moreover, Christ’s priestly function does not merely depend on Christ’s humanity but on both his humanity and divinity at the same time. Schlosser identifies “intercession” as “l’activité sacerdotale du Seigneur glorifié,” yet he does not flesh out what the activity entails.44 On another note, Schlosser appears to downplay the fact that Moses was a mediator. This is probably why he limits the presentation of the Law to be through angels alone by excluding Moses. 45 Schlosser’s rejection of Moses as a mediator prevents him from perceiving the prevalent comparison between Christ and other mediators like Moses, angels and the priests of the previous order. The comparatives interspersed throughout the epistle signal that Jesus is the mediator par excellence.46 Schlosser should not be overcautious in avoiding any notion of mesitƝs conveying the idea of the double movement. Since he already asserted that God is the initiator in appointing a mediator and in providing salvation, the term mesitƝs can be safely understood to be conveying the idea of mediation between two parties. F. F. Bruce. F. F. Bruce argues that Jesus is a unique mediator between God and humanity because he is God-Man.47 In Hebrews 7:25, Bruce asserts, Jesus’ “high-priestly function is summed up in terms of intercession.”48 Bruce traces the motif of intercession in the Gospels, Acts, Romans and Isaiah. He posits that the term intercession in Isaiah 53:12 signals that Jesus’ 41

Ibid., 179. Ibid., 181, “La dimension sotériologique de la mort du Christ, sur laquelle l’auteur de cette épître revient si souvent et avec tant d’insistance, est évoquée en 2,9 par l’expression hyper pantos; mais dans la même proposition les mots ‘par la grâce de Dieu’ rappellent que Dieu garde la pleine initiative. L’initiative grâcieuse de Dieu rejoint les hommes par le truchement de la mort de Jésus.” 43 Ibid., 178. 44 Ibid. 45 Nash, “The Notion of Mediator,” 113, contra to Schlosser, argues that “... the New Testament seems to apply mesitƝs to Moses in one instance.” 46 On the use of comparatives in Hebrews, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Jesus the Mediator of a ‘Better Covenant’: A Study of Comparatives in the Book of Hebrews,” FM 21 (2004): 30–49. 47 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 173. 48 Ibid. 42

12

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

“ministry is priestly, as well as prophetic and royal.”49 Bruce contends that Jesus’ intercession in heaven should not be understood as an active pleading and crying. For Bruce, Jesus’ “appearance in God’s presence [as] the Crucified One constitutes his perpetual and prevalent intercession.”50 Bruce’s brief comment on Jesus’ intercession is helpful in that it links his earthly intercession with his heavenly intercession. He also identifies intercession as the task of the three offices of Jesus, while other scholars mistakenly limit intercession to merely the priestly office. Apart from the Isaianic passage, however, Bruce does not examine the broader context of the Old Testament for priestly/mediatorial intercession as informative material to the author’s argument. He also defines intercession as the mere appearance before God without giving any evidence of the term’s use in that sense. David J. MacLeod. David J. MacLeod’s article “The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews” delineates Christ’s current priestly work in heaven.51 MacLeod observes that the present ministry of Jesus is a significant motif overlooked by scholars. He argues that it is “the central theme to apostolic Christianity.”52 MacLeod states that Jesus’ priesthood began at his exaltation, that is, post-resurrection. But what are the activities of Jesus in heaven? MacLeod notes that scholars usually provide three main priestly activities of Jesus in heaven, but he proposes six activities of Jesus in heaven. Representation is the first of the six tasks of Jesus in heaven. In this nonverbal appearance of Jesus before God, Jesus stands on our behalf to cleanse us with his blood from our sin until the parousia. Second, Jesus’ sacrificial death enabled an inauguration of access to God’s presence. Third, MacLeod identifies intercession as Jesus’ present work in heaven. He understands intercession as an active petition of Jesus to God the Father to assist and provide forgiveness to believers. “[Mediation of] the prayers of Christians up to God” is the fourth work of Jesus in heaven. 53 Anticipation of Jesus’ own return at the parousia is, according to MacLeod, the fifth present work of Christ. Finally, the benediction of believers during the Second Advent is the sixth present priestly work of Christ. MacLeod’s succinct article addresses the lacuna in the area of Christ’s heavenly work. His argument regarding anticipation and benediction as Christ’s present work, however, is not warranted by the epistle. All of Christ’s activity in heaven is mediatorial; as such, MacLeod’s category of mediation as one of the six activities is unnecessary. Moreover, MacLeod is 49

Ibid., 174. Ibid., 175. 51 David J. MacLeod, “The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews,” BSac 148/590 (1991):184–200. 52 Ibid., 184. 53 Ibid., 198. 50

1.6 Precedent Research

13

incorrect to note that the motif of intercession is missing in “the ritual of the Day of Atonement.”54 He also overlooks the concept of intercession in the rest of the Old Testament as a possible background for the author’s understanding of intercession as practiced by mediators other than the Aaronic high priesthood. Hans-Friedrich Weiß. In his magnum opus, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Hans-Friedrich Weiß argues that Jesus the “große Hohepriester,” is the source of definitive salvation. But this eternal salvation which Jesus provides, according to Hebrews, is a communal one. The author of Hebrews underlines this communal salvation using the “we” expressions, which Weiß construes as “ekklesiales Wir” (e.g., Heb 4:14).55 As the High Priest, Jesus stands in solidarity with those who are tempted to disobey God’s Word (Heb 3:7–4:11) because he himself was tempted. Jesus is ready to provide “timely help” to those who face a challenge in the journey of the faith. Jesus is a great High Priest because he passed through the heavens and was sinless, unlike the high priests of the Levitical order.56 The high priesthood of the “irdische Jesus” belongs to the order of Melchizedek.57 However, according to Hebrews 5:1–10, Jesus’ high priesthood corresponds to the Levitical order because the pericope denotes both Jesus’ humanity and his identification with his “brothers.” This reality is made explicit in the expression, “In the days of his flesh.” And it is this Jesus who learned obedience through suffering whom God appointed as “Son” and “High Priest.” Weiß insists that the time of Jesus’ appointment as the “Son” and “High Priest” is not important for the author of Hebrews. Nonetheless, he states that although “Son of God” indicates Jesus’ pre-existent status, “der Title ‘Hoherpriester’ dagegen primनr mit der ‘Erhऺhung’ verbunden ist.”58 Yet, he detects Jesus’ high priesthood during his death in Hebrews 9:11f. and in the juxtaposition of the Sonship and high priesthood in Hebrews 5:5. However, he inclines to subscribe to the idea that Jesus’ earthly obedient sufferings led him to exaltation and to a post-exaltation high priestly appointment (cf. Phil 2:8).59 Weiß understands the expression “offered up prayers and supplications” to be non-cultic, simply expressing the “offering of prayers.”60 In his estimation, this is just part of the act of his obedience during his earthly suffering which subsequently has led to his exaltation.

54

Ibid., 193. Hans-Friedrich Weiß, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK (Gऺttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 293. 56 Ibid., 293–294, 297–298. 57 Ibid., 302. 58 Ibid., 309. 59 Ibid., 310–311. 60 Ibid., 314. 55

14

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

Jesus, “den neuen Priester” provides access to God. This access or opening to God is expressed using the prepositional phrase »Àφ ¸ĤÌÇı with a further indication of his perpetual mediation: ÈÚÅÌÇ̼ ½ľÅ ¼ĊË Ìġ ëÅÌͺÏÚżÀÅ ĨÈòÉ ¸ĤÌľÅ (Heb 7:25b; cf. 9:24). The expression ëÅÌͺÏÚÅÑ, Weiß contends, signifies a priestly representation of people before God, and lawyers advocating the case of their clients in the court of law.61 Hebrews indicates that Jesus’ mediation comprises a priestly and a legal notion. Weiß aptly connects Jesus’ heavenly intercession (ëÅÌͺÏÚżÀÅ) with the ȸÉÚÁ¾ÌÇË of 1 John 2:1 and with the parallel passage of Romans 8:34. He postulates that Psalm 110:1 is the possible background for both Hebrews 7:25 and Romans 8:34. In both passages, ëÅÌͺÏÚÅÑ conveys the notion that Jesus stands up for his people. Weiß points out that Jesus entered the heavenly temple as a High Priest on our behalf. The adverb “now” (ÅıÅ) makes clear that Jesus’ sacrifice on earth bestows salvific benefits “for us” at present. Jesus is able to “appear” (ëÄθÅĕ½Ñ) on our behalf before God. For Weiß ëÄθÅĕ½Ñ has a “kultischsoteriologischen Sinn.”62 He rightly draws a parallel between Hebrews 7:25 and 9:24. These two passages punctuate that Jesus, the heavenly High Priest, is actively engaged in his mediatorial role. Weiß, however, does not explicitly and comprehensively engage in discussing Jesus’ heavenly intercession. In Hebrews 9:24, Jesus is simply asserting his self-sacrifice in God’s presence. Again, he rightly connects Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:1 and Romans 8:34 and posits that Jesus’ high priesthood in heaven is perpetual. Nonetheless, he does not explore the possible link of Jesus’ earthly intercession with his heavenly intercessory ministry. Probably, understanding Hebrews 5:7 in the context of the Gethsemane tradition could have assisted in making the relatedness of Jesus’ earthly intercession and his heavenly perpetual intercession clear. Instead, Weiß dismisses Hebrews 5:7 as just part of Jesus’ suffering. A substantive discussion of intercession in the OT/LXX and STL as possible background to the Epistle is wanting. Of course, Weiß repeatedly argues that Psalm 110 is crucial in understanding Jesus’ high priesthood in heaven. Yet, as this study will demonstrate, the author of Hebrews exploited the notion of intercession from the whole corpus of the OT, not just Psalm 110. William Lane. William Lane understands Jesus’ intercession to be the “active, representative ministry of Christ throughout the course of the present age.”63 He takes the term ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ to mean “to pray,” indicating that Jesus prays in heaven on behalf of his own. Lane states that the Christ-event is linked with Jesus’ heavenly intercession. In fact, Lane asserts that interces-

61

Ibid., 417. Ibid., 487. 63 William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 190. 62

1.6 Precedent Research

15

sion is “a direct consequence of [Jesus’] sacrifice.”64 He also rightly detects that in the first eight chapters of Hebrews, especially in Hebrews 2:18 and 4:14–16, Jesus is portrayed as a high priest who is always “[ready] to assist those who are severely tested.”65 In contradiction to David M. Hay, Lane surmises that intercession or prayer is not “a foreign element” but rather an important motif of Hebrews.66 Lane claims that “it was the task of the high priesthood to intercede,”67 but he does not present a concrete piece of evidence or background proving this either from the Old Testament or the Second Temple Judaism. Did the high priests or the mediators installed by God in the OT canon carry out the ministry of intercession as their task? Did the priests or angels who are deemed to be intermediaries in Second Temple Judaism practice intercession as their priestly or mediatorial task? Also, did Jesus intercede on behalf of his own on earth, or is it his post-resurrection, heaven-only priestly task? Is there some sort of similarity between, for example, Hebrews 7:25 and John 17?68 Paul Ellingworth. In his commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth notes that the term “intercession” appears in Philo and other secular writings to denote presentation, petition, or an appeal. Though Ellingworth defines ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ as prayer, he is unsure “whether the prayer for help or for forgiveness is intended.”69 Although he is open to accept prayer for the forgiveness of believers in Hebrews 7:25, he argues that since the author has not mentioned the atoning death of Christ until Chapter 9, forgiveness is not in the purview of the author. In so doing, Ellingworth disconnects the link between intercession and the forgiveness of sin and confines the forgiveness of sin to the arena of sacrifice. But he indicates that Romans 8:34 betrays the fact that sacrifice and intercession are intertwined. Ellingworth asserts that previous appeals by Jesus mentioned in the epistle shed light and reveal that Hebrews 7:25 is concerned with Jesus’ intercession to help believers (cf. 2:18; 4:15; 5:2, 7). Commenting on Hebrews 5:7, Ellingworth contends that the motif of intercession is absent in Jesus’ prayer on earth. His reasoning for rejecting Hebrews 5:7 as containing the act of intercession is because the verse does not

64

Ibid. Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid., 190–191. 68 Ibid., 120. Indeed, Lane states that Jesus’ enduring intercessory ministry follows his exaltation. However, Jesus’ high priestly prayer as found in John 17 and other similar prayers in the Synoptic Gospels are not examined. He considers the Gethsemane prayer in the Synoptic Gospels and contends that they should not be connected. He posits that “Jesus’ passion is described in its entirety as priestly prayer.” 69 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 392. 65

16

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

explicitly state that the prayer is done for others.70 In other words, whereas Hebrews 7:25 contains the prepositional phrase ĨÈòɸĤÌľÅ, here in Hebrews 5:7 such an expression is lacking. However, Ellingworth’s argument against the presence of intercession does not consider several of Jesus’ prayers on behalf of others, especially his disciples, during his ministry on earth. What, for instance, should one make of Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17 or Luke 22:31–32? Moreover, in his brief comment both on Hebrews 5:7 and 7:25, Ellingworth does not deal with the Old Testament background for the motif of intercession in Hebrews; rather, he seems to locate the term in its appearance in the New Testament and its milieu, which short-circuits the rich conceptual meaning of the term as seen in the OT and STL contexts. David A. deSilva. David A. deSilva, using the socio-rhetorical method, presents Jesus as a “broker” or “mediator” between God and sinful humanity.71 He argues that the concept of brokerage is not unique to Christianity. The notion was common both in the Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts. The task of the mediating, brokering priest is to “[stand] before God on behalf of his fellow human beings … [offering] gifts and sacrifices as satisfaction for the affronts to the authority of God.”72 Jesus stands between God and humanity and creates access to God for sinful men and women based on his sacrificial death. His substitutionary or mediatorial suffering has also enabled him to assist those who struggle with temptation (Heb 2:18). deSilva notes that Jesus “stands ready to provide them [those who experience temptation and suffering] with the resources they need to resist their particular temptation [to drift away from the confession of faith].”73 The reason for Jesus’ readiness to assist and his sympathetic stance towards those in need is because he “has shared their experience of testing fully (2:18; 4:15),” yet without any sin.74 deSilva repeatedly points out that Jesus is merciful because he suffered. He also indicates that Jesus’ mediatorial suffering “became his initiation into the unique priesthood of Melchizedek.”75 During his earthly ministry, Jesus faced fierce opposition from the people around him. But he persevered. He “[endured] the slings and arrows of his opponents.”76 Instead of abdicating his mediatorial task through suffering, Jesus prayed and remained pious and learned obedience. deSilva understands 70

Ibid., 287–288. David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 186–187. 72 Ibid., 187. 73 Ibid., 121. 74 Ibid., 182. 75 David A. deSilva, Bearing Christ’s Reproach: The Challenge of Hebrews in an Honor Culture (North Richland Hills: BIBAL Press, 1999), 69. 76 deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 191. 71

1.6 Precedent Research

17

Jesus’ “prayers and petitions” on earth to refer to Jesus’ prayer life in its entirety.77 He rejects the proposal by some scholars like Ray C. Steadman and Philip E. Hughes that Jesus’ “prayers and petitions” refer to the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. He instead proposes that the author of Hebrews was gleaning from the “prayers of the pious” in the tradition of the Maccabees (2 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc 1:16).78 The author of Hebrews, deSilva argues, incorporates this tradition to indicate that Jesus qualifies as a high priest because he is pious. deSilva insists that Jesus is “a more reliable and effective mediator” because he has made access to God possible79 and also because of the fact that Jesus’ intercession is perpetual.80 deSilva’s works help highlight the Greco-Roman and Jewish literary, historical, and cultural milieu of the New Testament. He also correctly grounds Jesus’ mediatorial function in Jesus’ sacrificial work. Surprisingly, however, deSilva does not provide much when it comes to intercession, except briefly pointing out that Jesus’ intercession is effective and reliable in one sentence. Since his methodology is mainly socio-rhetorical, one would expect to see discussion of, for instance, high priestly or angelic intercession either in Greco-Roman or Jewish literary output. Craig R. Koester. Craig R. Koester presents three possibilities for the time when Jesus became a high priest: at his exaltation, during his sacrificial death or at his incarnation.81 He then argues that it is difficult to pinpoint the beginning of Christ’s high priesthood: “The most realistic view, however, is that the author gives no clear answer to the question of when Jesus became high priest.”82 Against the Socinians’ view, which postulates the insufficiency of Christ’s death and their understanding of his death as preparatory for entry rather than as an atoning sacrifice, Koester argues that Christ’s sacrifice is once-for-all rather than perpetual. He considers that Christ’s heavenly high priesthood involves intercession on behalf of believers so that they can receive help and the forgiveness of sins. Nonetheless, for Koester, the appeal for help takes precedence over the forgiveness of sins. Koester is cognizant of the existence of the high priestly notion in Second Temple Judaism. He observes, however,

77

Ibid., n. 26. Ibid., 190. 79 David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed. (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 242. 80 deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 274. 81 Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 109–110. 82 Ibid., 110. 78

18

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

that some Second Temple Literature lacks the idea of “the messianic priest’s intercession (Heb 7:25) or self-sacrifice (9:12, 14, 26).”83 Koester finds Jesus’ intercession and self-sacrifice to be unique and independent of any background material. His interpretation of Jesus’ earnest “prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears” (Heb 5:7) is that they are prayers for his own deliverance and not an intercession on behalf of his followers.84 In his explanation of 7:25, Koester suggests that Jesus’ intercession is closely linked to salvation. He rightly places Jesus’ intercessory task in contrast to the mediators portrayed in both the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism. And he finds Jesus to be both a superior and sympathetic mediator. Koester detects the notion of intercession in 9:24 as well. Although the term ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ is absent in this text, he is correct that the appearance (ëÄθÅĕ½Ñ) of Jesus before God is for the sake of mediation, specifically to intercede on behalf of his own. This intercessory ministry of Jesus is dependent on his death, which annulled the ineffective and perpetual Levitical sacrifices. Contrary to many commentaries on Hebrews, Koester’s is replete with parallel notions of intercession both in the OT and STL. His commentary, nevertheless, does not provide information on whether Jesus’ heavenly intercession is temporal or eternal. Also, since he is hesitant to identify when Jesus became a high priest, it is not clear when Jesus’ intercessory ministry began. Was it on earth or in heaven? It is also unclear whether Koester considers the passages where he identified the prayers “for deliverance from divine judgment” in the OT and STL to be possible backgrounds or mere incidental parallels.85 As noted above, Koester appears to believe intercession and self-sacrifice to be exclusive to the epistle to the Hebrews. As he correctly observes, the term ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ does not appear in the LXX in the context of forgiveness, yet terms with similar semantic domains are present, for instance, in many intercessory prayers of the mediators of the OT proper (Gen 18:22–33; Exod 32:11–14, 25–35). The author probably used these passages as background in his work. Luke Timothy Johnson. Luke Timothy Johnson notes that Hebrews 7:25 expresses “Jesus’ enduring priestly activity.”86 In other words, Jesus’ heavenly intercession is a present and continual task of the high priest Jesus. He points out that ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ is used both in “a legal as well as a religious con83

Ibid., 233. Ibid., 288. 85 Ibid., 366. 86 Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2006), 194. 84

1.6 Precedent Research

19

text.”87 He traces the term’s appearance in classical literature, the LXX and the NT. Curiously, Johnson finds Romans 8:27, where Paul mentions that the Spirit intercedes on our behalf, is closer to Hebrews 7:25 but fails to note the same thing about Romans 8:34. Johnson rightly notes that Jesus is engaged in active ministry in heaven: intercession and advocacy. Yet the apparent hiatus in his commentary is confining ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ to its lexical appearance and overlooking the possible conceptual background of the notion of intercession beyond word study. Moreover, although Johnson identifies ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ as expressing Jesus’ continual priestly task, he does not discuss the nature of and the reason for Jesus’ heavenly intercession. Ben Witherington. Ben Witherington argues that the concept of high priesthood is not unique to the epistle to the Hebrews. The STL attests to this fact. But Witherington, concurring with Attridge, remarks that both the STL and Hebrews are at variance when it comes to the major functions of high priesthood: Jesus’ heavenly intercession and his self-sacrifice. Whereas the STL emphasizes the angelomorphic high priesthood, Hebrews presents Jesus as a man representing humanity as a high priest (Heb 2:17).88 A priest represents the people before God by offering “chiefly prayers and sacrifices.”89 As a priest, Jesus “[offered] prayers to God, for himself and for others.”90 Commenting on the intercession of Christ in Hebrews 7:25, Witherington resists the idea of the exalted Christ “pleading and begging a reluctant Father,”91 for Jesus’ death and resurrection “was and is always effective and whatever is asked on the basis of it will be, indeed must be, granted.”92 He notes, however, that intercession in Hebrews is a prayer done “on behalf of sinners for their forgiveness or for deliverance from divine judgment.”93 Witherington is right to insist that the foundation of Jesus’ intercession on behalf of God’s people is Jesus’ sacrificial death and his victorious resurrection. He also points out the purpose of intercession in his brief comment on Hebrews 7:25. Witherington does not, however, explicate what Jesus’ heavenly intercession looks like. He states that Jesus is in close proximity to God and has favor before God to be heard while representing humanity in heaven (Heb 9:24). Yet if Jesus has God’s ear, does it mean his intercession is vocal 87

Ibid. Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove: IVP Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 159–160. 89 Ibid., 158. 90 Ibid., 200. 91 Ibid., 249. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 88

20

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

and real or is it a mere physical representation?94 Also, although he provides some OT and STL verses regarding the notion of intercession, a substantial explication of the background of intercession in Hebrews is wanting. Alan C. Mitchell. In 2007, Alan C. Mitchell published his commentary on Hebrews. 95 Mitchell, commenting on Hebrews 5:7, states that the suffering that Jesus experienced in his body qualified him to be a mediating high priest. It was during his earthly suffering that Jesus offered “prayers and supplications.” Mitchell locates Jesus’ “loud cries” in his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifixion.96 He is aware of the interpretive conundrum associated with Jesus’ prayer being heard by God. He poses the oftposited question: “If Jesus prayed to be saved from death and his prayer was heard, why did he die?”97 Is the prayer a prayer asking for God’s will to be done or is it a prayer proffered so that Jesus might be delivered from death, which was answered through his resurrection? Mitchell believes that Jesus’ prayer was a prayer to be rescued from the power of death and that God answered his prayer during his resurrection. He observes the similarity between Hebrews’ presentation of Jesus’ intercession in 7:25 and Romans 8:34. He states that both epistles attribute intercession to the exalted Christ. But he also notes that there is some dissimilarity between the two: whereas the author of Hebrews links intercession with Christ’s priesthood, Paul does not. Nonetheless, Mitchell thinks that Paul could be the possible background for Hebrews’ conception of Jesus’ heavenly intercession. Mitchell rightly traces ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ in Paul and the LXX. Yet his confinement of the term to the lexical links in Paul and non-canonical LXX passages limits the robust conceptual background of the term in the OT canon. Mitchell also does not deal with the background and nature of intercession. Is Jesus’ intercession verbal and active or passive and figurative? Could the author of Hebrews be employing other sources to inform him regarding Jesus’ intercession besides Romans 8:34? Is Jesus’ intercession eternal or a function only for the in-between time? James W. Thompson. In his commentary on Hebrews, James W. Thompson briefly comments on intercession.98 Thompson explicates that the permanent priest Jesus, who is in the order of Melchizedek, intercedes on behalf of be94

Ibid., 274. Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews, SP 13 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007). 96 Attridge, Hebrews, 148, rejects the possible connection between Jesus’ offering of “prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears” and Gethsemane as he does not find the expression “with loud cries and tears” in the Synoptic gospels (Matt 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:40–46). See also Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 87–88, who argues against the reading of Hebrews 5:7–8 as a derivation from the Gethsemane experience of Jesus. 97 Mitchell, Hebrews, 111. 98 James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 161. 95

1.6 Precedent Research

21

lievers. These believers are facing temptation, and Jesus is able to help them, for he himself tasted temptation and suffering (Heb 2:17–18). In fact, Thompson states that Jesus “became high priest only after being tested.”99 His own experience allowed him to identify with those who are going through temptation and suffering. Jesus has “the capacity to share the pain of [others].”100 Hence, Thompson notes that ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ usually “refres to someone who makes a petition on behalf of another.”101 In Hebrews, the term refers to Jesus who is “is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb 2:18). In another work, Thompson argues that the author of Hebrews accentuates “the finality and duration of Christ’s work for his people” but not Êň½¼ÀÅ or ëÅÌͺÏÚżÀÅ.102 Thompson is right to note that Hebrews contains a contrast between the Old and New, the Levitical and Melchizedekian order, the earthly and heavenly. He is also correct that the author of Hebrews evokes Psalm 110:4 to assert that Jesus’ priesthood is eternal and that he is exalted. Nevertheless, his tendency to use a Platonic/Philonic grid in interpreting the epistle has made him focus more on the distinction between the material vis-à-vis the immaterial.103 Contrary to Thompson’s assertion, the author of Hebrews is not merely interested in “the finality and duration of Christ’s work.”104 The purpose of Christ’s unchangeable, eternal, durable, perpetual priesthood is to intercede on behalf of believers (ÈÚÅÌÇ̼ ½ľÅ ¼ĊË Ìġ ëÅÌͺÏÚżÀÅ). Though Thompson acknowledges the present intercessory function of Jesus in heaven, he does not elaborate on the nature of Jesus’ intercession. He also does not discuss whether Jesus’ intercession is passive or vocal and real. Thompson also does not interact with the LXX or STL material as it relates to intercession. He repeatedly argues for the existence of Platonic/Philonic thought and approaches in Hebrews in appropriating the OT and in proclaiming the Christian message. Thompson, however, does not demonstrate the origin of the notion of intercession and its nature in his works. Knut Backhaus. In his Der Hebräerbrief commentary, Knut Backhaus identifies Jesus as the High Priest in heaven who provides believers access to God. He states that “Gott steht durch vollmächtigen Mittler Jesus verlässlich auf der Seite der Glaubenden.”105 Jesus is the “gऺttlich-menschlichen Hohepriester” who mediates on our behalf so that we can access God’s pres-

99

Ibid., 76. Ibid., 113. 101 Ibid., 161. 102 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 126. 103 Cf. ibid., 122–123; cf. James W. Thompson, “EPHAPAX: The One and the Many in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 566–581. 104 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 126. 105 Knut Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), 177. 100

22

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

ence particularly in the time of danger.106 Backhaus contends that the author of Hebrews emphasizes that believers need to be and remain Christian regardless of the danger they face.107 Temptation is a reality in the life of believers on earth, and Jesus himself was subjected to it. But Jesus overcame the temptation he faced, and as such, he is able to provide help in this regard.108 In his discussion of Hebrews 5, Backhaus notes the correspondence and the variance between the Aaronic high priesthood and Jesus’ priesthood.109 Backhaus rejects the attempt to trace Jesus’ “prayers and supplications” to the prayer in Gethsemane. He construes Jesus’ “prayers and supplications” as a model for Christians to display a similar reverence.110 In Backhaus’ estimation, Jesus’ prayers are solely triggered by fear and distress. Nonetheless, he recognizes the cultic nature of Jesus’ prayers and passion.111 Backhaus denotes that the prepositional phrases »Àφ¸ĤÌÇı and ĨÈòɸĤÌľÅ in Hebrews 7:25 encapsulate Hebrews’ discourse on salvation. Salvation is based on both Jesus’ sacrifice on earth and his continual mediation by speaking on behalf of his own. Backhaus draws a parallel between John 17 and Hebrews 7:25 to point out Jesus’ high priestly prayer for those who face danger in the world. He speaks on their behalf and represents them. Backhaus again draws a parallel between Romans 8:33–35, 1 John 2:1f and Hebrews 7:25 to highlight Jesus’ heavenly mediation through prayer.112 He further argues that Jesus’ sacrificial death occurred on earth, but in heaven, his high priestly function is continual intercession, as the cultic term “appear” indicates. Hence, Backhaus understands that Hebrews 9:24 echoes Hebrews 7:25 and Romans 8:34.113 Backhaus rightly emphasizes Christ’s centrality and his effective mediation in establishing access to God and maintaining a relationship with God. As such, he repeatedly asserts that Christianity – according to Hebrews – is all about a personal relationship with God. He also maintains that the faith Christians confess needs to be translated into action. He has also convincingly contended that the dangers and temptations Christians face necessitate Christ’s continual heavenly intervention through his mediatorial prayer. In order to bolster his argument, he calls our attention to other New Testament passages that discuss Jesus’ heavenly intercession 106

Ibid., 178. In ibid., 182, Backhaus states “So geht es hier um die existentielle Frage, warum es sich lohnt, Christ zu sein und zu bleiben.” 108 Ibid., 185, 191–193. 109 Ibid., 198. 110 Ibid., 207, “So wird er den Adressaten als Beter der Klage – und Bittgebete schlechthin vor Augen gestellt, als Urbild der Gottesfurcht (eulábeia).” 111 Ibid., 208–209. 112 Ibid., 281. 113 Ibid., 337. 107

1.6 Precedent Research

23

(Rom 8:34; 1 John 2:1f). However, the sparse parallels drawn from the OT, STL and the NT outside of Hebrews in Backhaus’ commentary do not give us a comprehensive picture of the background and nature of Christ’s heavenly intercession. The brevity of his discussion on Jesus’ intercession calls for an in-depth inquiry on the background and nature of Jesus’ heavenly intercession in Hebrews. I. Howard Marshall. In a 2009 essay, I. Howard Marshall discusses “Soteriology in Hebrews.”114 In this essay, Marshall seeks to explain “the nature of Christ’s saving work and the nature of the salvation experienced by those who benefit from him.”115 Christ as a priest carried out the task of cleansing and sat at the right hand of God. Therefore, the audience needs to give their undivided allegiance to him. Marshall notes that salvation is a recurrent notion in the epistle, and it is futuristic without denying the “here and now” aspect. Christ’s sacrificial death is a one-time action that is able to remove sin. After his death, Jesus had to offer his sacrifice to God on behalf of his own and sat down in heaven. Marshall states that while Jesus awaits a final triumph over his enemies, he performs intercession on behalf of sinners. His once-for-all sacrifice has given access to sinners who otherwise could not come before God. Marshall posits that Hebrews is silent regarding “the posture of Christ as intercessor.” He believes that Jesus carries out his priestly intercession in heaven while sitting, even though Acts 7:56 indicates Jesus’ standing posture.116 Marshall notes that Jesus has two tasks in heaven as a Savior: first, presenting an offering and second, interceding on behalf of sinners. Marshall’s essay is noteworthy, as he repeatedly asserts that Jesus’ sacrificial death is a one-time event and the basis for Christ’s intercessory function in heaven. He is correct that Christ’s (high) priestly work should not be confined to his death on the cross but should also be understood to extend further. Marshall’s essay connects intercession with having access to God and equates the expression with “the Pauline/Johannine language of union with Christ.”117 But what appears to be lacking in his essay is a discussion of the background and nature of Jesus’ intercession. There is also a need for clarity and adequate discussion as to why Jesus is interceding. David L. Allen. David L. Allen provides a brief note on the intercession of Jesus.118 Allen argues that Jesus is able to save completely and forever because of his heavenly intercession. Allen identifies intercession to be “[o]ne 114 I. Howard Marshall, “Soteriology in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, eds. Richard Bauckham, and Daniel R. Driver (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 253–277. 115 Ibid., 254. 116 Ibid., 270 n. 50. 117 Ibid., 277. 118 David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 428–429.

24

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

of the main functions of the high priest” and provides Leviticus 16 as a support for his claim. Nonetheless, the attempt to locate high priestly intercession in the Day of Atonement ritual is rejected by some scholars because they believe that intercession is absent in the Levitical high priestly task.119 Allen also cites Exodus 28:9–10 to signal the high priest’s mediation by symbolically representing the twelve tribes of Israel as a possible echo found in Jesus’ intercessory ministry in Hebrews 7:25.120 In light of such symbolic representation provided in Exodus, Allen broadens the meaning of “intercession” to express more than just the act of prayer. He defines “intercession” as bringing believers into the presence of God.121 Thus, whenever Jesus appears before God, he is “continuing [his] high priestly work in heaven.”122 Allen rightly detects the connection between appearance and intercession expressing a somewhat similar notion on behalf of those who believe, but his claim that intercession is the main task of the high priest needs to be substantiated with the readily available material of the Old Testament and other informative Second Temple Literature. An explanation of how Jesus carries out his intercessory ministry and the background of his intercession is lacking in Allen’s discussion of intercession. Mayjee Philip. In her 2011 monograph, Leviticus in Hebrews: A Transtextual Analysis of the Tabernacle Theme in the Letter to the Hebrews, Mayjee Philip argues that the author of Hebrews is dependent on Leviticus in presenting the heavenly tabernacle in his epistle.123 The thrust of her work is to demonstrate the intertextual (or transtextual) relationship between the two books pertinent to the tabernacle. She identifies Jesus as “the high priest of a new covenant, serving forever at the heavenly tabernacle.”124 As the mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus enables access to God through his intercession. Philip correctly notes the tension that exists in Jesus’ priestly ministry as a “completed and yet ongoing task.”125 Jesus’ sacrificial ministry is a one-time act, whereas his intercessory ministry in heaven is continual. She locates the sacrificial priestly task in correlation to the Aaronic priesthood, yet she observes the lack of intercession in the old high priestly order. Commenting on Hebrews 5:1–4, 7, Philip asserts that a similarity exists between the appointment of the Aaronic priests and Jesus’ high priesthood. 119

Ibid., 429; William R. G. Loader, “Revisiting High Priesthood Christology in Hebrews,” ZNW 109/2 (2018): 235–283, here 243–244. 120 Allen, Hebrews, 429. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid., 486. 123 Mayjee Philip, Leviticus in Hebrews: A Transtextual Analysis of the Tabernacle Theme in the Letter to the Hebrews (Bern: Peter Lang, 2011). 124 Ibid., 52. 125 Ibid., 53.

1.6 Precedent Research

25

Nevertheless, she also notes that Jesus’ high priesthood is different because, among other things, Jesus’ “offerings involve intercessory prayers.”126 It appears that Philip considers Hebrews 5:7 to be a prayer done on behalf of believers rather than for Jesus’ own deliverance from death. Philip’s work is helpful on several notes. First, Philip’s monograph presupposes the LXX to be the natural background for the author of the epistle. Thus, it is a welcome alternative addition to previous Hebrews scholars’ proclivity towards the notion that Philonic ideas control the content of Hebrews. Second, though the use of the OT in Hebrews has been the subject of much scholarly output, 127 Philip’s full-orbed discussion of Leviticus in Hebrews is a first. With regard to the notion of intercession, she explicitly states: “Leviticus is silent about the high priest’s role as intercessor; the author of Hebrews keeps the levitical system intact, but introduces the new element of verbal intercession, presents Jesus as the one exemplar of such mediation, and introduces intercession as an ‘offering.’”128 Her claim that Jesus’ verbal intercession in heaven in Hebrews does not have a corresponding text in Leviticus is not correct. She also wrongly concludes that intercession is the author’s innovation, claiming that it “is unrelated and therefore different from the office of the Levitical high priest.”129 This is where Philip’s transtextual and transposition approach breaks down. Though her investigation is understandably concerned with the textual relationship of Leviticus and Hebrews, her methodology limits her from seeing beyond the bounds of Leviticus; thus, any theme or idea that is not found in the hypotext (Leviticus) but that exists in the hypertext (Hebrews) is considered to be an addition, alteration, or transformation of the previous priestly function. The problem with this approach is that some concepts, like that of intercession in the OT outside of Leviticus, are overlooked. Could the author of Hebrews also be gleaning from the intercession of Abraham or Moses or angels as delineated in the LXX? 126

Ibid. 69. For a recent treatment of the use of OT in Hebrews, see George A. Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews: Studies in Their Textual and Contextual Background, WUNT 2/356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013); Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation, WUNT 2/260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CurBR 1 (2003): 271–294; George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 919–995. Both Docherty and Guthrie provide substantial bibliographic information on the use of the OT in Hebrews. 128 Philip, Leviticus in Hebrews, 73, cf. 79. 129 Ibid., 53. 127

26

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

The second issue is Philip’s definition of intercession. She conflates general prayer, lament and imprecation with intercession. Also, while listing some passages on lament and general prayers, she overlooks the intercessions of the mediators of God (priests, prophets) in the rest of the OT.130 Gareth L. Cockerill. Gareth Lee Cockerill identifies Jesus’ heavenly intercession as “Christ’s present, enduring, post-sacrificial ministry.”131 Cockerill asserts that “Christ does not perpetually petition God on behalf of his people,”132 but that Jesus simply represents his people before God to assist them to persevere. Although his treatment of intercession is brief in his commentary, he elaborates on the term in his dissertation.133 Cockerill notes that ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ appears in classical/Hellenistic Greek, LXX, STL, and post-apostolic literature. When used along with the prepositions ȼÉĖ and ĨÈòÉ, it means “to pray.”134 He also points out that neither Philo nor other sources associate ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ with the high priesthood or heavenly mediator.135 In the New Testament, outside of Hebrews, the early Christian tradition, according to Cockerill, indicates that Jesus was considered an intercessor on earth, not just in heaven (Luke 22:32; John 14:16; 19:23). As for heavenly intercession, Romans 8:34 and 1 John 2:1 convey the same notion as that of Hebrews 7:25. Cockerill rightly insists that intercession is Jesus’ present ministry in heaven and that his representative work is predicated upon his sacrificial death and resurrection. Nonetheless, his argument that ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ does not communicate verbal, perpetual pleading/petition is inaccurate. He writes that ëÅÌͺϊżÀÅ means to pray and petition and that it “is the normal meaning of ëÅÌͺϊżÀÅ followed by ȼÉĖ or ĨÈòÉ,” yet he hesitates to follow through and apply the meaning in Hebrews 7:25.136 On another point, Cockerill observes that except in Hebrews, intercession is not associated with the logos (high priest) of Philo or heavenly mediators, but he does not provide the source or reason why the author of Hebrews associates Jesus’ priesthood with ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ. Could it be possible that the author of Hebrews employs the notion of intercession from the mediators of the OT/LXX? Could he be writing against the idea of competing angelic mediators – propounded among his contemporaries – which was plaguing his audience?

130

Ibid., 73. Gareth L. Cockerill, Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 336. 132 Ibid., 336. 133 Cockerill, “The Melchizedek Christology in Hebrews 7:1–28” (PhD diss., Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, 1976), 138–143. 134 Ibid., 140–141. 135 Ibid. 136 Cockerill, Hebrews, 336 n. 112. 131

1.6 Precedent Research

27

Thomas R. Schreiner. In his commentary on Hebrews, Thomas R. Schreiner briefly addresses the intercession of Jesus in heaven.137 Schreiner connects the sacrificial death of Jesus as the basis for Jesus’ heavenly intercession. This connection, he argues, is confirmed in Romans 8:33–34.138 He also states that the intercession of Jesus is concerned both with help for believers and the forgiveness of sin. He rejects the idea, however, of the active, vocal and eternal intercession of Jesus in Hebrews. Schreiner’s statements rightly highlight the link between Jesus’ humiliation (specifically his death) and his heavenly intercession, but he does not provide any reasons why Jesus’ intercession should not be understood as him “literally interceding before the Father forever and ever.”139 Is the term employed metaphorically in its appearance in Second Temple Judaism or the rest of the New Testament or even in non-religious contexts? Can other cognate terms like ȸɊÁ¾ÌÇË in the corpus of John’s gospel or epistle clarify whether the author of Hebrews employs ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ literally or figuratively? It is obvious that Schreiner’s assertion needs to be evaluated by taking into account the actual meaning of the term not only in Hebrews but also in its appearance in both canonical and non-canonical contexts. William Loader. In 2018, William Loader published an article that addresses two major problems in the interpretation of the Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews. 140 Where did Jesus’ saving act happen: in his death or in the heavenly tabernacle? When did Jesus become a high priest: at his exaltation or on earth prior to his death? Loader analyzes these poignant questions in the context of Atonement Day typology. In answering these questions, Loader postulates that Jesus’ incarnation should be considered “as a high priestly act.”141 His answer to the tension of the beginning of Jesus’ high priesthood either on earth or at his appointment subsequent to his resurrection is extrapolated from the Sonship motif of Jesus. Jesus was already a Son but he was also appointed as the Son of God at his exaltation.142 Loader argues that Jesus’ high priesthood in the first eight chapters of Hebrews centers on the intercessory function of Jesus on behalf of believers so as to help them avoid apostasy.143 He also argues that Psalm 110:1, 4 is employed to point out that Jesus is appointed to be a high priestly intercessor.144 Loader insists that the intention of Jesus’ intercession is “to help [believers] 137

Thomas R. Schreiner, A Commentary on Hebrews, BTCP (Nashville: B&H, 2015), 233–234, 459. 138 Ibid., 234. 139 Ibid. 140 Loader, “Revisiting High Priesthood Christology,” 243–244. 141 Ibid., 237. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid., 236. 144 Ibid., 238.

28

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

complete the journey” and not for the forgiveness of sins. 145 Loader’s discussion of Jesus’ intercession is confined within the Day of Atonement typology, and his article does not consider the possible wider background of the mediators’ intercession in the OT since he notes that the motif of intercession is wanting in the Atonement Day ritual. In another article that came from a chapter of his dissertation, “Sohn und Hoherpriester. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes,” Loader states that it is plausible that the outpouring of the Spirit is as a result of Jesus’ intercession after his exaltation.146 Although the Messiah has not reigned yet, he is exalted, and “[t]hus he receives the Spirit and gives it” in the interim period. At Acts 5:31, Loader argues, Psalm 110:1 conveys the idea that the exalted Messiah provides forgiveness and repentance in the present.147 Whereas Jesus is seen speaking or interceding on behalf of Stephen while standing (Acts 7:55f.), in Romans 8:34, Jesus intercedes on behalf of his people while seated. Moving on to the epistle to the Hebrews, Loader states that the first eight chapters of Hebrews are concerned with Jesus’ heavenly intercession. Thus, Jesus’ exaltation and his intercession are intertwined. Loader’s insightful articles contain much to commend. In the earlier article, Loader helpfully traces Psalm 110:1 in the New Testament demonstrating how Jesus’ exaltation and his present activity – mainly intercession – are linked. He also indicates that intercession, especially in Hebrews, is seen as the principal activity of Jesus in heaven. Loader’s more recent article is cognizant of the current debates on the death, entry, and offering of Christ. He rightly criticizes scholars who view Jesus’ death on the cross as a prelude to his entrance and heavenly perpetual offering. David M. Moffitt. In his 2019 essay, “It is Not Finished: Jesus’s Perpetual Atoning Work as the Heavenly High Priest in Hebrews,” David M. Moffitt discusses the present ministry of Jesus in heaven.148 Moffitt observes scholars’ neglect of Jesus’ present ministry in heaven.149 He notes that many have employed John 19:30 to argue for the finished work of Christ. Moffitt finds such an interpretation incompatible with Hebrews in light of the Levitical atoning sacrifice.150 Jesus, Moffitt argues, subsequent to his entrance into heaven as a high priest, offered himself as the sacrifice for his people. His presentation of himself is a one-time act, yet his priestly function in heaven continues ac145

Ibid., 272. William R. G. Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. cx. 1 in the New Testament,” NTS 24 (1978/79): 199–217, here 203, 205. 147 Ibid., 203–204. 148 Moffitt, “It is Not Finished,” 156–175. 149 Ibid., 157; cf. MacLeod, “The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews,” 184. 150 Moffitt, “It is Not Finished,” 157 n. 2. 146

1.6 Precedent Research

29

cording to Hebrews. Moffitt remarks that Jesus’ heavenly intercession is his perpetual offering to the Father. This ongoing offering mirrors the Levitical sacrificial atonement. In other words, Moffitt finds an exact correspondence between Hebrews and the Levitical ritual system. Moffitt’s argument is predicated on six major assumptions “concerning Jesus’s high priesthood, sacrifice, and atonement in Hebrews.”151 These assumptions are: 1) There existed a shared confession regarding Jesus’ high priesthood; 2) Jesus’ bodily resurrection qualified him to be a high priest in heaven, for he possesses an indestructible life; 3) subsequent to his resurrection and ascension, Jesus entered the holy of holies in heaven; 4) a dialogical relationship exists between Hebrews and the OT Scripture; 5) there is a hierarchy in the sacrificial process. For instance, offering is the pinnacle of sacrifice rather than the death (or slaughtering) of a victim; 6) the epistle is shaped by the Pentateuch (exodus to inheritance narrative). Moffitt contends that Jesus, unlike the Old Covenant high priests, is the only high priest who is able to maintain the New Covenant relationship and bring about a sure and complete salvation through his perpetual intercession. Jesus’ intercession, Moffitt states, is crucial as “[t]he readers of Hebrews continue to face the problems of sin, death, and persecution.”152 Thus the goal of Jesus’ heavenly intercession is to bring God’s people to perfection, which the previous ritual and priestly order intended but failed to do. There is much to commend Moffitt’s essay. First, he attempts to address the lacunae in many recent works on Hebrews concerned with the sequential reading of the epistle (death-entry-and-offering), including his own monograph. The present high priestly work of Christ, specifically his heavenly intercession, has been a glaring oversight. Second, he is on point that there is a tension between the completed works of Christ and the ongoing high priestly task of Christ. Third, he correctly notes that the author of Hebrews is in dialogue with the OT and vice versa. To some extent, his comments on Hebrews 7:25 are also on point. He correctly argues that intercession is Jesus’ current task in heaven, for believers are not yet fully perfected in the here and now.153 Nevertheless, Moffitt’s essay has serious flaws. First, his methodology utilized in reading Hebrews comprises a hermeneutical issue. Although his argument for “a hermeneutical corollary”154 between the Levitical/cultic texts and Hebrews is mostly on point, his insistence for a strict correspondence 151

Ibid., 159. Moffitt, “It is Not Finished,” 172. 153 Moffitt, “Wilderness Identity,” 162–163. 154 Moffitt, “It is Not Finished,” 163; see also his statement, “the author reflects on Jesus’s ongoing work of sacrificial atonement in ways that are remarkably analogous to the ministry of the Old Covenant Priesthood, especially the high priests, and the LeviticalSacrificial system” at ibid., 159. 152

30

Chapter 1: Introduction and Precedent Research

between the two poses a methodological blind spot. Moffitt limits Hebrews with a one-way reading rather than allowing the author of Hebrews to reinterpret the Levitical ritual or delineate elements that do not strictly correspond with the old sacrificial ministry. For instance, the idea that the high priest Jesus is the offering and the offerant does not correspond with the Levitical system that presents the high priest and the offering as separate entities. Moffitt’s reading of Hebrews prods us to question whether Jesus’ high priesthood and ministry is superior and new. Of course, Hebrews uses the framework of the Levitical ritual and builds its cultic discourse in light of the old system, yet Hebrews transcends the Levitical priestly and sacrificial system. Second, for Moffitt “the sacrificial work of Jesus is not finished.”155 Given his denial of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross as an offering and his assertion of Jesus’ death as preparatory for the heavenly presentation of his offering rather than a time when atonement occurred, his conclusion is logical and understandable. However, his assertion will be challenged in this study, for such theology is erroneous. Third, as Moffitt noted in another place, “there is no high-priestly intercession in the holy of holies apart from the presentation of the Yom Kippur sacrifice.”156 He also states that “High-priestly intercession in the holy of holies is a given.”157 Moffitt is correct that the High Priest offers the sacrifices and intercedes on behalf of the people on the Day of Atonement. However, he does not clearly provide any lexical evidence for his claim that there is intercession in the sanctuary. Concurring with Moffitt, this study proposes that the high priest intercedes in the inner sanctum.158 Nevertheless, Moffitt posits that “The biblical texts say nothing about the high priest praying in the holy of holies. Indeed apart from one reference in Philo, there is no positive evidence of this practice.”159 But I will point out that Leviticus 16:21 is clear evidence for the intercessory mediation of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This study also rejects Moffitt’s contention that the sacrifice of Jesus continues in heaven.160 On another note, Moffitt confines intercession

155

Moffitt, “It is Not Finished,” 175; again in Moffitt, “Wilderness Identity,” 167, he argues, “Jesus’ death in Hebrews is not the sum total of his sacrifice.” 156 Moffitt, “Wilderness Identity,” 163 n. 23. 157 Ibid., n. 22. 158 Moffitt argues for the presence of intercession using abductive reasoning by overlooking the definitive !'/ëƸºÇɼŧÑ; see Moffitt, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest,” 548– 549. 159 Ibid., 549, cf. 550. 160 Moore, “Sacrifice, Session and Intercession,” 532, argues that there is no evidence of the High Priest interceding in the holy place. But such an assertion will be countered in the discussion of Leviticus 16:20–22 in chapter two of this study.

1.7 Conclusion

31

to the Day of Atonement.161 However, this study will demonstrate that Jesus’ intercessory ministry is not only informed by the Day of Atonement but also by the intercessions of other Old Testament mediators who interceded for others throughout the epoch of redemptive history.

1.7 Conclusion 1.7 Conclusion

As is clear from the review of precedent research, intercession appears in the context of Jesus’ priestly ministry. A definitive and fresh scholarly discussion is needed, however, as most of the discussion of intercession is either too brief to delve into the background and nature of Jesus’ intercession or too narrow, ignoring the natural context of Jesus’ intercession: the mediators’ intercession in the LXX as well as the informative STL material for the concept of intercession. Some have identified that intercession is absent in the Atonement Day ritual, yet they have not provided answers regarding from where the high priestly intercession emanated. Others have asserted that Christ’s heavenly intercession could mean the mere appearance of Christ in the presence of God or could be meant figuratively rather than referring to an actual prayer, but this argument lacks concrete evidence that ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ is employed in such a way. On the contrary, this study will argue that intercession is the primary function of Jesus’ heavenly ministry as the high priest. It will also demonstrate that this motif is not a “foreign element,” but that it is a natural element that finds its background in the mediators’ intercession in the LXX as well as in the STL. As such, the author of Hebrews possibly wrote his epistle against any hint of reliance on the intercession of priests in the Aaronic order or angelic mediators who do not measure up to the surpassing mediatorial figure, Messiah Jesus. This study will also argue that Jesus offered sacrifices and interceded perpetually while on earth, but his effectual and single sacrifice occurred on the cross and ended the need to offer another sacrifice. Intercession, however, continues as Jesus’ heavenly priestly task on behalf of believers. This study will also attempt to answer these perennial questions while arguing for the culmination of intercession in Jesus’ high priesthood: Is Jesus’ intercession temporal or eternal? Is Jesus’ intercession passive and figurative or active and real? Where did Jesus’ intercession begin: on earth or in heaven at his exaltation? What is the purpose of Jesus’ intercession: is it for the forgiveness of sins or for assisting believers or both? Is Jesus’ heavenly intercession a passing reference (“a foreign element”) or a central motif?

161

Moffitt, “Jesus as Interceding High Priest,” 542–552.

Chapter 2

The Motif of Intercession in the Old Testament 2.1 Introduction This chapter probes the motif of intercession both in the Masoretic Text (MT) and the canonical Septuagint (LXX) of the Old Testament in order to investigate whether the author of Hebrews has appropriated the concept of intercession from the OT in his composition of the epistle to the Hebrews. The investigation of intercession in the OT will not be confined to the specific lexemes that explicitly mention intercession, plea, prayer or request. Passages that do not necessarily employ key terms expressing intercession yet contain the concept of intercession will also be discussed. The chapter overviews Abraham’s intercession for Sodom (Gen 18:22–32), Moses’ intercession on behalf of Israel (Exod 32:11–14, 25–35; Num 13–14), Aaron’s intercession for himself and God’s People (Lev 16:20–22), Amos’ intercession for Israel (Amos 7:1–6), the intercession of the Suffering Servant (Isa 53:12), Jeremiah’s intercessions for God’s People (Jer 4:5–9; 18:19–20; 21:1–10; 27:16–22; 37:1–17; 42:1–6), Daniel’s intercession for God’s people in exile (Dan 6:13) and the notion of angelic intercession (Job 5:1; 33:23–28; Zech 1:12–13).

2.2 Definition of Intercession 2.2 Definition of Intercession

The term “intercession” does not represent just any kind of prayer. Samuel E. Balentine is correct to assent that “[w]hile intercession is obviously one form of prayer, it is certainly not true that all prayer is intercession. Nor does it illuminate the issue to suggest that intercession is somehow analogous to imprecations or laments or questions directed toward God.”1 Then what is intercession? Balentine proposes that it “is essentially prayer on behalf of someone else. That is to say an intercessor is one who ‘intercedes for’ or ‘prays for’ another person(s).”2 In the same vein, Simon B. Parker notes that 1

Samuel E. Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment,” JBL 103/2 (1984): 161–173, here 161. 2 Ibid., 162.

34

Chapter 2: The Motif of Intercession

“intercession occurs in relations among people” as seen in 1 Kings 1:11–27; 2:13–25; 2 Kings 4:13; Esther 4:8, 13–14; Jeremiah 38:8–9.3 He also finds the motif in passages where “individuals [intercede] on behalf of others with Yahweh” in Genesis 25:21; 2 Samuel 12:16; Psalm 106:29–30; Job 42:8–10; 22:26–30; Jeremiah 29:7.4 R. Le Déaut understands intercession to be a mediatorial prayer when he states: “Nous entendons ici le terme intercession au sens d’intervention auprès de Dieu en faveur de quelqu’un dans la prière.”5 He also observes that intercessors can be human mediators or angelic beings.6 Martin Leuenberger defines intercession as a verbal address to a deity,7 though he later points out that intercession could be both a mediatorial act in the presence of God (nonverbal intercession) and a verbal prayer. Nevertheless, Leuenberger prefers the verbal definition of intercession.8 In the OT, intercession is seen as an act of prayer carried out by mediators appointed by God. Thus the concept appears often throughout the OT.9 Balentine identifies the dominant terms that express intercession in the Old Testament when he writes: The language of intercession, in the sense of prayer for someone else, consists primarily of the verbs ++6, :=3, and 36 (hiphil). Other expressions serve as more general terms for prayer, and on occasion they too will contribute to the overall picture of intercession. For example, the expressions !+6= g1!#!'-g:9, and !#!''16+/3 may describe an act of addressing God on behalf of another. Similarly, verbs belonging to the semantic field of “ask, inquire, seek,” for example, +f, f:, f9, may sometimes be used to convey an intercessory prayer.10

3

Simon B. Parker, “Divine Intercession in Judah?” VT 56.1 (2006): 76–91, here 80–81. Ibid., 81. 5 R. Le Déaut, “Aspects de l’intercession dans le Judaïsme Ancien,” JSJ 1/1 (1970): 35– 57, here 35; emphasis in original. 6 Ibid., 38. 7 Martin Leuenberger, “Fürbitte und Interzession im Alten Testament. Mit einer Konkretion: Erhörte Fürbitte – Jhwhs Reue in Am 7,1–6 und Ex 32,7–14,” JBTh 32 (2017): 47–71. 8 Ibid., 50–51. 9 E. A. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans 8:26,” NTS 32/4 (1986): 621–632, here 621, states that “[t]he idea of intercession is prevalent in the OT. Abraham (Gen 18.12–32; 20.17), Moses (Ex 8.8, 12, 28–30; 9.28, 33; 10.17, 18), kings (2 Sam 12.16; 1 Kg 8.22–54; 2 Kg 19.15–19; 2 Chron 30.18, 19), priests (Lev 16:21; Num 6:23–27, Ezra 6.10), angels (Gen 21.17; 2.11) are all presented as intercessors.” 10 Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor,” 162; it is important to note here that the main argument of Balentine in this article is that the dominant ministry of prophets is not intercession but to speak God’s word. For a similar argument, see his article, “Jeremiah, Prophet of Prayer,” RevExp 78 (1981): 331–344. 4

2.2 Definition of Intercession

35

Balentine further notes that of all the expressions of intercession, ++6 is the dominant one in the Old Testament.11 Though the term appears more than seventy times, he finds only sixteen of them that are linked to intercession.12 In addition to ++6the Aramaic term:9is also an equivalentexpression of ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ in the LXX.13 François Rossier, however, writes that a specific term that expresses intercession in the OT is wanting.14 Nonetheless, like Balentine, he identifies terms that convey the notion of intercession in the OT and notes that ++6 is the most prevalent one.15 Franz Hesse states that “Um die Fürbittetätigkeit zu bezeichnen, gebraucht das Hebräische viele verschiedene Ausdrücke.”16 He then provides the various lexemes employed in the Old Testament to express intercession: 'ax ™ V¡= ™ g ˜ :™ a š š+8 ’ :š 9š + —Xa™ =’ ! – 3 ™a š 4™ C: ’ =™ 4 š 7:˜ a˜ C ™ /™ 4 š ! š+4 š :a˜ V – !#! v š '’  '„1— a¡= ’  ˜ ! šX! – 94™ 8 š 94™ š$ :!™ šE.17 Intercession happens when there is a need for forgiveness and to be spared from God’s wrath. The bulk of intercession in the Old Testament, Patrick D. Miller postulates, happens in the context of probable divine judgment.18 Edmond 11 Similarly Leuenberger, “Fürbitte und Interzession,” 49 n. 6, observes the same thing but also provides terms related to ++6: “An erster Stelle ist ++6hitp.: ‘beten/fürbitten’ zu nennen (mit 4™ CGen ’ 20,7; Den 9,20; Jer 7,16; 42,2.20; mit +˜ Gen 20,17; Num 11,2; 21,7; Den 9,26; Jer 29,7). Dazu gibt es mehrere Alternativen, wie z. B. der Parallelismus in Jer 7, 16 (! šX 6– k ’ ! š^:– g1: ‘Geschrei und [Klage] gebet erheben’ [s. a. 2 Kön 19,4 /Jes 37,4]; ’C 36: ‘drängen in’) veranschaulicht. Weiter ergänzen lassen sich v. a. ’+ /3: ‘eintreten vor’ (Jer 15, 1; 18,20) und +938: ˜ ‘schreien zu’ (Num 12,13; 1 Sam 7,8f; 15,11).” 12 He lists the sixteen verses that contain the term: Gen 20:7; Num 21:7; Deut 9:20; 1 Sam 7:5; 12:19, 23; 1 Kgs 13:6; Jer 7:16; 11.14; 14:11; 29:7; 37:3; 42:2, 20; Ps 72:15; Job 42:10; Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor,” 162–163 n. 9. On the confusion surrounding the meaning of the stem ++6 and its various forms, see E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 301–306; he categorizes the meaning of the term into four groups. The third form, hitpallel, precisely expresses prayer, plea, or intercession. 13 Otto Bauernfeind, “ÌͺÏÚÅÑբëÅÌͺÏÚÅÑÁÌÂ,” TDNT 8:238–245, here 243, notes: “In the LXX ëÅÌͺϊÅÑ is never controlled by a Hbr. equivalent, though one finds Aram. ʡʸʷ peal in Da. 6:13.” 14 François Rossier, L’intercession entre les hommes dans la Bible hébraïque: L’intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu, OBO 152 (Freiburg: Editions Universitaires, 1996), 7. 15 Ibid.; Rossier states: “Certains verbes peuvent certes signifier ‘intercéder’. Tel est notamment le cas de ʸʺʲ au hifil, de ʲʢʴ au qal, et, surtout, de ʬʬʴ au hitpael. Ainsi en est-il, par exemple, de ʸʩʺʲʤ en Ex 8,4 ou 10,17; de ʲʢʴ en Gn 23,8 ou Jr 27,18; et de ʬʬʴʺʤ en Gn 20,7, Dt 9,20, lS 7,5, Ps 72,15 ou 2Ch 30,18. Ce dernier verbe est celui qui est le plus souvent employé pour désigner l’action d’intercéder et, d’ailleurs, cette signification lui est reconnue au point que ++6=! est considéré comme étant le terme technique typique de la prière d’intercession.” 16 Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Photo-Copie G. m. b. H, 1951), 89. 17 Ibid., 89–94. 18 Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994), 266–267.

36

Chapter 2: The Motif of Intercession

Jacob concurs that “l’intercession des prophètes intervient lorsque cette rupture s’avère particulièrement grave, dans les situations où il s’agit de vie ou de mort, soit dans le danger de mort physique, soit lorsque la rupture de l’alliance menace de faire dispara‫ۺ‬tre Israël comme peuple de Dieu.”19 But it is also carried out when there is a need for God to intervene in the lives of others.20 Yet Rossier argues that “L’intercession est une pratique sociale qui met en effet en jeu des valeurs humaines de premier ordre”21 with the goal of creating what he calls a “positive link” between two parties.22

2.3 Abraham’s Intercession for Sodom (Gen 18:20–33) 2.3 Abraham’s Intercession

The Lord resolved to judge Sodom and Gomorrah because of their evil: ¼čȼÅ »ò Ȁ઄ȡȚȠȢ ɸͺüÇ»ŦÄÑÅÁ¸ĖÇÄŦÉɸËȼÈÂŢ¿ÍÅ̸ÀբÁ¸Ė¸ĎÖĸÉÌţ¸À¸ĤÌľÅ ļºŠÂ¸À ÊÎŦ»É¸ ֕ œ   / ’ ! x š ’ ) š 'V † – -= vš Pš %‰™ ’# !Cš :¡' r š V – !:œx š /4” ™# -œ † 2 ’ = 9Ü} ™ 4” ™$ !#! v š '’  :/ ˜ œ Q„ ™#֖ (Gen 18:20).23 God revealed this plan to Abraham at the end of his interaction

19

Edmond Jacob, “Prophètes et Intercesseurs,” in De La Tôrah Au Messie: Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique Bibliques Offertes À Henri Cazelles Pour Ses 25 Années d’enseignement À l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979), eds. Maurice Carrez, Doré Joseph and Grelot Pierre (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 205–217, here 207. 20 Le Déaut, “Aspects de l’intercession,” 48, remarks “L’emploi de la racine ++6et 3, des termes 7'+/et &'+9:6est fréquent dans les exemples anciens d’intercession où celle-ci prend souvent le visage d’un véritable plaidoyer d’un défenseur du peuple, conjurant la colère de Dieu provoquée par les péchés d’Israël. Malgré l’utilisation du même vocabulaire, l’intercession perd quelque peu cette connotation juridique, comme le montrent les exemples où l’on voit les orants demander pour autrui toutes sortes de biens et non plus seulement le pardon divin, et par les mentions de plus en plus nombreuses d’interventions en faveur des autres.” Similarly, Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 95, states that “Das Besondere der Fürbitte liegt darin, daß hier das Anliegen eines anderen vor Gott gebracht, für ihn um Segen gebetet wird, oder daß der Betende für einen anderen, der schuldig geworden ist, eintritt.” 21 Rossier, L’intercession, 294. Rossier reached this conclusion after studying nine intercessions among people in the OT (Gen 44:18–34; Josh 2:12–13; 1 Sam 19:4–5; 25:24– 31; 2 Sam 14:2–20; 1 Kgs 2:20–21; 2 Kgs 5:6; Jer 38:9 and Esth 7:3–4:6). The thrust of his monograph is that intercession is an anthropological and social phenomenon. 22 Ibid., 295. 23 Nathan MacDonald, “Listening to Abraham – Listening to Yhwh: Divine Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18:16–33,” CBQ 66 (2004): 25–43, here 28–30, contends that the assumption made by many scholars regarding the presence of the imminent destruction is textually unwarranted. He understands the passage in purview to be concerned with God intending to investigate whether the outcry was true or not. Contra MacDonald, however, the language of judgment or destruction is present and the evidence for that – which even MacDonald accedes to – is found in Abraham’s response in Genesis 18:23–25.

2.3 Abraham’s Intercession

37

with the three visitors.24 Kenneth A. Matthews posits that the outcry 94™ š$(Gen 18:20, 21; 19:13) “may describe the woeful cry of victims who suffer injustice … or express grief over distressful circumstances…. Cries of lament may also be petitions for deliverance from oppressors.”25 Some of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah cried for assistance as a result of the oppression and injustice they suffered.26 Abraham was concerned that the righteous would be destroyed along with those who committed sin, that is, œ/ ’ !š ’ ) š (ļºŠÂ¸À ÊÎŦ»É¸). Temba L. Mafico argues that the term =9™ 4” ™$reveals what prompted Abraham to engage in intercession. God’s response to the cry of the oppressed was usually “swift and the dire consequences on the offender were immediate and unavoidable.”27 Thus, Abraham was standing before the Lord and interceding on behalf of Sodom as the visitors headed to Sodom to carry out the Lord’s judgment (Gen 18:22) and was then interceding on behalf of Sodom.28 Abraham put forth his plea six times before the Lord (Gen 18:23–25). In this intercession, Abraham reveals his “concern … whether Yahweh would indiscriminately kill the innocent with the guilty.”29 He was also “[concerned] to include the preservation of the city/place (hƗұРr/lammƗqФm) because of the presence of a remnant of ‫܈‬addРq.”30 The Lord accepted Abraham’s plea and promised to “spare” Sodom if he could “find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city”  :'4r – š! TL=„ ’C - 9Üx – '–G™8 -'†i– –/% ” -œ } 2’  –  8† š /’ ¡˜  – ! #! v š '’  :/ ˜ œ „Q™# – †gš š1 ’#(Gen 18:26). Gordon J. Wenham points out that the -:  š K4” ™C-L9x š]™!¡+)š ’+'= term “‘[s]pare’ g1 was the key word in Abraham’s plea (v 24).”31 It appears in both vv. 24 and 26, whereas the LXX employs ÒÅŢʼÀË in v. 24 and ÒÎŢÊÑ in v. 26. In both cases, the idea of forgiveness is communicated in Abraham’s intercession.32

24

Abraham did not take the initiative to intervene and intercede on behalf of Sodom, as some claim. The revelation of God’s plan to investigate and deal with Sodom in Abraham’s presence is an initiative taken by God which subsequently led to Abraham’s intercession. Contra Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 230. 25 Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, NAC 1B (Nashville: B&H, 2005), 225. 26 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 211. 27 Temba L. Mafico, “The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God,” JTSA 42 (1983): 11–16, here 12. 28 Yochanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 10. 29 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 25. 30 Ibid. 31 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Waco: Word, 1994), 52. 32 Ibid.

38

Chapter 2: The Motif of Intercession

Abraham continues his intercession on behalf of the city. He says to the Lord: “Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” (Gen 18:28a). Again, Abraham’s intercession was heard by the Lord, for the Lord declared, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there” (Gen 18:28b). The relentless Abraham pleaded with the Lord again, this time based on forty righteous remnant, and the Lord declared again, “For the sake of the forty I will not do it” (Gen 18:29). Abraham kept lowering the number of possible righteous people in Sodom, from forty to thirty to twenty and finally to ten. And the Lord kept assuring Abraham that he would not destroy the city if these could be found. Then their conversation came to an end (Gen 18:30–33). Abraham’s intercession demonstrates that intercession to the Lord on behalf of others did take place by people who had favor before the Lord.33 The intercession took place in the context of impending judgment, calamity or punishment (in this case, the judgment of Sodom). The overall dialogue between Abraham and the Lord clearly communicates the act of intercession carried out by Abraham.34 The dominant terms (++6, :=3, and 36) for intercession do not appear in Abraham’s plea, but Abraham’s intercession on behalf of Sodom gives us some lexemes that express the intercessory concept in the story: !#!' ' —16’ –+ /œ— 3(îÊ̾ÁĽËëŸÅÌţÇÅ ÍÉţÇÍ) in verse 22 and :/œ ™ Q ™# -!š :š ’ ™ f™E –Q ™# (뺺ţʸË ¹É¸ÛÄ ¼čȼÅ) in verse 23.35 Commenting on /œ— 3, Matthews observes: “The depiction of Abraham ‘standing [‘ǀmƝd] before the LORD’ as at a bar of justice is appropriate for the 33

James McKeown, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 105; Le Déaut, “Aspects de l’intercession,” 49, is right when he states: “Comme Abraham, l’ami de Dieu de l’AT, l’intercesseur doit être persona grata auprès de la divinité qu’il entend fléchir.” 34 Elias J. Bickerman, “Bénédiction et Prière,” RB 69/4 (1962): 524–532, here 529. 35 E. A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 1 (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2008), 134, argues that scribes have corrected the original text which read “Yahweh paused in front of Abraham” instead of “Abraham paused before Yahweh.” See also Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 181; Martin Pröbstle, “YHWH Standing Before Abraham: Genesis 18:22 and Its Theological Force,” in Inicios, Paradigmas y Fundamentos: Estudios teológicos y exegéticos en el Pentateuco, ed. Gerald A Klingbeil (Libertador San Martín: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, 2004), 169–189. Edward Bridge, “An Audacious Request: Abraham’s Dialogue with God in Genesis 18,” JSOT 40/3 (2016): 281–296, here 288–289, postulates using the politeness theory that God stands before Abraham and displays politeness as an invitation to Abraham to converse with him. Later, Abraham also follows this and presents his requests using polite language. On the other hand, Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed., rev. & exp. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 60–61, counters the notion of scribal emendation in this passage when he remarks, “for some corrections it is impossible that the original text would have read as the Masorah claims.” He does not deny the practice of scribal corrections (tiqqûê sǀperРm); he does, however, reject the assertion that “while the LORD remained standing before Abraham” is original.

2.3 Abraham’s Intercession

39

juridical appeal of the patriarch to follow.”36 In the same vein, Hamilton states that the “phrase is to designate the intercessory ministry of the prophet.”37 The term 뺺ţÊ¸Ë also expresses the idea of “[moving] nearer to a referent point.”38 /œ— 3/੆Ê̾ÄÀ and f ™ š1/ëūţ½Ñ indeed should not merely be considered by themselves. Abraham is not standing or drawing near simply for the sake of standing or drawing near. Another vital term that should be considered along with  /œ— 3/ďÊ̾ÄÀ and f ™ š1/ëūţ½Ñ is :/™  šºÑ. š For Abraham to intercede on behalf of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah required him to stand, draw near and speak. Presence and words are required for intercession to happen. If he stood there passively and drew near to God’s presence and kept quiet, intercession could not be said to have happened. Nahum M. Sarna rightly comments that Abraham could not be silent but instead was compelled to “plead for the lives of depraved pagans.”39 Thus Wenham remarks that when :/™ š and f ™ š1 are used together they “mark the beginning of a request in which the speaker has a special interest.”40 Balentine acknowledges that Abraham’s conversation with God is an intercessory prayer; his discussion, however, overlooks the expression !#!' '16+ /3 in identifying it as signaling or introducing the intercessory prayer.41 Here Abraham was acting as a broker and intercessor on behalf of others who were about to face God’s judgment. 42 Thus Claus Westermann’s skepticism regarding the presence of intercessory prayer in Genesis 18:23–32 is not compelling.43 Contrary to Westermann, Allen P. Ross rightly notes that although Abraham’s intercession deviates from later instances of intercession, he does not deny that it is intercession.44 Even if the “intercession takes the form of a negotiation,” it is still intercession.45 Balentine’s observation that 36

Matthews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, 226. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, 23. 38 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 192, place 뺺ţÊ¸Ë under the domain of “linear movement” (#15) and subdomain “Come Near, Approach” (E, 75–80). 39 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis ='