Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus' Faith as the Climax of Israel's History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum ... Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161503979, 9783161524288, 316150397X

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie † (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

338

Christopher A. Richardson

Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews

Mohr Siebeck

CHRISTOPHER A. RICHARDSON, born 1973; 2009 Ph.D., University of Aberdeen; currently the Assistant Rector at Christ Our King Anglican Church in New Braunfels, Texas.

e-ISBN 978-3-16-152428-8 ISBN 978-3-16-150397-9 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2012 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de 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, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Bwgrkl and Bwhebb are fonts from BibleWorks, LLC. Printed in Germany.

Preface This work is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. thesis, which was successfully defended at the University of Aberdeen in 2009. I would like first to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Francis Watson, whose guidance and recommendations contributed to a highly rewarding season of academic research and exploration. I am extremely grateful not only for his patient oversight, but also his willingness to continue in his supervisory role even after assuming his new post at the University of Durham. I would also like to thank my examiners, Dr. Grant Macaskill and, especially, Dr. Paul Ellingworth, who addressed several issues of primary importance and provided detailed comments for consideration prior to publication. My thanks to both current and former faculty members at Aberdeen, namely Professor John Webster, Dr. Donald Wood, Dr. Peter Williams, and Dr. Simon Gathercole, for their friendship and support over the years. Indeed, having so many talented and committed individuals in one place was a gift. The former Warden of Tyndale House Library in Cambridge, Dr. Bruce Winter, was more than welcoming and accommodating during my research visit to Tyndale House and our discussions will not soon be forgotten. I am grateful for his wisdom, humor, and gracious suggestions concerning my work. I am greatly indebted to the United Kingdom Universities Committee for granting me the Overseas Research Student (ORS) Award, as well as Aberdeen University for its generous scholarship. Both awards lightened the financial burden that so often accompanies a postgraduate education overseas. I also express my appreciation to Mohr Siebeck for accepting this monograph for publication; and I especially thank Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and his excellent staff for their untiring patience as I sought to complete this project in the midst of many transitions. Our friends Rob and Colleen Truax deserve many thanks and high praise for their sacrificial support and love. Time and again, they joyfully contributed to our mission and exemplified a selflessness that is all too rare. Jason and Kella Dohring gave us incredible support as well, even after arriving back in the States; and we were able to endure extremely

VI

Preface

difficult circumstances largely due to their friendship, love, and gracious provision. Our friends at Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen, Scotland also graciously met many of our needs. We are particularly thankful for, and humbled by, the generosity of Andrew and Jeanne Ritchie, who gave us a gorgeous flat to call home, our very own ‘castle’ in the Highlands of Scotland. We are equally mindful of the many barbeques, road trips, and movie nights with Dr. Jeff and Lena Spivak, who shared much laughter with us. We love you both. My dear friend Dr. Timothy Harvie was in Aberdeen with me from the beginning and was always a rich blessing to my family and me. Thank you TH. I express my profound gratitude to Dr. Brian G. Mattson, who traveled the long road with me in Aberdeen. This camaraderie made the journey special; and his encouragement during the high and low times of my postgraduate years illustrates well what is written in the Good Book: ‘A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.’ Over pints and drams, he offered many suggestions and constructive criticism on various sections of the thesis, making the final product far better than it would have been otherwise. My parents of course have supported my academic pursuits in more ways than can be counted. Their demonstrations of love have gone well beyond our expectations, and I can only stand in amazement of their grace and generosity to us. I cannot thank them enough and will forever remain in their debt. Finally, I express my heartfelt and deepest gratitude to the one who has loved and supported me more than I can hardly believe and more than I will ever deserve – my beautiful wife Robyn. She endured much for the sake of my studies and always sought to provide a comfortable and quiet environment at home in which I could have many hours of uninterrupted reading and writing. Often sacrificing her own desires and interests (while also caring for our small children), she constantly manifested exceptional Christian love and character, which leaves me speechless. In fact, apart from the Lord Jesus, I am convinced that I have no greater friend and advocate; therefore, I not only thank her with all of my heart, but also gladly dedicate the present work to her.

Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................ V Abbreviations................................................................................................................. XI

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 1. 2. 3. 4.

A Christological Controversy ................................................................................ 2 Typology and Faith................................................................................................ 6 Rhetoric and Faith ............................................................................................... 10 A Culturally Integrated Approach to Christology ................................................ 13

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith ..................................................................................... 15 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 15 1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13 .......................................................................... 16 1.1 The Spatiotemporal Perspective of Heb. 2.12–13.......................................... 17 1.2 The Climactic Recapitulation of Isaiah’s Example........................................ 20 Excursus: The Lectio Difficilior of Heb. 2.9.............................................................. 25 2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17 ............................................................ 28 2.1 Heaven or Earth? .......................................................................................... 29 2.2 Active Obedience and Atonement ................................................................. 33 2.3 Form and Meaning........................................................................................ 35 2.4 To Sanctify through Blood............................................................................ 43 2.5 Merciful to Thousands .................................................................................. 46 3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6.................................... 49 3.1 Defending Moses’ Faithfulness..................................................................... 50 3.2 Describing Moses’ (and Jesus’) Faithfulness ................................................ 51 3.3 Purpose and Ellipsis...................................................................................... 56 3.4 The Apostle .................................................................................................. 58 3.5 Preparing for the Analogy............................................................................ 61 3.6 Equipping the Saints ..................................................................................... 64 3.7 Uniting Example and Exhortation ................................................................. 66 4. Tested, yet True: Hebrews 4.15 ........................................................................... 70 4.1 The Sinlessness of Jesus ............................................................................... 70 4.2 The Faith(fulness) of Jesus ........................................................................... 71 5. Steadfast Confidence in Suffering: Hebrews 5.7–8 .............................................. 74 5.1 From Gethsemane to Golgotha...................................................................... 75 5.2 Intertextual Links.......................................................................................... 81 5.3 Efficacious Prayer......................................................................................... 83 5.4 Fear versus Faith........................................................................................... 84

VIII

Table of Contents

5.5 Israel’s priestly Ideal .................................................................................... 88 6. Obedience unto Sacrifice: Hebrews 10.5–7.......................................................... 90 6.1 The Context and Quotation of Psalm 40........................................................ 90 6.2 The Climactic Recapitulation of David’s Example ....................................... 93 7. Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Hebrews 12.2 ...................................................... 95 7.1 A RCHGOS of Faith.......................................................................................... 97 7.2 T ELEIWTHS of Faith ...................................................................................... 99 7.3 Enduring the Cross ..................................................................................... 101 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 106

Chapter 3. Hebrews 11: (1) Literary Context and Form .............................. 109 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 109 1. Perseverance of the Saints (Literary Context) .................................................... 111 1.1 A Text in Need of a Context ....................................................................... 112 1.2 The Preceding Discourse: Heb. 10.19–39 ................................................... 115 1.3 A Definition of Faith: Heb. 11.1 ................................................................. 119 1.4 The Following Discourse: Heb. 12.1–29 ..................................................... 129 1.5 Discourse Peak ........................................................................................... 134 2. ‘Let us now praise famous men…’ (Literary Form) ............................................ 137 2.1 Literary Parallels ........................................................................................ 138 2.2 The Encomium ........................................................................................... 144 2.3 Amplifying the Perfect Example of Faith.................................................... 159 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 165

Chapter 4. Hebrews 11: (2) Typological Anticipations of Christ .............. 167 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 167 1. Ancient Faith ..................................................................................................... 168 1.1 The Sacrifice of Abel .................................................................................. 169 1.2 The Exaltation of Enoch ............................................................................. 174 1.3 The Inheritance of Noah ............................................................................. 177 1.4 Casting a Long Shadow: Heb. 1.1–4 ........................................................... 183 2. Patriarchal Faith ................................................................................................ 187 2.1 Looking Forward: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ............................................ 188 2.2 Passing the Test: Abraham’s Offering of Isaac ........................................... 194 2.3 Enduring to the End: Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph ............................................ 199 3. Israel’s Faith...................................................................................................... 201 3.1 The Fearlessness of Moses’ Parents ............................................................ 202 3.2 Moses’ Solidarity with Israel ...................................................................... 203 3.3 The Fearlessness of Moses.......................................................................... 207 3.4 Passover, Deliverance, and Destruction ...................................................... 211 3.5 Rahab’s Solidarity with Israel..................................................................... 215 4. ‘The time will fail me to tell of…’..................................................................... 217 4.1 Victories ..................................................................................................... 218 4.2 Sufferings ................................................................................................... 220 5. The Climax of the Cross .................................................................................... 222 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 224

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 225 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 229 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................................................. 247 Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................................. 275 Index of Subjects ......................................................................................................... 279

Abbreviations Abbreviations and citations in this monograph, including the bibliography, are in accordance with The SBL Handbook of Style (1999). The exceptions include: Bavinck, RD Calvin, Institutes Joüon Louw and Nida

H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, edited by J. Bolt, translated by J. Vriend J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by F. L. Battles P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated and revised by T. Muraoka J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains

With regard to commentaries on Hebrews, only the author’s last name and page(s) have been provided. English translations of ancient texts found in the Loeb Classical Library have been retained, but all other translations of primary and secondary sources are mine unless noted.

Chapter 1

Introduction In the epistle to the Hebrews, faith (pi,stij) is the means by which God’s people are saved and the virtue by which they must persevere unto eschatological salvation. And, as all acknowledge, the author of Hebrews1 gives a great deal of attention to the topic of faith, both in terms of its central importance for the present, confessing community of believers and its manifestation in the past by those who are identified as ‘fathers’ (1.1) and ‘elders’ (11.2). The exhortations to the original addressees, who were most likely Jewish Christians,2 with respect to persevering in faith are united with examples of unbelief (e.g., 3.7–4.13) and steadfast confidence (e.g., 11.4–38) for the purpose of warning and motivating those who were struggling in the contest of faith (12.1–4). Indeed, several statements suggest that some were even on the verge of abandoning their confession of faith (cf. 6.4–8; 10.23–31) and throwing away their confidence (10.35) due to spiritual immaturity and/or fatigue, as well as the potential for further 1 There have been many suggestions regarding the authorship of Hebrews, including Paul, Luke, and Clement of Rome (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.1–4; 6.25.11–14); and, although the evidence is far from conclusive, it is intriguing that one of the earliest testimonies comes from Tertullian (ca. AD 160–220), who casually acknowledged it as the work of the apostle Barnabas (Pud. 20.2; cf. also Acts 4.36–37; 11.23–24; 14.14–15). For a discussion of this subject, read Frederic Gardiner’s introduction to Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews (NPNF 1). 2 The continuity that is affirmed between Israel’s forefathers and the first audience (cf. 1.1; 2.1–4; 3.7–12; 4.1–2; 8.8–12; 11.2, 39–40; 12.18–28) as well as the absence of Jewish-Gentile relations or controversies (e.g., circumcision, food laws, and idolatry) strongly favor a Jewish-Christian congregation. The author’s exhortation in 13.13 also appears to support this conclusion; that is, to exhort the people to go ‘outside the camp’ (e;xw th/j parembolh/j ) is to use language that is more suitable for religious and ethnic Jews. F. F. Bruce comments, ‘In this context the “camp” stands for the established fellowship and ordinances of Judaism… They had been accustomed to think of the “camp” and all that was inside it as sacred, while everything outside it was profane and unclean’ (p. 381; cf. pp. 5–9). In other words, speaking in this manner would resonate with a Jewish group that was struggling to abandon fully the covenantal practices of Judaism that have been fulfilled/perfected by Jesus (cf. 10.1–2; 13.9–10). Further, the exhortation to go outside the camp is coupled with the reminder that they have here no ‘lasting city’ (Jerusalem? Note e;xw th/j pu,lhj in 13.12; and Rev. 20.9); rather, they seek the ‘city to come’ (13.14), which refers to the Jewish hope of the heavenly Jerusalem (11.10, 16; 12.22; cf. Isa. 62.6–12; Rev. 21.9–27).

2

Chapter 1. Introduction

persecution (5.11–14; 12.4–13; 13.3, 6). The author’s ecclesial concerns, therefore, explain to a certain extent why faith and related concepts have been discussed throughout the letter and why there is a constant effort to integrate the exhortations to remain faithful (cf. 3.14; 6.11) with positive and negative examples of faith from Jewish Scripture and narratives.

1. A Christological Controversy As faith is one of the defining characteristics of Hebrews, many have attempted, to various degrees, to explain the author’s overall concept of faith.3 And while these studies are beneficial on a number of levels, it is nevertheless apparent that insufficient attention has been paid to Jesus’ own faith and faithfulness in particular; in fact, this topic rarely has been addressed,4 and none of the discussions offer a detailed exegetical and systematic examination of the relevant verses. Also, the relative disregard for Jesus’ faith(fulness) in Hebrews is somewhat surprising given the ongoing debates over whether the pi,stij Cristou/ expressions in Paul’s epistles convey one’s faith in Christ (objective genitive) or Christ’s faith in/faithfulness to God (subjective genitive).5 That is, while debates over pi,stij Cristou/ in Paul have produced a significant amount of literature over the years,6 little effort has been made to clarify how Hebrews advances this aspect of the early church’s christology, including how the faith of Christ is related to the faith of God’s people, not to mention the recapitulation of faith in Hebrews 11.

3

E.g., Ménégoz 1894, 128–56; Spicq, 2.371–81; Grässer 1965a; Michel, 376–79; Rusche 1971, 94–104; Dautzenberg 1973, 161–77; Schlatter 1982 [1927], 520–36; Thompson 1982, 53–80; Rissi 1987, 104–13; Cosby 1988a, 25–40; Attridge, 311–14; Hurst 1990, 119–24; Lindars 1991, 101–18; Weiß, 564–71; and Rhee 2001. 4 E.g., see Hamm 1990, 270–91; Wallis 1995, 145–61; Olbricht 2007, 122–32; and Still 2008, 40–50. The first essay by Hamm was instrumental in bringing more focused attention to this topic. 5 Cf. Rom. 3.22, 26; Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9. 6 For a few voices in this debate, see Johnson 1982, 77–90; Wallis 1995, 65–144; Bockmuehl 1997, 210–13; Hays 2002, 119–62, 272–97; and N. T. Wright 2009, 117–21, 203–4, who argue for the subjective genitive reading in one or more of the relevant passages, as well as Dunn 2002, 249–71; Westerholm 2004, 305–6 n. 18 (cf. remarks on pp. 366–404); F. Watson 2004, 71–77; Fee 2007, 223–26; and Matlock 2007, 173–203, who advocate the objective genitive. For recent monographs on this topic, see Ulrichs (2007), who includes 1 Thess. 1.3 as part of the debate, and the volume of essays edited by Bird and Sprinkle (2010).

1. A Christological Controversy

3

But what is more incredible is that some contend that this doctrine is nowhere to be found in Hebrews, or Scripture for that matter. According to one commentator, Heb. 12.2, specifically the designation of Jesus as the ‘pioneer and perfecter of faith,’ does not refer to the faith of Christ for ‘Scripture nowhere speaks of Christ as a believer.’7 Similarly, Ceslas Spicq, who wrote one of the most erudite and consulted commentaries on Hebrews, made this conclusion when discussing the same christological title in 12.2: [N]ombreux commentateurs protestants et quelques catholiques… donnent à pi,stij le sens de confiance (cf. II, 13, evgw. e;somai pepoiqw.j evpV auvtw/|; III, 2, VIhsou/n pisto,n) et comprennent que durant sa vie sur terre le Christ a lui-même entrepris les combats de la foi, dès sa tentation au désert et jusqu’au Calvaire; du début à la fin de sa vie, il a tout accepté dans l’abandon à la volonté de son Père, et de même qu’il a appris la miséricorde (II, 17) et l’obéissance (V, 8), son âme a vécu dans la confiance en Dieu; mais, jamais l’Écriture ne parle du Christ comme d’un croyant. De plus on a vu que la pi,stij de XI, 1 a le sens de garantie et de certitude. C’est à ce titre que le Christ fournirait au coureur le gage infaillible du succès final.8

Spicq’s argument, of course, depends on his interpretation of Heb. 11.1, but he also refuses to allow the other references to Jesus’ confidence, pisto,j, and obedience to inform his reading of 12.2. Moreover, since he too was convinced that ‘l’Écriture ne parle du Christ comme d’un croyant,’ which is to imply that the New Testament, including Hebrews, never decidedly attributes the terminology of pi,stij and/or pisteu,w to Christ, one can understand why he thought that neither Heb. 12.2 nor the rest of the epistle presents Jesus as a believer. In addition to these commentators, Paul Ellingworth says that ‘it is going rather beyond the language of Hebrews to describe Jesus as himself

7

Lenski, 426. This statement, however, contradicts an earlier assertion that ‘in his human nature here on earth Jesus depended on God in complete trust… he was like all God’s sons, living and then also dying in trust in God’ (p. 87). Unless a distinction is made between one who trusts in God and a believer, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how these two remarks can be reconciled. 8 Spicq, 2.386: ‘[N]umerous Protestant and some Catholic commentators… give to pi,stij the sense of confidence (cf. II, 13, evgw. e;somai pepoiqw.j evpV auvtw/|; III, 2, VIhsou/n pisto,n) and understand that during his life on earth Christ himself undertook the struggles of faith, from his temptation in the desert to Calvary; from the beginning to the end of his life, he accepted everything in surrender to his Father’s will, and just as he learned mercy (II, 17) and obedience (V, 8), his soul lived in confidence in God; but, Scripture never speaks of Christ as a believer. Moreover we saw that the pi,stij of XI, 1 has the sense of guarantee and certainty. It is as such that Christ would provide to the runner the infallible pledge of final success’ (italics added). Similar to the critique made of Lenski (see n. 7 above), Spicq’s previous comments (in 2.42) are not easily reconciled with his comments here.

4

Chapter 1. Introduction

a believer,’9 and Albert Vanhoye, who has been an extremely influential writer on this epistle, echoes the sentiments previously made by Spicq while also giving additional reasons for his dissent: [P]eut-on réellement lui appliquer le titre de “croyant”? À ce propos, il convient de remarquer que le Nouveau Testament n’attribue jamais à Jésus l’action de “croire,” bien que ce verbe y soit employé très fréquemment (241 fois). Cela donne à entendre que la relation fondamentale de Jésus avec Dieu était d’un autre ordre. Au plus profond de son être Jésus n’était pas un simple croyant, il était le Fils uni au Père… À d’autres niveaux psychologiques, il avait des attitudes apparentées à celles de la foi, la confiance en Dieu, par exemple, ou la docilité envers son Père, mais elles étaient enracinées dans la relation filiale, et non dans la foi théologale. Jésus est à l’origine de la foi en ce sens que, par son mystère pascal, il a donné à la foi la base parfaite dont elle avait besoin. “Digne de foi” (2, 17; 3, 2–6), il est lui-même cette base. D’autre part, il porte la foi à son terme, car il donne au croyant d’entrer pour toujours dans l’intimité de Dieu. 10

Once again, it is considered inappropriate to describe Jesus as a believer, since ‘le Nouveau Testament n’attribue jamais à Jésus l’action de “croire.”’ That is, Vanhoye has rejected this doctrinal position because, as Spicq suggested, the rest of the New Testament does not use the verb pisteu,w in relation to Jesus; thus, in Vanhoye’s opinion, there is no textual basis for speaking of him in this way. Aside from the fact, however, that the concept of faith can be expressed apart from the specific verb pisteu,w, Vanhoye betrays a theological bias and presupposition in saying that ‘[a]u plus profond de son être Jésus n’était pas un simple croyant, il était le Fils uni au Père.’ Without denying the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son, surely any discussion of the Son’s relationship to the Father must take seriously the (truly/fully) incarnate Son’s relationship to the Father; and, the theological tension of how the human, yet divine Son could exercise faith is not something that the NT writers seek to resolve. Further, it simply will not do to say that Jesus was not a believer in his innermost being, ‘[à] d’autres niveaux psychologiques, il avait des attitudes apparentées à celles

9

Ellingworth, 182. When commenting on Heb. 12.2, however, he says ‘[t]he context suggests that Jesus is understood as being himself a believer’ (p. 640). 10 Vanhoye, 91–92: ‘[C]an we really apply the title of “believer” to him? In this regard, it should be noted that the New Testament never attributes the act of “believing” to Jesus, although this verb is used very frequently (241 times). This suggests that the fundamental relationship between Jesus and God was of another order. In the depths of his being Jesus was not a mere believer, he was the Son united to the Father… On other psychological levels, he had attitudes related to those of faith, confidence in God, for example, or obedience to his Father, but they were rooted in the filial relationship, and not in theological faith. Jesus is the source of faith in the sense that, by his paschal mystery, he gave faith the perfect foundation which it needed. “Worthy of faith” (2, 17; 3, 2–6), he himself is this foundation. On the other hand, he carries faith to its goal, because he gives the believer entry into God’s intimacy forever’ (italics added).

1. A Christological Controversy

5

de la foi.’ The NT writers never make this kind of artificial distinction and it is equally precarious to claim that Jesus’ faith-related confidence was rooted in the ‘relation filiale, et non dans la foi théologale,’ as these are not mutually exclusive categories.11 In light of the inattention and skepticism regarding this aspect of christology within Hebrews, chapter two of this monograph will provide an exegetical examination of the references disclosing Jesus’ own faith and faithfulness. In some instances, this will involve analyzing passages that include the usual words for ‘faithful/believing’ and ‘trust,’ namely pisto,j (2.17; 3.1–6) and pi,stij (12.2),12 but the concept of Jesus’ faith is by no means limited to these words;13 for this reason, the places where the idea of faith is affirmed and/or presupposed will be examined as well (2.13; 4.15; 5.7–8; 10.5–7). Excluding the latter references not only diminishes the overall picture of Jesus’ commitment to God, but it can also result in misinterpreting the former references (e.g., excluding 2.13 when trying to determine the sense of pisto,j in 2.17 and 3.1–6). When all the references to Jesus’ faithfulness, i.e., steadfast confidence and active obedience, are examined, it is clear that this motif has been integrated throughout the letter by using various words and expressions, with 12.2 as the climactic testimony to his faith. Admittedly, there seems to be a general reticence in the New Testament with respect to describing Jesus as a ‘believer,’ but it is equally apparent that Hebrews breaks this silence, beginning with an emphatic declaration of the incarnate Son: ‘I will trust in him’ (2.13). The author does not present him as a ‘mere believer,’ but rather as the ideal believer whom God’s people must consider and imitate (3.1; 12.3). The one who resolved to trust and obey God to the end is the same one who, by means of his perfect faith, endured a cross on behalf of God’s people (12.2; cf. 2.9). In other words, the title that is given to Jesus in 12.2 presupposes the prior illustrations of his commitment to God; in fact, the former references prepare the 11

The theological rationale and justification for ascribing faith to Jesus is presented by Allen (2009), who rightly discusses how Thomas Aquinas, with his emphasis on the ‘beatific vision,’ has been influential in terms of rejecting the idea that Jesus exercised ‘faith,’ i.e., the theological virtue that is contrary to ‘sight,’ as this conflicts with the belief that Jesus, who is the eternal Son, always apprehended the divine essence during his earthly ministry (cf. pp. 41–59). 12 For definitions/comments on the pist- word group, see G. Barth, EDNT 3.91–98; Louw and Nida, §§31.85–88; and LSJ, 1407–8. 13 Regarding linguistics and lexicography, see Cotterell and Turner 1989, 106–28 (esp. pp. 115–19), 145–54; and Silva 1994, 121–26, 159–69. Further, chapter three will discuss how the author uses various words in order to develop the concept of faith in general; for example, the nouns parrhsi,a (10.19, 35), plhrofori,a (10.22), and pi,stij (10.22, 38–39) prepare the reader for the definition of faith in 11.1, which also employs u`po,stasij (cf. 3.6, 14) and e;legcoj.

6

Chapter 1. Introduction

audience to interpret 12.2 as a definite affirmation of Jesus’ perfect faith, especially when considering that the contexts of the previous references emphasize Jesus’ suffering of death as the event in which he exemplified faith. Therefore, as his faith(fulness) is repeatedly advanced, it is off the mark to claim that ‘no NT author ever uses an unequivocal expression to indicate Jesus’ faith(fulness), such as h` pi,stij h` e;cei VIhsou/j or anything of the sort.’14 Of all the books in the NT, the epistle to the Hebrews alone advances and emphasizes Jesus’ faith(fulness) and the letter’s distinctive voice in this respect needs to be heard.15

2. Typology and Faith If it is true that the faith of Jesus Christ has been advanced in Hebrews, then this inevitably raises a question: what is the relation between Jesus’ perfect faith and the exemplars of faith in Hebrews 11? For most, this chapter is an ‘example list’ designed for an exhortative or paraenetic purpose; that is, the faith-examples seek to encourage and motivate God’s people to remain steadfast in the midst of their current sufferings. Since many of the faith-examples in Hebrews 11 are situated in the context of suffering, sacrifice, and death, most commentators will relate the specific stories of faith and endurance to the situation of the original audience. In other words, the prevailing opinion is that ecclesiology is the author’s exclusive or overriding concern in recounting these exemplars, with the discourse displaying the author’s use of deliberative rhetoric. While fully agreeing that this is one of its functions (cf. Heb. 6.11–12), is it possible that the recapitulation of faith serves, first and foremost, a christological purpose? As noted above, Jesus’ faith(fulness) has been disclosed before 14

Silva 2004, 231 n. 36. This comment flows out of Silva’s engagement with the pi,stij Cristou/ debate in Paul, but based on the evidence of Hebrews, it is puzzling that he would make this claim; and, one can only suppose this is a simple oversight as he seeks to correct those who interpret pi,stij Cristou/ as a subjective genitive. 15 While Hebrews emphasizes Jesus’ faith(fulness) more than the other books in the New Testament, there are still clear examples where his faith/trust is acknowledged. In Matt. 27.43, as Jesus hangs on the cross, the religious leaders mock him and say, ‘He trusts [pe,poiqen] in God, let [God] rescue him now if he desires him…’ (cf. Ps. 22.8); and Luke 23.46 records how Jesus, while on the cross, cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Father, into your hands I commit/entrust [parati,qemai] my spirit.’ Interestingly, both verses affirm the faith of Jesus within the context of his crucifixion, which is also what 1 Pet. 2.21–24 presents; that is, Jesus suffered and bore away our sins in his body on the tree while also leaving us an example to follow, seeing as he was entrusting (paredi,dou) himself to – or trusting in – the one who judges justly (2.23). Thus, even though Hebrews gives greater weight to this doctrine, it is consistent with other verses that advance Jesus’ faith, especially as he suffers on the cross.

2. Typology and Faith

7

and after Hebrews 11; specifically, it is disclosed in six passages before Hebrews 11, with the final, climactic illustration of his steadfast faith following immediately after this chapter in 12.1–3. In what is essentially the conclusion to this famous tribute to faith, the author does not simply include Jesus among the great ‘cloud of witnesses’ in order to underscore his endurance of a cross on ‘our’ behalf; he also identifies Jesus as being the pioneer and perfecter of faith, who endured a cross for the sake of the joy set before him. With such an emphasis placed on steadfast faith in 10.19–11.38, as well as the inclusion of Jesus among Israel’s commendable witnesses, it is natural to infer that the author is making a seamless transition from the prior examples to Jesus’ superior example of endurance and faith. The further implication from 12.1–3 is that the exemplars of Israel’s history were recapitulated in order to anticipate and amplify Jesus’ faith, which enabled him to look forward to the joy of enthronement and vindication and to endure the suffering and disgrace of crucifixion for the sake of God’s people. Since the discussion of faith is placed within a covenantal and redemptive-historical framework, one can appropriately say that the ‘demonstrations of old covenant faith were only incomplete anticipations of the kind of pistis that the “readers” have known already in their Christian lives and that finds perfection only in the Son, Jesus.’16 Regarding the figures of Hebrews 11 as those who imperfectly anticipate the faith of Christ does justice to the title ascribed to him in 12.2 and the typological character of Hebrews. To be sure, the epistle as a whole can be characterized as typological, thereby suggesting that the author considers all the persons and events within Hebrews 11 to be typological anticipations of Jesus’ perfect faith and finished work.17 However, in this regard, a definition of ‘typology’ is required: typology, i.e., typological interpretation, which is distinguished from allegory and biblical prophecy, involves identifying correspondences or analogies between a person, place, event, or institution in the past (type)

16

Hamm 1990, 279; similarly, Lincoln (2006, 102) says that ‘the writer sees that believers need not only exhortations to faithfulness… but also models to follow. Christ’s own faith or faithfulness is the supreme example (2.13, 17; 3.2, 6; 12.2) and this faith is, of course, viewed as also anticipated in the lives of the heroes and heroines of faith (11.4–40) and in those of the leaders the addressees have known (13.7).’ 17 In agreement, Hays (2009, 163) contends that ‘the exegetical strategy of Heb. 11 is typological; we are meant to read Israel’s whole story in a figural way as pointing forward to the reality embodied in Jesus… It is all a vast figurative narrative whose true meaning is finally disclosed in Jesus.’

8

Chapter 1. Introduction

and another in the present (antitype).18 With respect to the New Testament, typological interpretation ‘relates the past to the present in terms of a historical correspondence and escalation in which the divinely ordered prefigurement finds a complement in the subsequent and greater event.’19 Christologically speaking, what came before in the Old Testament is seen as analogous to and fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection/exaltation of Jesus. This fulfillment is situated in a covenantal and eschatological framework, so that Jesus does not merely repeat a historical precedent, but rather climactically recapitulates what took place in God’s prior dealings with his people. Thus, comparison/contrast, superiority, and finality (in a redemptive-historical context) are intrinsic to New Testament typology; and the author of Hebrews often uses this interpretive method in order to advance the supremacy of the Son and the finality of the new covenant inaugurated by him.20 Tu,poj (8.5) and avnti,tupoj (9.24) occur once in Hebrews (and in an inverse relationship to that described above); and the terms are used to show that Israel’s former tent and means of worship were copies and shadows of the true, permanent realities in heaven (cf. Exod. 25.40). The language and imagery, however, form part of a much larger argument, which sets out to prove that the inherently provisional and anticipatory aspects of Israel’s priesthood and sacrificial system were now fulfilled or perfected in the person and work of Christ (cf. 7.1–10.18).21 Through his sacrifice and victory, Jesus truly and finally expiated the sins of God’s people and has obtained a more excellent ministry that resides in the true, eternal sanctuary of heaven (8.6; 9.24). The divinely orchestrated types associated with the former covenant have reached their intended goal and fulfillment in the antitype, namely Jesus the Son. But, the typologies in Hebrews are not restricted to the use of tu,poj and avnti,tupoj. In a variety of ways, the author makes numerous comparisons in general as well as specific comparisons between Jesus and respected figures for the purpose of advancing

18 Note that typology did not originate with the NT writers, but was already present in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 11.15–16; 43.16–19; 48.20–21; 52.11–12; Jer. 31.30–33). Fishbane 1985, 350–79; Foulkes 1994, 342–71. 19 Ellis 1991, 106 (cf. pp. 105–9, 141–57). 20 For discussions on typology in the New Testament, see Lampe and Woollcombe 1957 (esp. pp. 28–29, 34–35, 39–40, 60–64); Sowers 1965, 89–97; Goppelt 1982, 7–14; France 1982, 38–80; and Salevao 2002, 346–57; cf. remarks in Thiselton 2009, 109–14; Hurtado 2003, 570–72; and Bruce 1988, 59–63. With regard to typology in Hebrews, see Tasker 1946, 97–110; and Isaacs 1992, 68–78. 21 Hebrews does not speak of ‘fulfillment’ per se, but rather ‘prefers to show how the imperfect anticipated that which alone brings us to the goal, the perfect (cf. 1:1–4).’ Laansma 2008, 193.

2. Typology and Faith

9

Jesus’ superior status.22 For example, apart from the general comparison that is made between the former prophets and the Son in Heb. 1.1–2, the most explicit typologies involve Moses (3.1–6), Aaron (5.1–5), and Melchizedek (7.1–28). In fact, with regard to the king/priest Melchizedek, the author evidently thought, once the Son had appeared on the stage of history, that Psalm 110 even invited a typological interpretation, especially with the declaration of v. 4: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order [i.e., likeness] of Melchizedek.’23 At the same time, one can see implied comparisons or typologies involving Isaiah (2.13), Joshua (4.8), and king David (10.5–7), which will be discussed in greater detail in chapters two and four of this monograph. Therefore, when one considers that explicit references are made to Jesus’ faithfulness (before and after Hebrews 11) and that comparisons or typologies are incorporated throughout the discourse, it is reasonable to conclude that the examples from Israel’s history were regarded by the author as typological anticipations of Jesus’ faith. This also means the author expected the audience to discern, to some degree, the christological typologies in Hebrews 11. That is, the necessary inference from the total presentation of Hebrews, above all, the climax of 12.2–3, is that the past exemplars were recapitulated in order to resonate with and allude to the christology of Hebrews. To propose, however, that Hebrews 11 makes christological allusions and implied comparisons/contrasts is to go against the grain of biblical scholarship. While some scholars can be quite intentional in establishing typological connections between Jesus and Israel’s ancestors, many are reluctant to identify these typologies or are critical of those who do so, mainly due to the fact that Jesus is never explicitly mentioned in the chap-

22 Cf. Heb. 1.4; 6.9; 7.7, 19, 22; 8.6; 9.23; 10.34; 11.16, 35, 40; 12.24. In each case, the comparative adjective krei,ttwn is used, meaning ‘better’ or ‘superior.’ Hebrews 1.4 and 8.6 also use the comparative form of dia,foroj to speak of the Son’s more excellent name and ministry (cf. 7.26). Other comparisons are made with w`j (e.g., 3.2; 12.16), w[sper (4.10; 7.27; 9.25), kaqw,j (11.12), kaqa,per (4.2), kaqw,sper (5.4), ma/llon (9.14; 12.9, 25), mei,zwn and teleiote,roj (9.11), plei,wn (3.3; 11.4), and cei,rwn (10.29). See esp. C. F. Evans 1988; and Lehne 1990, 97–104. 23 This point is made by Laansma (2008, 193), who insightfully recognizes that the author of Hebrews is formulating this christological typology as a result of reflecting on the texts of Gen. 14.18–20 and Ps. 110.4 in relation to the Son of God. To add to this observation, it would seem the author is doing something similar with his integration of Ps. 95.11 and Gen. 2.2 (cf. Heb. 3.7–4.13). That is, these texts, especially Ps. 95.11 (‘They shall not enter my rest’), invite one to see that the land of Israel anticipated or prefigured God’s true Sabbath rest (cf. Heb. 4.8–10); and, of course, Jesus, who is the new Joshua, leads God’s people to this goal.

10

Chapter 1. Introduction

ter;24 but, if Hebrews 11 is rightly read as part of a larger theological and rhetorical discourse that is concerned with ecclesiology and christology, then it is unnecessary for Jesus to be mentioned in order to conclude that the intent was to present the ancestors of Israel’s history as typological anticipations of Christ.25

3. Rhetoric and Faith Now, as chapter three of this monograph will argue, the author further enabled his audience to see the christological typologies in Hebrews 11 in two ways. First, as noted, the immediate literary context reveals that the trajectory of the discourse reaches its rhetorical climax and conclusion in 12.1–3, which, consequently, forces the reader/hearer to ‘consider’ (12.3) Jesus’ perfect example in relation to those who exhibited faithfulness in the past. Second, the structure and content of 11.1–12.3 resemble the literary form of an encomium; and, the encomiastic character of the text reveals that the ultimate subject of the author’s praises is Jesus (12.2–3), the pioneer and perfecter of faith. As a result, the author is not simply praising Israel’s ancestors for a paraenetic/deliberative purpose; the encomiastic character of 11.1–12.3 shows that the ancestors serve as the ‘genealogy’ (ge,noj) of Jesus, and thus have a supplementary purpose, which is to am-

24 For example, see Lünemann, 413; Riggenbach, 365; Windisch, 104; Lenski, 428; Kuss, 175; Montefiore, 200, 204; Michel, 403; Braun, 372; Wilson, 209–12; Rissi 1987, 110; Attridge, 334–35; Lane, 363; Ellingworth, 571, 604, 613; Koester, 473, 482, 492, 504; and Eisenbaum 1997, 162, 168–69; 171. Barnabas Lindars (1991) goes even further by rejecting typological interpretation completely, claiming that historical typology is ‘not the method of Hebrews’ (p. 54; cf. p. 125). 25 Contra Eisenbaum (1997, 13, 187–88), who proposes that Hebrews 11 contributes to the author’s agenda of denationalizing Jewish Scripture and rendering the ethnic particularity of Jewish history as ‘inconsequential.’ One of the problems with this thesis is that the author repeatedly highlights those who were significant for the formation of Israel as a nation (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses; cf. Tönges 2005, 101) and even refers to king David in 4.7 and 11.32. Further, Abraham, who is the patriarch and forefather of Israel’s priests, is the indispensable, rather than inconsequential, point of reference for the author in terms of addressing an ethnic or genealogical concern of the original audience: although Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah (7.14) rather than Levi, he is still a legitimate, even superior, priest in the likeness of Melchizedek – the one who was ‘without father or mother or genealogy’ (7.3), yet also the one to whom Abraham himself paid tithes (7.4–10). As Bockmuehl (2009, 366, and n. 3) notes, Abraham paid tithes to ‘the ungenealogical type of Christ… This genealogical point is among a number of arguments that should give pause to any detachment of Abraham and the other heroes of Heb. 11 from the history of Israel.’

3. Rhetoric and Faith

11

plify, by comparison,26 the superlative example of what was called the ‘queen of virtues’ and ‘the most perfect of virtues, faith’ (th.n teleiota,thn avretw/n, pi,stin).27 In Hebrews, features of deliberative and epideictic rhetoric can be identified;28 yet the epideictic or encomiastic genre governs Heb. 11.1–12.3. For the first recipients of Hebrews, integrating these two forms of rhetoric in a single work would come as no surprise as this was a common practice among rhetoricians in antiquity and there was a considerable amount of overlap in these forms of oratory: Praise and deliberations are part of a common species… in that what one might propose in deliberation becomes encomia when the form of expression is changed… Thus, when you want to praise, see what would be the underlying proposition; and when you want to set out proposals in deliberation, see what you would praise.29

This type of integration and change in expression is exactly what we find in the epistle. Not only does the author repeatedly exhort his audience to persevere in steadfast faithfulness, but he also gives inspiring examples who exhibited this behavior in the past (cf. 6.11–15); indeed, an extensive section of praise is included and the shift from deliberation to encomia is signaled by changing ‘the form of expression’ in Heb. 11.2: ‘For by this [faith] the ancestors were commended [evmarturh,qhsan].’30 And yet, while the saints of old are rightly commended or praised for their virtue, they clearly lead up to the one who surpasses all who came before. In this regard, Israel’s ancestors function in the same way that praiseworthy figures function elsewhere in Hebrews (e.g., 3.1–6). The only difference, of course, is that the author apparently finds it unnecessary to insert the caveat w`j VIhsou/j, or a similar expression, throughout Hebrews 11 in order to establish and ensure the intended comparisons, as well as Jesus’ superiority. The unique epithet, ‘pioneer and perfecter of faith,’ conveys his unparalleled status and finally makes explicit what is implied in Hebrews 11: Jesus perfectly embodied and expressed the virtue of

26

See [Aristotle] Rhet. Alex. 35.1440b.30–1441a.5; and Isocrates, Evag. 12, 70–71; Big. 29. 27 Philo, Abr. 270; and Her. 91. Elsewhere, Philo (Virt. 216) calls pi,stij ‘the most sure and certain of the virtues’ (th.n tw/n avretw/n bebaiota,thn). 28 deSilva, 46–58; Koester, 81–82; Lincoln 2006, 14–16. 29 Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.35–36 (translation by G. A. Kennedy 2006, 85; italics added). In the work Rhetorica ad Herennium, it says ‘if epideictic is only seldom employed by itself independently, still in judicial and deliberative causes extensive sections are often devoted to praise or censure’ (3.8.15; cf. [Aristotle] Rhet. Alex. 5.1427b.31–34; and Quintilian, Inst. 3.4.14, 16; 3.7.28; 5.10.83). 30 Cf. this use of marture,w in Acts 6.3; 10.22; 16.2; 22.12.

12

Chapter 1. Introduction

pi,stij and climactically recapitulated (in his life, death, and resurrection) the faith of his ancestors.31 By creating, then, what is ultimately an encomium on Jesus Christ, the audience has been further enabled to compare Jesus’ superior example of faithfulness with the faithful deeds of his predecessors.32 The encomiastic character of Heb. 11.1–12.3 is altogether consistent with the typological character of the epistle, particularly the author’s method of comparing Jesus with famous figures in Israel’s history (e.g., Moses, Aaron, and Melchizedek) for the purpose of magnifying his superiority – a method known as synkrisis (su,gkrisij). Synkrisis compares representatives of a type in order to determine the superiority of one representative over another. It is a means of praising or blaming people by comparing them on topics of family, natural endowments, upbringing and education, achievements, and death. Through comparison, Hebrews shows that Christ is superior to angels, the levitical priesthood, and human worthies of salvation history. Synkrisis serves the Christology of Hebrews as the types of Christ are demoted or depreciated by comparison to Christ himself in order to portray him as the divine hero. 33

Moreover, the method of comparison or synkrisis, which characterizes epideictic literature in general, occurs not only before Hebrews 11, but also in the climax of 12.1–3, as demonstrated from the title that is attributed to Jesus in 12.2. That is, if he is held up as the perfect example of faith, then the ancestors are necessarily regarded as true, yet imperfect examples of faith in comparison to him.34 In short, the author creatively used the literary form of an encomium as a further means of presenting, within a redemptive-historical framework, the Old Testament examples as typological anticipations of Christ, resulting in a discourse that amplifies (by comparison) and praises the pioneer and perfecter of ‘faith’ (pi,stij). But, whereas the author makes explicit comparisons between Jesus and 31 Similar to Acts 7, which recounts (negative) events in Israel’s history and then reaches its climax with ‘the Righteous One,’ i.e., Jesus (v. 52), it is quite possible that most members of the original audience first realized, when arriving at Heb. 12.2–3, the significance of what came before in Hebrews 11. I am indebted to Dr. Paul Ellingworth for this insight. 32 In other words, the encomiastic form of Heb. 11.1–12.3 confirms that 12.2 refers to Jesus’ faith and specially enables the audience to perceive the comparative strategy of the author with respect to the virtue of faith. 33 D. F. Watson 1997, 184. 34 To regard the ancestors in Hebrews 11 as imperfect examples of faith or imperfect anticipations of Christ is not to suggest that they are inadequate representations of faith. The imperfect/perfect distinction requires that the Old Testament exemplars truly and adequately manifested the type of faithfulness that the audience was expected to imitate (cf. 10.35–11.2); but, compared with Jesus, their faith and endurance were a distant second in the race (12.1–3).

4. A Culturally Integrated Approach to Christology

13

notable figures elsewhere in the letter, the typologies in Hebrews 11 are implied, perhaps as there was not enough time to do otherwise (cf. 11.32).

4. A Culturally Integrated Approach to Christology The typological approach of Hebrews as well as the encomiastic character of Heb. 11.1–12.3 reveal that the author is drawing from two distinct cultural settings: the first is rooted in a Jewish-Christian, theological context and the second belongs primarily to the world of Greco-Roman rhetoric.35 In Hebrews, typology and rhetoric are integrated in order to advance the superiority of Jesus Christ and the perfection that he has introduced on behalf of God’s people. The commonality, of course, between NT typology and encomiastic rhetoric is the method of comparison. By comparison, the latter amplifies the superiority of an individual or group with respect to virtue and its consequent actions, and the former advances the superiority of the Son, who fulfills/completes the patterns and goals of redemptive history. The result of this integration is a highly sophisticated discourse that amplifies and praises the ‘pioneer and perfecter of faith,’ who is also the victorious Son at the right hand of the Father. These literary features complement one another as the author portrays Jesus as the long-awaited and faithful prophet, priest, and king of Israel, who has fulfilled what was anticipated in Israel’s history. In a masterful and creative way, the author simultaneously amplifies the faith of Christ and discloses that his perfect faith has brought about the good (or ‘better’) things that have come to God’s people, including redemption from the sins committed under the first covenant (9.15). The following chapters will defend these conclusions, namely that the author’s agenda is to magnify the person, work, and faith of Christ, and that typology and, especially, encomiastic rhetoric assist him in this task. The comparative strategy that characterizes both serves to impress upon the congregation that one far greater than the ‘fathers’ and ‘elders’ has come. With respect to Hebrews 11 in particular, the author reveals that the ancestors of faith have, ultimately, a christological goal. Though highly commendable (11.2, 39), they nevertheless anticipate and prefigure Jesus; and, as chapter four will show, from the entire discourse of Hebrews, one can relate the content of Hebrews 11 to the christological themes and teachings in the epistle, which are also climactically affirmed in 12.1–3. Since Hebrews 11 was never meant to be read or interpreted as a self35

The Wisdom of Ben Sira, or Sirach, resembles Hebrews in this respect, i.e., in its review of Israel’s history (Sir. 44–50), which also manifests encomiastic characteristics.

14

Chapter 1. Introduction

contained discourse,36 it is appropriate to conclude that these examples are presented as commendable witnesses, whose faithful actions have been fulfilled, i.e., climactically recapitulated, by the pioneer and perfecter of faith. As inspiring as the ancestors may be, they pale in comparison to the one who endured the agony and shame of the cross, so that many might enter eschatological glory (2.10). By faith, Jesus opened a new way into God’s presence; and, by faith, he brought Israel’s history to its anticipated climax.

36

In the preface to his commentary, Ellingworth (viii) even mentions that Hebrews 11 ‘has suffered from being read in isolation from the rest of the epistle,’ but it would be more accurate to say that the chapter has suffered from being read in isolation from the epistle’s christology; for while the relevance of the famous ancestors is often discussed in relation to the epistle’s ecclesiology – that is, the struggle and situation of the original audience – little effort has been made to read the entire chapter in light of what is said about Christ, not to mention the faith of Christ.

Chapter 2

Jesus and Faith Introduction Did Jesus have faith in God? The question is provocative and, at times, divisive; however, according to this epistle, the answer is unequivocal. Contrary to the opinion of some,1 Jesus is not only depicted as a believer, but also as the perfect example of faithfulness in word and deed. From Heb. 2.13, 17; 3.1–6; 4.15; 5.7–8; 10.5–7; and 12.2, it is evident that the author has portrayed his faithfulness in the context of his fellowship with God’s people and in relation to his apostolic and high-priestly ministries on earth, especially his sacrificial and atoning death. This is powerfully represented in 12.1–3, which is the climactic conclusion to the lengthy recapitulation of faith in Hebrews 11. After reviewing the faithful actions of Israel’s ancestors, the author says that Jesus endured a cross as the ‘pioneer and perfecter of faith’ (12.2), strongly implying that the virtue of ‘faith’ (pi,stij) was the means of his endurance and perfectly displayed while suffering the shame of crucifixion; and, Jesus’ perfect example of steadfast confidence and obedience is why the audience is exhorted to consider him most of all (12.3). The purpose of this chapter, then, is to support these conclusions by providing an exegesis of the texts advancing Jesus’ faith. This involves examining the use of pisto,j (2.17; 3.1–6) and pi,stij (12.2) as well as the passages disclosing the concepts of trust and obedience (2.13; 4.15; 5.7–8; 10.5–7). By giving a systematic examination of these texts, including the author’s use of the Old Testament, it will be established that Jesus’ own faith is not just advanced; it is, arguably, the most important doctrine in the epistle. Indeed, his superlative example of faith(fulness) is both the model to consider and imitate (3.1; 12.3) and the means by which salvation for God’s people has been accomplished. Only after this is addressed will the justification for reading Hebrews 11 through a christological lens become more apparent.

1

E.g., Spicq, 2.386; Ellingworth, 182; Vanhoye, 91–92.

16

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13 Hebrews 2.13 is the first testimony to Jesus’ faith. Even though the words pi,stij and pisteu,w are absent in this verse, the perfect active participle of pei,qw conveys the same attitude of confidence. Quoting from Isa. 8.17,2 the author writes, ‘I will trust in him’ (evgw. e;somai pepoiqw.j evpV auvtw/|).3 From the beginning of Heb. 2.12 (le,gwn), however, one notices that the author did not simply say that Jesus believed or placed his trust in God; rather, he has portrayed Jesus as speaking what was originally spoken by the prophet Isaiah, resulting in a unique declaration of Jesus’ faith.4 It is, of course, impossible to know if Jesus actually voiced these particular words of Isaiah during his earthly ministry, but it is also incidental to the author’s overriding purpose, which is to show that Jesus trusted in God while sharing in the fellowship of God’s people. In other words, Jesus was not exempt from living by faith. According to Heb. 2.13, Jesus entrusted himself to God (on earth) and his example is meant to encourage those struggling to persevere in faith. Though the main idea of Heb. 2.13 is straightforward, an examination of the discourse will confirm that this statement refers to Jesus’ state of humiliation; in fact, further analysis will reveal that all three declarations in Heb. 2.12–13 are presented as speech acts of the earthly Jesus, and thus they should not be regarded as statements of praise and assurance by the exalted Son. It will also be argued that the placement of the prophet 2

The quotation could come from 2 Sam. 22.3; Isa. 8.17; or Isa. 12.2. The texts are identical and all communicate the speaker’s trust in God during trials. Isaiah 8.17 is preferred due to the following quotation of Isa. 8.18 and use of kai. pa,lin, which also unites the two citations of Deut. 32.35–36 in Heb. 10.30. McCullough 2005, 160–61; Docherty 2009, 165. 3 The LXX (pepoiqw.j e;somai evpV auvtw/|) deviates slightly from the MT (Al-ytiyWEqiw>) and Heb. 2.13 (evgw. e;somai pepoiqw.j evpV auvtw/|). In the MT, hw"q' means ‘wait for’ or ‘hope’ (BDB, 875) and presupposes one’s faith/trust, which explains the use of pepoiqw,j in the LXX (cf. LSJ, 1354; and 2 Kgs. 18.20; Prov. 16.20; Luke 18.9; 2 Cor. 1.9; 2.3). The insertion of the pronoun evgw, and syntax of Heb. 2.13 may reflect the author’s style or a previous Vorlage, but the essential meaning is unaffected. Regarding the future-perfect, periphrastic construction in Heb. 2.13, see McKay 1994, 51–52. 4 Spicq (2.42) says that ‘ces sentiments [i.e., confidence] sont attribués par Hébr. au Christ en personne… Celui-ci proclamant sa confiance confesse par là même son indigence, et accuse ainsi sa fraternité avec les hommes « vu donc qu’il dépend de l’aide de Dieu, il a une condition commune avec nous » (Calvin). Par suite, ce n’est pas au Fils de Dieu qu’il faut penser, mais à l’homme et à l’homme éprouvé.’ Spicq’s distinction between the ‘tested man’ and the ‘Son of God’ is meant to clarify that Christ’s fiducia (‘trust’) was associated with his humanity, not his deity (cf. Aquinas, 66, §134); but, he never reconciles this comment with his later assertion that ‘jamais l’Écriture ne parle du Christ comme d’un croyant’ (2.386). See the critiques by Söding 1991, 229–30; and Grässer 1965a, 60 n. 280.

1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13

17

Isaiah’s words in Jesus’ mouth was done in order to create a christological typology, i.e., to portray Jesus as fulfilling or climactically recapitulating Isaiah’s example of faith by trusting in God to the point of suffering death on behalf of all. 1.1 The Spatiotemporal Perspective of Heb. 2.12–13 In the discourse unit of Heb. 2.5–18,5 there is a shift in focus. Having emphasized the present reign and dominion of the exalted Son in 1.3b–13, the author transitions to elaborating on the humiliated and incarnate Son. In making the transition, the author quotes Ps. 8.5–7 (cf. Heb. 2.6–8). Psalm 8, in its original Old Testament context, describes humanity in general as being the crowning achievement and glory of God’s creation; however, in Heb. 2.6–8, it is used to establish that all things, including the world to come (2.5), were subjected to the Son, i.e., the ‘son of man,’ who was crowned with glory and honor (vv. 7b–8a). But the exalted status of the Son is minimized in the remaining discourse (vv. 9–18) in order to exploit a different part of Psalm 8, which claims he was made lower than the angels ‘for a little while’ (bracu, ti, v. 7a).6 According to the author, we do not yet see ‘all things’ having been subjected to the Son of man (v. 8b), but we do see Jesus, who for a time became lower than the angels in order to taste death on behalf of all; indeed, he has been crowned with glory and honor because he first tasted the bitterness and suffering of death (v. 9). This point is essentially reiterated in v. 10: in leading many ‘sons’ to glory, it was fitting to perfect first the pioneer of their salvation through many sufferings. The author then explains why it was fitting to do so: for (ga,r) the one who sanctifies, namely Jesus (cf. 1.3; 10.10), and those who are sanctified are all evx e`no,j (from one), and thus he is not ashamed to call them brothers. Though the phrase

5

Cf. Westfall 2005, 100–110; Übelacker 1989, 163–67. On the use of Psalm 8 in Heb. 2.6–8, see especially G. H. Guthrie 2007, 944–48; Gheorghita 2003, 44–46, 103–7; Leschert 1994, 79–121; and Kistemaker 1961, 29–31, 81–83, 102–8. Regarding the language of Psalm 8, Hooker (2009, 199) makes an astute observation: ‘The author’s interpretation of “man” and “son of man” in Ps. 8 is remarkable, although many modern translators do their best to ensure that readers of the English versions miss its significance by using politically correct terms such as “human beings” and “mortals”! To be sure, “son of man” is not used here as a title. Nevertheless, the role of the son of man is said to have been fulfilled by Jesus, who acts as mankind’s representative. As such, the meaning of the term is close to what some have suggested is the way in which Jesus himself used the term’ (cf. Mark 10.45; 14.62). 6

18

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

evx e`no,j is rather ambiguous and interpreted in several different ways,7 the context suggests that it refers to Abraham for the purpose of reinforcing the truth of Jesus’ human nature and Jewish identity/ethnicity. Not only does Heb. 11.12 use a similar phrase to describe the blessing of Abraham (avfV e`no,j; cf. 6.13–15),8 but 2.14–17 also says that the Son’s incarnation was necessary in order to deliver and take hold of the seed or descendants of Abraham (spe,rmatoj VAbraa,m, v. 16). In fact, the Son had to become like his brothers, that is, Abraham’s descendants, in every respect, so that he might become a faithful ‘high priest’ for the ‘people’ (v. 17) – these final designations corresponding to the ‘sanctifier’ and ‘sanctified’ (v. 11; cf. 5.1–3; 7.27; 9.7; 13.12): 2.11

o[ te ga.r a`gia,zwn kai. oi` a`giazo,menoi evx e`no.j pa,ntej\ diV h]n aivti,an ouvk evpaiscu,netai avdelfou.j auvtou.j kalei/n.

2.16–17

ouv ga.r dh,pou avgge,lwn evpilamba,netai avlla. spe,rmatoj VAbraa.m evpilamba,netai. o[qen w;feilen kata. pa,nta toi/j avdelfoi/j o`moiwqh/nai, i[na evleh,mwn ge,nhtai kai. pisto.j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo.n eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/.

Hebrews 7.5 also says that ‘those from the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood [i`eratei,an] have a commandment according to the law to receive tithes from the people [lao,n], that is, from their brothers [avdelfou,j], though they [also] have descended from [evxelhluqo,taj evk] Abraham.’ While the priesthood is confined to the sons of Levi, the whole assembly is regarded as ‘brothers,’ who constitute one people (cf. 8.8–10) from one father – Abraham (o` patria,rchj, 7.4). Similar to 7.4–5, the use of priestly language, avdelfo,j, and lao,j in 2.11–17 seems to converge on Abraham as the author establishes Jesus’ real and complete participation within the Jewish community he came to save (cf. Matt. 15.24).9 Ethnic particularity is not excluded from this epistle; and, the author even considers Jesus’ descent from the tribe of Judah (evx VIou,da, 7.14) to be a self-evident truth. Therefore, his human descent from Abraham (evx e`no,j), ‘the patriarch,’ 7 It is possible to see evx e`no,j as referring to God, Adam (cf. Acts 17.26; Rom. 5.16), Abraham, or a common ancestry. The issue is complicated by the grammar of e`no,j (masculine or neuter adjective), which again could imply God (masc.), Adam (masc.), Abraham (masc.), or a neuter noun (e.g., ge,noj). See discussions by Rissi 1987, 59–61; Weiß, 212–14; and Ellingworth, 164–65. 8 Cf. LXX Isa. 51.2: ‘Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave you birth; for he was one [ei-j h=n], and I called him and blessed him and loved him and multiplied him.’ 9 Whether these ‘brothers’ and ‘children’ (2.12–13) are genuine believers or merely professing believers is not addressed here (cf. 3.12; 10.29); but, what is addressed is that Jesus truly and fully identified with God’s covenant community and embodied the proper disposition towards God that they too must embrace, namely faith.

1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13

19

explains why Jesus is not ashamed to call the people ‘brothers’ (2.11)10 and assists one in determining the spatiotemporal perspective of 2.12–13, which are unified statements about the person and work of Christ on earth. The conjunction ou=n in 2.14 strengthens this conclusion, as it signals that an inference is being made from the prior discourse: since therefore (ou=n) the ‘children,’ referring back to 2.13b, shared in ‘blood and flesh’ (ai[matoj kai. sarko,j), Jesus likewise (paraplhsi,wj) shared in these things, so that through death he could destroy the one holding the power of death, the devil (v. 14), and free those who were enslaved to their fear of death (v. 15). The necessary implication from this deductive statement is that Jesus’ solidarity in vv. 12–13 is envisioned as having taken place in the same context, namely his earthly ministry and mission, which are the primary concerns of vv. 9–11 and vv. 14–18. Still, the complexities of the discourse have led some scholars to interpret the declarations of 2.12–13, partly or entirely, in the context of Jesus’ exaltation.11 With respect to 2.13a, it is misguided to place this statement of trust in heaven given the antithesis of faith and sight (11.1) and synthesis of faith and endurance (3.14; 6.11–12; 10.35–36). And, as argued, the phrase evx e`no,j (2.11) likely refers to Jesus’ descent through Abraham and prepares for his stated intentions or goals (vv. 12–13); thus, vv. 11–13 cohere well with vv. 9, 14, and 17, which say the Son became incarnate ‘so that’ (o[pwj, v. 9; i[na, vv. 14, 17) he might save humanity. Contrary to 10

Many will contend, often by appealing to the theology of Paul (cf. Rom. 4.16–17; Gal. 3.28–29), that evx e`no,j, spe,rmatoj VAbraa,m, and kindred terminology are unrestricted by ethnic or human categories (e.g., see Dunnill 1992, 210–13; Attridge, 91, 94; and Swetnam 1981, 132–34); consequently, a more inclusive and ‘spiritual’ meaning is proposed. Aside from the error of imposing Paul’s doctrinal concerns on the text of Hebrews, nothing precludes a Jewish perspective regarding human origin (cf. Rom. 1.3; John 8.31–39; Acts 13.16–17, 26; 2 Cor. 11.22), nor does kindred terminology demand genuine faith (cf. Heb. 3.8–9, 12; 8.8–9; Acts 7.1, 51–53). Paul even made this point in Rom. 9.3–7: ‘For I was wishing myself to be accursed from Christ on behalf of my brothers [avdelfw/n], my kinsmen [suggenw/n] according to the flesh [kata. sa,rka], who are Israelites, of whom is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the worship and the promises, of whom are the fathers [pate,rej] and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh [evx w-n o` Cristo,j to. kata. sa,rka]… But… not all who are from Israel are Israel, nor since they are the seed of Abraham [spe,rma VAbraa,m ] are they all children…’ Further, if ‘Hebrews’ was written to a Jewish-Christian audience (see Morrison 2008, 1–22; Lincoln 2006, 36–38; and Salevao 2002, 109–18), then acknowledging Jesus’ descent from Judah (7.14) and Abraham (2.11; cf. Matt. 1.1) is appropriate and functions to illustrate Jesus’ physical solidarity among fellow Jews and his role in fulfilling the promises to their forefathers (cf. Bengel, 4.362, 367; Gal. 3.16; Rom. 9.7–10, esp. v. 10 [evx e`no,j = Isaac]). 11 E.g., Michel, 154; Bruce, 82–83; Vanhoye, 22–23; Eisenbaum 1997, 113 n. 75; Koester, 237–39; Gäbel 2006, 155–57; Cockerill, 142–46.

20

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

those who situate vv. 12–13 in heaven, the intentions (I will) have been integrated with the purposes (so that) of vv. 9–17 and all are goals of the incarnate Son (cf. 10.5–7).12 Therefore, vv. 12–13 are more aptly interpreted as Jesus’ witness to (v. 12) and trust in God among the ‘children’ entrusted to him during his earthly ministry (v. 13).13 While Jesus is also presented as being crowned and perfected after his sufferings (vv. 9–10), the discourse as a whole (vv. 5–18) concentrates on his earthly solidarity rather than his heavenly status.14 1.2 The Climactic Recapitulation of Isaiah’s Example Is the declaration of Heb. 2.13, however, communicating more than the mere fact that Jesus trusted in the Lord? As discussed, the Old Testament texts in Heb. 2.12–13 (Isa. 8.17; Ps. 22.23; Isa. 8.18) are presented as having been spoken by Jesus (cf. 10.5–7). This is intriguing, especially since the gospel narratives record a similar phenomenon.15 For example, according to Matthew 13, after Jesus spoke to a crowd in parables, his disciples asked him why he used this method of teaching (v. 10). In response to their question, Jesus quoted the commission God gave to the prophet Isaiah (v. 13): ‘For this reason I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they under-

12 Contra Hübner 1995, 3.29; März, 29–30; and Braun (61), who says that ‘[d]er präexistente Jesus spricht zu einem Zeitpunkt, der hier, anders als 10, 5, nicht präzisiert ist, die Worte von LXX Ps 21, 23.’ Though the Son’s preexistence can be inferred from the discourse of Hebrews, it is unwarranted to conclude that the Son is here speaking in the context of preexistence. The emphasis of both Heb. 2.5–18 and 10.5–14 is on the Son’s incarnation, and thus 2.12–13 conveys his intentions after coming into this world (cf. 9.26; and h[kw, ‘I have come,’ in Heb. 10.7). Further, it is equally misguided to interpret Heb. 2.12 (Ps. 22.23) as a heavenly declaration of the exalted Son; for even in the context of Psalm 22, v. 23 communicates the psalmist’s confidence in God and anticipation of God’s future deliverance (cf. Goldingay 2006, 323; Terrien 2003, 233; and Craigie 1983, 198, 200–201). Structurally, the psalm consists of two parts, lament (vv. 2–22) and praise (vv. 23–32); and the transition in 22.22b, ‘you have answered me’ (ynIt'ynI[ ), has led some to conclude that Heb. 2.12 refers to Jesus’ heavenly exaltation since, like the psalmist’s supposed deliverance in 22.22b–32, he was delivered in his resurrection. But, the composition of Ps. 22.22 shows that ‘the imperative [ ynI[eyviAh] is paralleled by a precative [ynIt'ynI[ ]’ (Goldingay 2006, 335); thus, the psalmist is both requesting and anticipating deliverance in the second half of the psalm. 13 Hebrews 2.13b (ivdou. evgw. kai. ta. paidi,a a[ moi e;dwken o` qeo,j) resembles John’s gospel (6.37, 39; 10.28–29; 17.2, 6, 9, 24) with respect to those who were entrusted to Jesus on earth (cf. Hickling 1983, 113). 14 See also Kögel 1904, 62–72; Grogan 1969, 55, 66–68; Nissilä 1979, 20–42; and Loader 1981, 122–41. 15 Cf. Matt. 13.13–15; Mark 4.11–12; Luke 8.9–10; John 12.37–41.

]

]

1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13

21

stand.’16 He then added to this by fully quoting Isa. 6.9–10 (vv. 14–15), with his preface stating that the recipients of his parables, by their spiritual lethargy and hardness of heart, fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy. Two points need to be made about this discourse. First, the response to Jesus’ teaching was a continuation and culmination of Israel’s previous dealings with God;17 thus, it is reasonable to claim, as Jesus did, that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled since Israel was repeating a negative pattern while rejecting God’s final messenger and revelation. Second, Jesus self-consciously adopted the role of a prophet, and yet in a manner that both reenacted and surpassed Isaiah’s prophetic witness. In other words, Isaiah was ‘one whose ministry, and its results, were being climactically recapitulated in his own work.’18 By taking up Isaiah’s charge, and assuming the uniqueness of his person, work, and ministry, Jesus was communicating to his disciples that there were similarities between himself and Isaiah, but, at the same time, that someone greater than Isaiah had now arrived.19 This testimony suggests that the same point is advanced in Heb. 2.13 with respect to faith. Rather than quoting Isa. 6.9–10 or 8.14 like other New Testament writers,20 the author turned his attention to another text and purpose. In many ways, the author is ingenious in his use of the Old Testament, and the quotation of Isa. 8.17 is an example of his creativity; however, his use of Isa. 8.17 may be grounded in the gospel traditions, which show Jesus applying Isaiah’s words to himself. It is more than possible that the author was extending this phenomenon by portraying Jesus as the speaker of Isa. 8.17, and therefore as one who climactically recapitulated Isaiah’s resolve to trust in God.21 Of course, it is equally possible that Jesus is presented in this way on the basis of eyewitness testimony (cf. Heb. 2.3), but this is impossible to verify. What can be verified is that the 16

Cf. Deut. 29.4; Isa. 42.18–20; Jer. 5.21; Ezek. 12.2. Childs 2001, 59. 18 N. T. Wright 1996, 237 (italics added). 19 In Matthew, Jesus prepared the disciples to make this comparison by previously comparing himself with the prophet Jonah (12.40–41), including the preaching of Jonah, and Solomon (12.42). While making the analogies, Jesus says, ‘behold, [something] greater than Jonah/Solomon is here’ (cf. Matt. 12.6: le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti tou/ i`erou/ mei/zo,n evstin w-de). For comments on the typologies in these verses, see France 1982, 43–46, 49, 68; and Longenecker 1999, 57–58, 138. 20 Isaiah 8.14 is found in Rom. 9.33 and 1 Pet. 2.8. Both contexts are concerned with the unbelief of the people, similar to Hebrews, but they are meant to elicit faith in Christ. Hebrews 2.13, however, quotes Isa. 8.17 to underscore Jesus’ trust in God, with the hope that the community will follow his example. 21 See also Delitzsch, 1.128–30; Davidson, 67–68; Kögel 1904, 68–69; Spicq, 2.42; Kuss, 43–44; Bruce, 82–83; and Lane, 60. 17

22

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

use of Isa. 8.17 coincides with a first-century practice introduced by Jesus himself; and this may clarify why he is the speaker22 and what the author fully intended to convey. Indeed, the original audience would likely have remembered Isaiah’s significance in Israel’s history, especially in relation to faith.23 Isaiah’s narrative shows that the prophet stands among the faithful remnant (e.g., 8.2) of an unfaithful nation (e.g., 8.11).24 Because Israel abandoned the Lord (1.4), God commanded Isaiah not to walk in the way of the people, but rather to trust in the Lord (8.11–14a).25 The result is Isaiah’s steadfast declaration (v. 17): 8.14

kai. eva.n evpV auvtw/| pepoiqw.j h=|j, e;stai soi eivj a`gi,asma, kai. ouvc w`j li,qou prosko,mmati sunanth,sesqe auvtw/| ouvde. w`j pe,traj ptw,mati…

8.17

kai. evrei/ Menw/ to.n qeo.n to.n avpostre,yanta to. pro,swpon auvtou/ avpo. tou/ oi;kou Iakwb kai. pepoiqw.j e;somai evpV auvtw /|.

Isaiah’s faith represents how the nation should relate to God and the nation’s disobedience amplifies the prophet’s righteousness. While Isaiah is part of a small remnant of believers, he is still the primary exemplar, 22

Isaiah, however, may offer another suggestion. Isaiah’s confession (8.17), which resides in a messianic context (cf. 7.14; 9.6–7; 11.1–10), is preceded by the divine mandate to fear and trust God (8.12–14). Specifically, Isaiah is commanded not to fear (fobe,omai) the fear (fo,boj) of the people, namely the imminent terror that was soon to come upon them (8.5–10), but rather to consecrate the Lord, so that he will be his fear (fo,boj). Here, fobe,omai and fo,boj convey terror (v. 12) as well as reverence (v. 13), with the latter preparing for the remarks related to trust (pepoiqw,j, vv. 14a, 17). That is, the Lord will be Isaiah’s fear as long as Isaiah’s faith is in the Lord. The fear-faith relationship occurs again in Isa. 50.10: ‘Who among you fears [o` fobou,menoj] the Lord? Let him obey [avkousa,tw] the voice of his servant… trust [pepoi,qate] in the name of the Lord and lean upon God.’ The connection is significant because, according to Isaiah, the Spirit of God will rest on the Messiah, which means, in part, that the Spirit of piety (euvse,beia, 11.2; cf. 33.6; and LSJ, 731) will fill him with the Spirit of the fear of God (fo,boj qeou/, 11.3). While the MT employs ha'r>yI (‘fear’) in both verses, the LXX has provided a gloss in v. 2 that explains what kind of fear will characterize the future Messiah (cf. 50.4–7). If fear (fo,boj) equals reverence/piety (8.13; 11.3; cf. fobe,omai, 29.23; 59.19; 63.17) and fear entails faith (8.13–14, 17; 50.10), then is Isa. 11.2–3 an indirect reference to the Messiah’s trust in God? Thus, the testimony in Isaiah possibly uncovers one motivation behind Heb. 2.13. 23 For a Jewish-Christian audience familiar with Scripture, the quotation of this verse almost certainly recalled the broader context (cf. Millard 2000, 157–58, 188). 24 Cf. Isa. 1.23, 25; 3.8; 10.20; 17.8; 20.5–6; 28.17; 30.3, 12, 15; 31.1; 32.3; 36.6, 9; 42.17; 59.4, 13; 65.2; 66.14. 25 The LXX differs from the MT: the first words, kai. eva.n evpV auvtw/| pepoiqw.j h=|j, as well as ouvc and ouvde were added. These changes were most likely made in order to harmonize Isa. 8.14 with Isa. 28.16, especially the final words, o` pisteu,wn evpV auvtw/| ouv mh. kataiscunqh/|.

1. Trust unto Death: Hebrews 2.13

23

whose steadfast faith echoes throughout the land as a witness to and against Israel (8.18).26 From Isa. 8.17, it is also apparent that Isaiah’s resolve presupposes a context of suffering, i.e., God’s rejection of Israel (2.6).27 Isaiah says, ‘I will wait for the Lord, who has turned away his face from the house of Jacob, and I will trust in him.’ Israel’s sins incurred judgment, and Isaiah’s solidarity with Israel means that he too had to suffer, to a certain degree, the consequences of Israel’s sins; but, while God rejected Israel and the people rejected Isaiah (cf. 6.9–10; 8.19–20), Isaiah entrusted himself to God and acknowledged the children who were given to him (8.18). From the narrative, then, it is clear that Isaiah trusted in God during a time of extreme hardship and suffering; and, it is reasonable to suppose that this context of suffering, including, most of all, God’s rejection or forsaking of the house of Jacob, would have been recalled by the original audience of Hebrews. In fact, it would be difficult not to remember the situational specificity of Isaiah’s resolve when the author previously quoted from Psalm 22 (Heb. 2.12), which opens with the famous cry of dereliction: ‘My God, my God, attend to me, why have you abandoned me?’ (v. 2).28 Further, as argued, the author emphasizes Jesus’ solidarity and suffering in the immediate context (cf. 2.9–10, 14, 18),29 enabling the audience to reflect on the implied context of Isa. 8.17 (and Ps. 22.23) as they compare Isaiah’s faith with Jesus. Because both are presented within the context of solidarity and suffering, the implication is that the author

26

The antithesis is more apparent in the MT than the LXX. Whereas 8.14 refers to Isaiah’s faith through the use of the 2nd sing. subjunctive h=|j, 8.17 begins with kai. evrei/ (‘and he will say’), which may indicate a subject other than the prophet (i.e., Messiah? McCullough 2005, 163). However, if the LXX, unlike the MT, advances a negative referent for ‘the ones who seal the law’ (8.16), then the inclusion of evrei/ (8.17) may simply be the translator’s attempt to highlight Isaiah as the representative speaker of a faithful remnant, which included his wife and their sons (cf. 7.3; 8.3). Not surprisingly, evrei/j (‘you will say’) was substituted for evrei/ in several manuscripts dating from the 10th–14th centuries (Ziegler, Septuaginta, 153 n. 17). 27 Cf. Isa. 1.15; 3.1; 5.25; 9.11, 16, 20; 10.4; 57.17; 59.2; 64.6. 28 This is endorsed by the gospels (cf. Matt. 27.35, 39, 43, 46; Mark 15.24, 29, 34; Luke 23.34–36; John 19.23–24, 28) and the psalm’s placement in Heb. 2.5–18, which repeatedly mentions Jesus’ suffering and death (cf. Strathmann, 87; Ellingworth, 167; contra Attridge, 90 n. 127; and Weiß, 216 n. 41). Also, the words of LXX Ps. 21.25b (ouvde. avpe,streyen to. pro,swpon auvtou/ avpV evmou/… ) reinforce the connection between the psalmist and the prophet (Bruce, 83). Note, however, that ouvde, in LXX Ps. 21.25b does not imply that the psalmist’s suffering is over; it discloses his confident expectation of God’s future deliverance (see n. 12 above). 29 Suffering, or death, is implied in Heb. 2.11 (o` a`gia,zwn; cf. 10.10; 13.12) and 2.17 (eivj to. i`la,skesqai; cf. 9.28; 10.12), which will be discussed in the next section.

24

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

expected his hearers to compare Isaiah and Jesus with both contexts in mind. But the extra-biblical material concerning the prophet would have come to mind as well, specifically the tradition that relayed how Isaiah died by being sawn in half.30 The author of Hebrews was quite aware of this tradition since he alludes to Isaiah’s gruesome death in Heb. 11.37 (evpri,sqhsan), a death endured by faith (11.33, 39), suggesting that some members of the audience were equally aware of it. Therefore, Isaiah’s example of faith/trust (to the point of death) is a typological anticipation of Jesus, who trusted in God to the point of suffering and tasting death on behalf of all (cf. 2.9).31 To sound more Pauline, Heb. 2.13 portrays Jesus as one who resolved to trust unto death, even death on a cross (cf. Phil. 2.8). In this way, Isaiah’s witness and sufferings were fulfilled in Jesus’ death; that is to say, the cross was the momentous event in which man’s persecution, God’s abandonment, and faith were climactically recapitulated. Indeed, Jesus not only suffered judgment and rejection in an unparalleled manner (cf. Isa. 53.3–12), but his suffering on the cross was also the context in which his trust in God was brought to perfect expression (cf. Heb. 12.2–3).32 Though unique in its presentation, Hebrews stands in agreement with the canon of Scripture, including the gospel of Matthew, which recalls what the enemies of Christ said during the crucifixion event: ‘He trusts [pe,poiqen] in God; let him rescue him now, if he desires him’ (Matt. 27.43; cf. Ps. 22.9).33 In summation, Heb. 2.13 depicts Jesus as one who placed his trust in God within the context of his humiliation on earth.34 Further, the author integrated and assumed material from Isaiah’s narrative (and Psalm 22) in 30

Liv. Pro. 1.1; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5.1–15. Again, Heb. 2.12–13 must be read in context, especially in relation to the other purpose statements concerning the suffering and death of Jesus (cf. 2.9–10, 14, 17). Regarding Heb. 2.14, Lane (61) observes, ‘The primary goal of the incarnation was the Son’s participation in death… Jesus’ death was the logical consequence of his determination to identify himself so completely with his brothers and sisters that there would be no aspect of human experience which he did not share. But in this instance death was not the consequence of rebellion. It was an expression of consecration to do the will of God (10.5–7)…’ 32 Cf. Moberly (2000, 57–61), whose insightful discussion of Luke 22–24 emphasizes Jesus’ enduring trust on a broader scale, but also as related to the crucifixion. 33 With respect to Heb. 2.13, Bengel (363–64) commented that ‘the most fragrant part of this atonement is the exceedingly pure confidence by which solely He was supported in His approach to the Father; Ps. xxii.10; Matt. xxvii.43… As He therefore by Himself confidently (by faith) trusted in the Father, so we confidently (by faith) put our trust in Christ, and through Christ in the Father.’ 34 Schlatter, 254; Hegermann, 76; Strobel, 36; Johnson, 99, 103–4. Further, Michel (154) concluded that Heb. 2.13 reveals Jesus was bound in faith/trust in God and 12.2 is a result of this thinking. 31

Excursus: The Lectio Difficilior of Heb. 2.9

25

order to show Jesus’ firm resolve to trust unto death on behalf of those entrusted to him. As the new representative of humanity (2.5–9), Jesus is presented as the exemplary, faithful witness, whom God’s people must consider and imitate (3.1; 12.2–3) with steadfast confidence (cf. 3.14). This fundamental perspective and disposition would have been absolutely critical for those who experienced suffering and alienation in the past (10.32–34) and were now facing the prospect of further persecution; for they needed encouragement to endure and their hardships may have created the fear that God had forsaken them as well (cf. 13.5–6). Therefore, Heb. 2.13 indirectly encourages the people to remain faithful (cf. 13.7), but the innovative use of Isa. 8.17 also implies that the author considers Isaiah’s example of faith as anticipating the one who endured death (and abandonment) on a cross in order to lead many children to eschatological glory (2.10).

Excursus: The Lectio Difficilior of Heb. 2.9 Though it is not critical to the above argument, there is a variant reading within 2.5–18 that is intriguing, yet often disregarded by commentators. The variant, of course, involves one word in the final clause of Heb. 2.9: o[pwj ca,riti qeou/ u`pe.r panto.j geu,shtai qana,touÅ Whether the verse originally included ca,riti qeou/ (‘by the grace of God’) or cwri.j qeou/ (‘without God’) is uncertain. Ca,riti qeou/ is usually favored because of the strong manuscript evidence;35 but, several manuscripts,36 including the Syriac Peshitta,37 and numerous church fathers,38 including Origen (ca.

35

P46 a A B C D K P Y 33. 81. 330. 614 it vg cop. Perhaps for some, P 46 (ca. AD 200) helps resolve the matter, but this papyrus codex, at times, manifests deliberate editorial changes. Hebrews 3.18; 4.6, 11; and 11.31 have been altered in P46 (and Old Latin texts) in order to agree with Heb. 3.12, 19; and 4.3. The replacement of apeiq- forms with apist- forms prompted Beare (1944, 386) to say that ‘it is surprising to find such an assimilation carried through with such consistency, with the thoroughness of a revising editor, as early as the second century.’ 36 0243 (0121b) 424 c 1739* vg sy p. Zuntz (1953, 42–45, 68–84) also argued that minuscule 1739 represents an early manuscript similar to P 46. 37 For an analysis of 31 manuscripts dating from the 5th–13th centuries, see Brock (1983, 239–44), who argues that the original Syriac Peshitta had ‘for he in his grace, God, tasted death on behalf of everyone’; but, he still admits the possibility that an original ‘without God’ was changed in fifth and seventh-century manuscripts due to an anti-Nestorian bias (p. 243). 38 E.g., Ambrose, Jerome, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret. See also Michel, 139–40; Brock 1983, 236–39 (esp. n. 4); and Elliott 2010, 226.

26

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

AD 185–254),

39

were aware of and even accepted the cwri.j qeou/ reading. Thus, cwri,j ‘had a wide circulation not only in Greek MSS associated with Syria but appeared also in Latin as the quotations in the western Fathers indicate.’40 But cwri,j is often judged as a flawed transcription or the result of a marginal note intending to explain that ‘everything’ (v. 8) or ‘everyone’ (v. 9) does not include God (cf. evkto,j, 1 Cor. 15.27).41 The first proposal, however, is strained by the morphological and phonetic differences between ca,riti and cwri,j, which render a scribal oversight improbable.42 Cwri,j may have begun as a marginal note that was later substituted for ca,riti to qualify one of the pa/j statements of vv. 8–9, but this explanation remains problematic. The placement of cwri,j weakens the idea that a qualification was made for v. 8; and for one to propose that v. 9 was intentionally manipulated as a reminder that God is exempt from the benefits of Christ’s death is less than compelling.43 A more plausible hypothesis is to regard cwri.j qeou/ as an early scribal attempt to exclude and/or correct what was known later as patripassianism.44 That is, at an early stage of transmission, a scribe may have decided to change ca,riti to cwri,j to show that, in contrast to the incarnate Son, God (the Father) did not experience suffering or ‘taste death.’ This doctrinal debate was taking place early enough to account for Origen’s awareness of the cwri.j qeou/ reading and it is a more sensible interpretation of the phrase than the later suggestion that cwri.j qeou/ conveyed the exclusion of the divine nature from the benefits of Christ’s death.45 This possibility, however, is still only a possibility; other factors must be taken into account.

39

Origen, Comm. Jo., I, §§255–56. This fact proves that Nestorians did not introduce cwri,j, but conflicts with Gnosticism, Marcion, and Nestorius (cf. Gos. Phil. 68.26–28) may have contributed to its removal during transmission. On these controversies, see Kelly 1978, 142, 310–17; and, for cwri.j qeou/ in Origen, see Greer 1973, 50–51; and Garnet 1989, 321–25. 40 Elliott 2010, 231. 41 Metzger 1994, 594; Lane, 43 n. g; Attridge, 77. 42 There are also no manuscripts with ca,rij qeou/, rather than ca,riti qeou/, to support the idea that cwri,j was incorrectly replaced for ca,rij. 43 Garnet 1989, 323. 44 Patripassianism was related to the trinitarian controversies of the early church, i.e., Modalism, Monarchianism, and Sabellianism (cf. Tertullian, Prax. 1.5, 30; 29–30; and Pelikan 1971, 104–5, 179–81). 45 Theodoret (146) said that ‘it was for all that he endured the saving passion: the divine nature alone had no need of the cure coming from it.’ But, if the ‘divine nature’ was the author’s intention, then surely ‘[t]here must at least have been written cwri.j th/j auvtou/ qeo,thtoj.’ Lünemann, 119. See also qeio,thj, Rom. 1.20; qeo,thj, Col. 2.9; and qei/oj fu,sij, 2 Pet. 1.4.

Excursus: The Lectio Difficilior of Heb. 2.9

27

Cwri,j is a word that appears frequently in Hebrews (13x).46 And, despite the oddness of the phrase cwri.j qeou/, it should be noted that the author is not opposed to creativity when advancing christological doctrines (e.g., cwri.j a`marti,aj, 4.15; 9.28). Further, cwri,j is always followed by an anarthrous noun in Hebrews, and thus cwri.j qeou/ conforms to this pattern,47 but ca,riti qeou/ does not reflect the normal use of the article with qeo,j and ku,rioj in the New Testament.48 While the latter point does not necessarily invalidate the ca,riti qeou/ reading, ca,rij, which is less frequent in Hebrews (7x),49 resurfaces in 12.15 (th/j ca,ritoj tou/ qeou/) to convey God’s grace, and yet the article before qeo,j calls into question the authenticity of ca,rij in 2.9. Another internal factor favoring the cwri.j qeou/ reading is that it coheres with the christology of Hebrews and immediate context of 2.5–18, if interpreted in a particular way; that is, this phrase may well have been the author’s way of evoking the Godforsakenness (Gottverlassenheit) or abandonment of Jesus on the cross.50 Seeing as this theme resides in the contexts of Ps. 22.23 and Isa. 8.17 (Heb. 2.12–13), it would be a natural inference to make, especially for the original hearers, who perhaps were already inclined to think that they too had been forsaken (cf. 13.5–6). Instead of conveying God’s exemption from Jesus’ redemptive act, the context implies that cwri.j qeou/ is expressing the personal-relational separation Jesus endured at Golgotha.51 If so, then cwri.j qeou/ is an expression 46

cwri,j, 4.15; 7.7, 20 (twice); 9.7, 18, 22, 28; 10.28; 11.6, 40; 12.8, 14; cf. cwri,zw, 7.26. In the rest of the New Testament, cwri,j is used 28x, revealing its prevalence in Hebrews. 47 In the LXX and New Testament, however, cwri,j is followed by an arthrous noun (e.g., Gen. 26.1; Lev. 9.17; 2 Cor. 12.3; Jas. 2.18, 20). 48 Elliott 2010, 227–28. The exceptions include Luke 2.40 (ca,rij qeou/); 1 Cor. 15.10 (ca,riti de. qeou/); 2 Cor. 1.12 (evn ca,riti qeou/); 1 Pet. 4.10 (ca,ritoj qeou/); and, questionably, Gal. 1.6 (evn ca,riti Îqeou/
). 49 ca,rij, 4.16 (twice); 10.29; 12.15, 28; 13.9, 25. 50 See also Zuntz 1953, 35, 44; Braun, 57; Rissi 1987, 77–78; Dunnill 1992, 224, 236; and Fuhrmann 2007, 68–71. 51 Interpreting cwri.j qeou/ as relational separation (cf. cwri,zw, Wis. 1.3; Rom. 8.39) seems reasonable given that it is used in this way in Heb. 11.40 (cwri.j h`mw/n; see also John 15.5); and Eph. 2.12 uses cwri.j Cristou/ to speak of the separation of Gentiles from the Messiah, including their alienation from Israel and disposition of being hopeless and ‘without God’ (a;qeoj) in the world. Elliott (2010, 228–30), however, interprets cwri,j more within spatial categories; that is, Jesus entered the realm of Satan and demonic powers after his death, and thus was separated from God. According to Elliott, Heb. 2.14 supports this view since Jesus shared death with humanity and ‘through his resurrection’ (p. 229) broke the devil’s power over death. But the problem is that dia. tou/ qana,tou (2.14) does not speak of resurrection, but rather the means by which humanity is saved (cf. 9.15, 26; 10.10).

28

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

of suffering that supplements and deepens the comment that Jesus tasted death on behalf of all.52 The phrase would also be a fitting prelude to the OT quotations above insofar as it conveys what the author presupposes in Heb. 2.12–13. Finally, if cwri.j qeou/ is interpreted as Jesus’ forsakenness or abandonment on the cross, then this would prepare for and coincide with other remarks on Christ’s passion (cf. 5.7–8; 12.2);53 in fact, it is quite consistent with a discourse that speaks of his ‘loud cries and tears,’ as well as his suffering and endurance of a cross. In closing, when all the evidence, external and internal, has been considered, it is very difficult to identify the original reading of Heb. 2.9. On the one hand, manuscript evidence and early controversies concerning patripassianism would appear to favor ca,riti qeou/; but on the other hand, cwri.j qeou/ was widely accepted by the early church fathers and coheres with the literary style of Hebrews, as well as the epistle’s christology, if interpreted as the forsakenness/abandonment of Jesus. Either reading is possible; therefore, interpreters must decide from the available evidence which reading seems more probable. While the present author leans in the direction of cwri.j qeou/, he does so with reservation; and, until further, decisive evidence can be introduced, it is perhaps wise for one not to assume that ca,riti qeou/ is the original reading, nor to dismiss prematurely the more difficult reading of cwri.j qeou/.54

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17 Whereas trust (or faith) was expressed in Heb. 2.13 by way of pepoiqw,j, the adjective pisto,j first emerges in 2.17 to advance Jesus’ faithfulness, saying ‘he had to become like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful [pisto,j] high priest with respect to the things of God, [namely] to expiate the sins of the people.’ Hebrews 2.17–18 ends the section of 2.5–18 and reiterates the topics of Jesus’ full humanity and suffering.55 But the academy is divided as to whether pisto,j

52 According to Harnack (1931, 242), the final clause is an epexegetical deepening (Vertiefung) of dia. to. pa,qhma tou/ qana,tou (2.9a) that accentuates the bitterness and purpose of Christ’s suffering. 53 For an insightful theological discussion on the soteriological benefits of Jesus’ ‘Godforsakenness,’ see Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.10–11. 54 One could also adopt the position of F. F. Bruce (1992, 28–29), who later concluded that neither reading was original to Heb. 2.9; instead, the first words were simply ‘in order that he should taste death for everyone.’ 55 The adverb o[qen (v. 17; cf. 3.1; 7.25; 8.3; 9.18; 11.19) first signals an inference from vv. 14–16, but it also appears to mark the conclusion of vv. 5–16.

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

29

relates to his earthly life or heavenly exaltation.56 That is, does Heb. 2.17 underscore Jesus’ exemplary action on behalf of God’s people, who are struggling to maintain their confidence, or does it advance his current mediatorial role as a heavenly high priest? The following discussion will argue that Heb. 2.17, being the first verse to mention Jesus as pisto,j and avrciereu,j, does not refer to his present, trustworthy character as an intercessory high priest, but rather to his past, faithful or obedient service to God, which entailed an expiatory sacrifice. The verse is concerned with Jesus becoming a high priest on earth for the purpose of removing the sins of God’s people. Instead of pisto,j having a passive connotation of ‘trustworthy,’ an active connotation of ‘faithful’ is meant, which complements and coheres with Heb. 2.13 and subsequent presentations of Jesus’ fidelity. In other words, the final purpose or action of atonement is essential for understanding the meaning of pisto,j, and to interpret pisto,j as a passive attribute of the heavenly high priest is to misunderstand the author’s intent. 2.1 Heaven or Earth? To begin, the question of when Jesus became a high priest is a matter of considerable debate,57 ‘whether even on earth, with his death on the cross… or only after the return to the Father.’58 Though one may propose that the epistle fails to give a precise answer,59 Ceslas Spicq believes that he accepted the office at the moment of his incarnation and consummated the office after his sacrifice.60 At the same time, Spicq and others have located the discussion of Jesus’ high priesthood in Heb. 2.17 within the heavenly sanctuary.61 Ian Wallis suggests, [W]hilst pisto,j could relate to Jesus’ earthly life, it is more likely that the author intended this epithet to describe his continuing high-priestly ministry. In Hebrews 2.17, the consequential relation between Jesus’ earthly life and his sacerdotal function is made 56

The adjective pisto,j conveys an active meaning (‘obedient’ and ‘trusting’; e.g., Prov. 20.6; 1 Macc. 7.8; Acts 16.1; John 20.27–29; 2 Cor. 6.15; Gal. 3.9; 1 Pet. 1.21; Rev. 2.10) or passive meaning (‘trustworthy’; e.g., 1 Cor. 7.25; 2 Tim. 2.2) depending on the context. 57 For discussions of this topic, see esp. Koester, 109–10; Peterson 1982, 191–95; Loader 1981, 203–5; Zimmermann 1977, 36–39; and Cody 1960, 92–103. 58 Lünemann, 133. 59 Peterson 1982, 193. 60 Spicq, 2.111. 61 E.g., Westcott, 56–58; Milligan 1899, 132; Spicq, 2.46–48; Schierse 1955, 109, 158; Vos 1956, 108–9; Vanhoye 1969a, 372–82; idem 1969b, 461–69; idem 1986, 73–84; idem 2002, 25, 67–81; Grässer 1979, 179; Guillet 1980, 38–46; Roloff 1990, 152, 165; Ellingworth, 182, 186, 192; Pfitzner, 68–69; Swetnam 1999, 15–19; Nelson 2003, 258; Gäbel 2006, 213–27; Fuhrmann 2007, 18–30.

30

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

clear: it is as a result of the former ‘that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God…’ VEleh,mwn and pisto,j, therefore, qualify avrciereu,j and are not specifically applied to Jesus’ earthly existence. 62

Wallis does grant that the earthly existence of Jesus was the necessary precondition for his ability to make a sacrificial offering for the sins of humanity and that death marked his inauguration as high priest;63 but due to the letter’s emphasis on the exaltation as the place of his current high priesthood (cf. 7.25–26; 8.1–2; 9.11–12), Wallis argues that the heavenly domain is the appropriate context in which to consider Jesus as pisto,j in 2.17. Thus, while Jesus’ solidarity, suffering, and death are developed in the immediate context, they are meant to highlight the prerequisites he needed for becoming a priestly mediator and heavenly intercessor for his people – i.e., for his ‘continuing representation of humanity (10.19–25)’ and ‘continuing sacerdotal ministry of intercession and provision of help in heaven (4.15–16; 7.25).’64 This argument, however, makes a number of assumptions and contains significant omissions of relevant data,65 which inevitably lead one to the conclusion that Jesus’ high-priestly activity in 2.17 conforms to the sacerdotal activities of intercession and heavenly help (4.15–16; 7.25). While true that Jesus is later depicted as a heavenly high priest, this does not mean that 2.17 communicates likewise; in fact, references to Jesus’ heavenly status and service have plagued the interpretation of 2.17 and paradigmatic function of pisto,j. For example, in the phrase ‘merciful and faithful high priest,’ there is a strong tendency to interpret the adjective evleh,mwn (‘merciful’) as Jesus’ internal disposition of sympathy, which resulted from his cumulative experiences of solidarity and suffering during the incarnation. David Peterson says that ‘the stress here is on his experience of suffering and temptation, which makes him perfectly sympathetic to the needs of his people’;66 and Ernst Käsemann is convinced that e;leoj ‘glides over into the meaning of sympathy which has firsthand knowledge of the brothers’ weakness and helps them.’67

62

Wallis 1995, 148. Ibid., 146. 64 Ibid., 147. 65 For example, excluding Heb. 2.13 and 10.5–7 when discussing the meaning of pisto,j in 2.17 contributes to a highly skewed understanding of how the epistle develops the high priesthood of Jesus. 66 Peterson 1982, 64. Similar comments have been made by Bruce, 87–89, 115–16; Horbury 1983, 61–66; Lane, 66; and Lincoln 2006, 62; but, none of these scholars have placed the second half of Heb. 2.17 in heaven, at least regarding the atonement. 67 Käsemann 1984, 234. 63

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

31

These remarks are based, in part, on the similarities between 2.17–18 and 4.15–16. The latter verses remind the people of their sympathetic (sumpaqe,w) high priest, who was tested in all things, yet remained sinless. The author exhorts them to approach the throne of grace, so that they might receive ‘mercy’ (e;leoj) and find grace in their time of need. Here the exalted status of Jesus and interaction between sumpaqe,w and e;leoj come into view. Because of his condescending mercy in 4.15–16, evleh,mwn (2.17) is then understood as embracing the same sympathy within the heavenly realm. In other words, for some, Jesus became merciful subsequent to his suffering and death,68 which enables him to help (bohqe,w) those who are tested (2.18) and resembles the mercy extended to those who need help (boh,qeia, 4.16).69 In addition to 4.15–16, similarities between 2.17 and 7.25 are observed: 2.17

o[qen w;feilen kata. pa,nta toi/j avdelfoi/j o`moiwqh/nai, i[na evleh,mwn ge,nhtai kai. pisto.j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo.n eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/.

7.25

o[qen kai. sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai tou.j prosercome,nouj diV auvtou/ tw/| qew/|, pa,ntote zw/n eivj to. evntugca,nein u`pe.r auvtw/n .

Both verses have a present infinitive and identical constructions for the stated purposes; moreover, the context of 7.24–28 places Jesus’ priestly intercession in heaven and supports the endless or permanent character of his intercessory role. Therefore, 7.25 becomes the corroborative means of interpreting the present infinitive i`la,skesqai in 2.17 as a continuous activity on behalf of God’s people; and, as a result, 2.17 is regarded as being concurrent with Jesus’ eternal, high-priestly intercession in heaven, where he continuously atones/expiates, forgives, or deals with the sins of the people.70

68

E.g., Spicq 2.48; and Vos 1956, 101–2. Vanhoye 1969a, 372–73, 378; Ellingworth, 268; Gäbel 2006, 214–18. 70 The position has been advanced by Westcott, 58, 191; Milligan 1899, 154–55; Spicq, 2.48; Vanhoye 1969b, 467–68; Pfitzner, 69; Gäbel 2006, 226; and Fuhrmann 2007, 27–28. Further, Grässer (1979, 179 n. 60) asserted that i`la,skesqai is a ‘praesens durativum’; Nissilä (1979, 38), who was following Vanhoye, said it is a ‘durative Handlung’; and Ellingworth (186; cf. pp. 188, 191–92) believes ‘he “became” high priest in order that he might continuously deal (i`la,skesqai present) with the people’s sins.’ Aside from the tense of i`la,skesqai, part of Ellingworth’s motivation for placing 2.17 in heaven derives from the use of the verb gi,nomai. Because gi,nomai is often employed to refer to Jesus’ exaltation (cf. 1.4; 5.5, 9; 6.20; 7.22, 26), he interprets gi,nomai in 2.17 as referring to the same event (pp. 182, 186; cf. Gäbel 2006, 215). However, gi,nomai has different uses (cf. 9.15, 22); and, in this context, gi,nomai does not point to Jesus’ exaltation, but rather ‘intimates what He should become through assuming our likeness.’ Delitzsch, 1.143. 69

32

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

Among commentators, Albert Vanhoye has been one of the strongest, most influential advocates of this exposition. He concedes that there is ‘une relation étroite entre la suppression du péché dont il est question ici (2, 17) et l’événement du Calvaire,’ yet maintains that this relationship is not necessarily identical.71 In his estimation, the activity in 2.17 does not confound itself with later references to Christ’s sacrifice since Hebrews always presents his sacrifice as a unique event by the use of the aorist tense, which excludes the implication of a continued or repeated action. Thus, the present infinitive i`la,skesqai suggests a difference in meaning; that is, ‘[i]l a certainement en vue une activité qui dure et non pas une intervention unique.’72 Vanhoye, consequently, argues that expiation is both distinguished from sacrifice and properly understood as an activity of the glorified Christ: L’expiation dont il parle se distingue donc du sacrifice. Et de fait, l’ensemble de la phrase fait comprendre qu’il s’agit d’une activité du Christ glorifié… L’expiation s’exerce ensuite, sans limite de temps. Elle ne s’accompagne évidemment pas de souffrance, puisque celui qui expie les péchés est le Christ glorieux. 73

Vanhoye’s thesis, which is laden with grammatical assumptions regarding Greek tenses, also misinterprets the intent of 2.17 and collective argument of Hebrews. Though it is possible to infer a heavenly orientation from the language of 2.17, further analysis will demonstrate that this conclusion is neither necessary nor probable. What is more, we will see that the epistle carefully distinguishes Jesus’ high priesthood on earth from his eternal service in heaven;74 and, while he recapitulates the actions of the Day of

71

Vanhoye 1969b, 467. Ibid., 468. 73 Vanhoye 1969b, 468: ‘The expiation of which [the author] speaks is distinguished therefore from sacrifice. And in fact, the entire sentence conveys/clarifies that it is an activity of the glorified Christ… Expiation is exercised then, with no time limit. It is accompanied evidently not with suffering, since the one who expiates sins is the glorious Christ.’ Further, Vanhoye’s attempt to place Heb. 2.17 in the context of glorification stems, in part, from the recognition that, unlike the title ‘prophet’ that was attributed to Jesus during his earthly ministry (cf. Matt. 21.11, 46; Luke 7.16; 24.19; John 6.14; 7.40), ‘priest’ is applied only subsequent to his exaltation (pp. 453–60). Though Vanhoye is correct in observing that Jesus was not formally or finally designated a priest (forever) until his heavenly exaltation (5.6, 10; 7.17, 21), the main issue is whether he functioned as a priest on earth, irrespective of having received the title or not. 74 Rissi 1987, 62. Alternatively, Loader (1981, 147, 187), while disagreeing with Vanhoye, sees a ‘tension’ in Heb. 2.17b. With respect to the last phrase, including i`la,skesqai, he says, ‘Der Vf versteht diese Wörter im Zusammenhang mit der Sühnetat Jesu auf Erden als Hoherpriester, aber die vorangehenden Worte in 2, 17 beziehen sich hauptsächlich auf das Fürbitte-Amt, in das Jesus erst nach der Erhöhung eingesetzt wurde’ (p. 201). 72

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

33

Atonement, insofar as the slaying of the victim was followed by the high priest’s entrance into the Most Holy Place (Lev. 16.11–15; Heb. 9.24–25), his actions are both distinct and analogous to those performed by former high priests, revealing the author’s concern to illustrate continuity and discontinuity in redemptive history. 2.2 Active Obedience and Atonement First of all, however, the issue of how to define i`la,skomai needs to be addressed.75 Both i`la,skomai and evxila,skomai are employed in the LXX, with evxila,skomai describing the removal of sins/impurities from Israel on the Day of Atonement76 and on a daily basis. For example, Lev. 10.17 teaches that the sin offering was given ‘so that you may remove [avfe,lhte] the sin of the congregation and make atonement [evxila,shsqe] for them before the Lord.’77 This sense of expiation is conducive to the message of Hebrews, as ‘Christ’s sacrifice is always directed at removing sin and its effects, not at propitiating God.’78 It is true that Jesus’ work results in the aversion of God’s wrath (cf. Heb. 10.26–31), but the consequence of his atonement should not be confused with its meaning. The concern with the purification and removal of sins (e.g., 1.3; 2.11; 9.26, 28; 10.4, 11) is clear, and to propose a secondary or additional meaning of propitiation79 for i`la,skomai in 2.17 is unnecessary.80 75

Cf. Hill 1967, 23–48; Grayston 1980–1981, 640–56; and N. Young 1983, 169–76. Lev. 16.6, 10–11, 16–18, 24, 27, 30, 32–34. 77 See also Deut. 21.8–9; and Isa. 27.9. 78 Attridge, 96 n. 192. There are exceptions (e.g., Lane, 66), but most interpret i`la,skesqai as ‘to expiate.’ Delitzsch, 1.145–50; Riggenbach, 59–61 n. 56; Spicq, 2.48; Michel, 168–69; Bruce, 78–79 n. 57; N. Young 1983, 171–72; Grayston 1990, 259; Lindars 1991, 41; Ellingworth, 189; Weiß, 224–25; Johnson, 102–3. In disagreement with the majority view, Fuhrmann (2007, 19–26) argues that while evxila,skomai conveys expiation in the LXX, i`la,skomai appears to have a different meaning, and thus the absence of the prefix evx proves that i`la,skesqai (Heb. 2.17) must be defined as gnädigSein, not ‘to expiate.’ But this thesis is difficult to sustain as the absence of the prefix does not at all require a change in meaning. This is confirmed by the alternation of evkklhsia,zw and evxekklhsia,zw (Lev. 8.3–4), evrhmo,w and evxerhmo,w (Lev. 26.30–32, 43), and, above all, evxilasmo,j (Lev. 23.28) and i`lasmo,j (Lev. 25.9; cf. Num. 5.8), which are used for the Day of Atonement. 79 E.g., Koester, 122; Kistemaker 2004, 166; and Lincoln 2006, 90–91. 80 If there is a secondary meaning for i`la,skomai in Heb. 2.17, then it centers on the idea of redemption or ransom (cf. 9.12, 15), not propitiation. In a detailed study of the Old Testament concept of ‘atonement,’ Sklar (2005) convincingly argues that the verb rP,Ki concerns both purification and ransom; that is, since major pollution defiles and endangers an individual, atonement is needed to cleanse the impurity and rescue the endangered person (cf. pp. 7, 130, 183–87), which is confirmed by the integration of these concepts in Num. 35.30–34 (cf. pp. 54–55; 154–56). 76

34

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

The main point to consider, then, is how the phrase eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/ functions syntactically in 2.17 and in the broader context of Hebrews.81 As mentioned, many scholars have focused on the form of i`la,skesqai and concluded that the present tense implies a lasting or continuous action. And although some grammarians have upheld this distinction between the aorist and present tenses,82 it is misleading; for neither the time nor manner of any action is determined (solely and/or necessarily) by morphology. Instead, both are ascertained by the word’s interaction with the surrounding discourse.83 In Heb. 2.17, i`la,skesqai is part of a final purpose (eivj to, + infinitive) in the immediate context of 2.14–17. Hebrews argues that Jesus, like the children, shared in blood and flesh, so that (i[na) he might destroy the one holding the power of death, namely the devil, and free those enslaved to their fear of death (vv. 14–15). Both purposes are accomplished through the death of Jesus (dia. tou/ qana,tou, v. 14).84 This topic resumes in v. 17 by saying that Jesus had to become like his brothers according to all things (i.e., flesh, blood, death; cf. Phil. 2.7b–8), so that (i[na)85 he might become a merciful and faithful high priest with respect to the things of God; but, the purpose continues with eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/, which is epexegetical to the previous clause and parallel to the comment on Jesus’ death (v. 14).86

81

Wallis (1995, 145–48), however, never quotes or mentions the final phrase of 2.17. Introductory works on grammar, such as the one by J. Wenham (2001, 98), will often make this distinction between the present infinitive (continuous action) and aorist infinitive (punctiliar action). 83 See discussions by McKay 1994, 27–34; and Silva 1990, 111–18. 84 The phrase dia. tou/ qana,tou (dia, + genitive) conveys the means of Jesus’ victory (cf. Rom. 5.10; 7.4; Eph. 2.16; Col. 1.20, 22; and Heb. 9.26; 10.10; 13.12). 85 The ou=n and i[na of 2.14 correspond to the o[qen and i[na of 2.17. 86 Eivj to, + infinitive is a frequent construction of purpose (cf. Heb. 8.3; 9.14; 11.3; 12.10; and Acts 3.19). Robertson (1934, 1087; cf. pp. 1071–72) adds, ‘It is but a step from the explanatory or epexegetical inf. to that of design. Indeed, the epexegetical inf. sometimes is final, a secondary purpose after i[na’ (e.g., Eph. 1.17–18a). Failure to discern this structure inevitably results in false conclusions (e.g., Swetnam 1999, 16). Loader (1981, 187) mentions the ‘indirect’ reference to expiation in Heb. 2.14, and Grässer (1.152–54) notices the parallel i[na clauses, but they do not integrate the final purpose of 2.17 with the syntax of 2.14–17. Gäbel (2006, 133–63) neglects the parallel completely, which contributes to his misinterpretation of Heb. 2.17 and weakens his thesis that ‘in Hebr 2, 14f [ist] nicht von einem Sühnetod Christi die Rede’ (p. 158). For remarks on Heb. 2.14 and 2.17, see Nissilä 1979, 27–29; Übelacker 1989, 176–82; and Hübner 1995, 3.30. 82

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

35

In other words, the second purpose is explaining exactly what it means to be a merciful and faithful high priest with respect to the things of God. One might even say the latter action defines the former attributes (i.e., evleh,mwn and pisto,j) and elucidates the general, ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n, with the specific, eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/. Jesus’ acquisition of a human nature in order to serve God in a prescribed cultic duty, namely in order to expiate the sins of the people, reveals that pisto,j is conveying an active sense of ‘faithful’ (i.e., obedient; cf. 2.13; 10.7, 9) rather than a passive sense of ‘trustworthy’ and that vv. 14 and 17 prepare for and are expounded by the present infinitive. The form of i`la,skesqai does not impart a continuous activity, but instead a final purpose with respect to Jesus’ high-priestly work on earth that entailed his death upon the cross (9.15; 12.2; 13.12). The integration of Jesus’ death (2.14), expiation, and suffering (2.18) shows that the action occurred in the past and was carried out in a unique manner. Hebrews 2.17 (eivj to. i`la,skesqai) does not imply a continuous action any more than Heb. 13.21, using the aorist infinitive (eivj to. poih/sai), suggests that the will of God should be carried out once and for all.87 2.3 Form and Meaning When examining the related, intensive verb evxila,skomai within the LXX, both present (evxila,skesqai)88 and aorist (evxila,sasqai)89 infinitives are used to convey God’s purpose in expiating/removing sins and impurities from Israel.90 Leviticus 17.11, though, is the locus classicus on atonement and contains evxila,skesqai (present tense),91 along with Lev. 16.34,92 and this could explain why the author selected the present infinitive in Heb. 2.17. In a way, this would be expected since Lev. 17.11 is not only the most important verse on atonement, but it also applies to all sacrifices, i.e., 87

See also Attridge, 96 n. 193; and Montefiore, 68. E.g., Lev. 16.34; 17.11; Num. 8.19. 89 E.g., Exod. 30.15–16; Lev. 1.4; 6.23; 8.15, 34; 14.21; 23.28; Num. 8.12; 15.28; 28.22, 30; 29.5, 11; 31.50. 90 The LXX uses the simple infinitive for this idea of purpose, and it coheres with the original Hebrew text, which unites the l preposition to the piel infinitive construct of rP,Ki (cf. Joüon, §124l). 91 Leviticus 17.11 says, ‘For the life of all flesh is its blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement [evxila,skesqai] for your lives; for its blood will make atonement on behalf of [your] life.’ 92 Leviticus 16.34 employs evxila,skesqai (present) instead of evxila,sasqai (aorist), which was used in the same discourse (16.10, 17, 27), to complement the preceding statement: ‘And this shall be an eternal [aivw ,nion] law for you…’ The verse establishes the ongoing aspect of the yearly ritual, but it is the interaction of evxila,skesqai with the preface that conveys this idea rather than the tense per se. 88

36

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

those offered daily and on the Day of Atonement.93 This inclusiveness coincides with Hebrews’ agenda of proving that Jesus’ sacrifice is better than the numerous gifts and sacrifices offered daily (kaqV h`me,ran, 7.27; 10.11; cf. 9.6) and yearly (katV evniauto,n, 9.25; 10.1–3; cf. 9.7). But aside from this reason, every author must choose some form of communication, and it is precarious to conclude, especially in Hebrews, that a change in form suggests or requires a change in meaning.94 The cause of the variant is often stylistic preference, not theological subtlety. For confirmation, Heb. 5.1 is a significant cross-reference concerning the purpose of a high priest: ‘For every high priest received from men is appointed on behalf of men with respect to the things of God, so that he might offer gifts and sacrifices on behalf of sins.’ The link between Jesus’ faithfulness (2.17) and former high priests is illustrated at this point: both are to perform their duties in relation to sin as they are situated in the milieu of human solidarity and representation.95 Though the OT high priest was appointed (kaqi,sthmi) in a formal and public capacity u`pe.r avnqrw,pwn, this still parallels the NT high priest acting u`pe.r panto,j (2.9; cf. 7.27; 10.12) and endorses the informal, yet divine appointment (cf. 3.1) of Jesus to his office as high priest on earth. The same concept and function are advanced using different words: 2.17

o[qen w;feilen kata. pa,nta toi/j avdelfoi/j o`moiwqh/nai, i[na evleh,mwn ge,nhtai kai. pisto.j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo.n eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/.

5.1

Pa/j ga.r avrciereu.j evx avnqrw,pwn lambano,menoj u`pe.r avnqrw,pwn kaqi,statai ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n, i[na prosfe,rh| dw/ra, te kai. qusi,aj u`pe.r a`martiw/n .

Further, when elaborating on Jesus’ self-offering and sacrifice, avnafe,rw (7.27; 9.28) and prosfe,rw (8.3; 9.14, 25, 28; 10.12) are used in a fairly indiscriminate and interchangeable manner (cf. Lev. 16.9, 25). There is a distinct and significant construction of avnafe,rw in 9.28, but both terms consistently relate to the active obedience that Jesus manifested in his expiatory sacrifice on the cross.

93

Cf. Sklar (2005, 174–81), who also concludes that the emphasis of Lev. 17.11 is one of ‘ransom,’ but concedes that this is a ‘purifying ransom’ (p. 182). In view of the prior discussion on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), however, it would seem more intuitive to conclude that the emphasis of Lev. 17.11 falls on the concept of purification or cleansing; but, irrespective of the intended emphasis, both ideas appear to be present in this verse. 94 Smyth (1984, 417, §1865 n. 4) also observes, ‘Present and aorist [infinitives] occasionally occur in close conjunction without any great difference in meaning.’ 95 Theißen 1969, 51; Galot 1979, 370, 375; Rissi 1987, 61–63.

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

37

With respect to Heb. 7.27, the author says that high priests needed to perform daily sacrifices for themselves and the people;96 but, in contrast, Jesus offered himself once and for all (evfa,pax). While the statements before and after speak of his heavenly exaltation and eternal perfection, this subordinate clause (7.27) favors an earthly perspective based on the context of the comparison, namely the daily sacrifices,97 as well as its integration with 2.17 and 5.1–3 and the discussion beginning at 8.3.98 Hebrews 8.3 in fact reiterates key points of 5.1 and 7.27 by asserting that every high priest is appointed in order to offer gifts and sacrifices; and therefore ‘it was necessary’99 for Jesus to have something to offer, which, according to 7.27, was himself. Additional remarks are held in abeyance for the sake of discussing the mediation of the better covenant in relation to the better promises (8.5–13), but the author does elaborate on Jesus’ self-offering in Hebrews 9–10. Similar to Heb. 7.27, the self-offering of Jesus in 9.14 is preceded by the testimony that Jesus arrived as a high priest in the more perfect tent (9.11), that is, heaven, and he did so ‘once and for all’ (evfa,pax, 9.12) by means of his own blood, which secured an eternal redemption. In contrast to the blood of bulls and goats that sanctified Israel for the purification of the flesh (9.13), the blood of Christ, who ‘through [the] eternal spirit’ offered himself without blemish to God, is effective for the purification of one’s conscience (9.14). In these verses, the author shifts from the heavenly domain in which Jesus entered to the earthly domain where he offered

96

See Exod. 29.38–42; Num. 28.3–8; and Leviticus 4, where sacrifices are made for the priests first, then the people (cf. Heb. 5.3). And, according to Sir. 45.14, Aaron must offer sacrifices daily; in fact, ‘his sacrifices shall be burned twice every day continually’ (qusi,ai auvtou/ o`lokarpwqh,sontai kaqV h`me,ran evndelecw/j di,j ). This text agrees with Philo (Spec. 3.131), who said the high priest offers prayers and sacrifices ‘every day’ (kaqV e`ka,sthn h`me,ran). 97 In other words, the self-sacrifice of Jesus is being compared/contrasted with the sacrificial blood that was not taken into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, but rather poured out and manipulated daily on the altar. As important as the Day of Atonement is for the author, it is by no means the only point of reference for comparing Jesus with the former priests and high priests. The daily rituals (cf. 10.11) as well as those inaugurating the old covenant are combined with the Day of Atonement in order to show the surpassing character of Jesus’ sacrifice in relation to the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament. 98 Bruce, 176–79, 182–83; Stott 1963, 64–66; Laub 1980, 204–6; Lane, 193–94, 206; Koester, 377, 382–83. 99 The language of ‘necessity’ (avna,gkhn, 7.27; avnagkai/on, 8.3) connects the verses, and thus o[qen avnagkai/on in 8.3, which has an ellipsis of the verb ‘to be,’ should be translated as ‘it was necessary,’ rather than ‘it is necessary’ (cf. RSV; ESV), to ensure that the verse is properly situated within its earthly context.

38

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

himself to God,100 with emphasis being placed on his blood, the blood involved in his self-offering as well as the mediation of the new covenant. From the context, it is evident that blood graphically represents death, i.e., a life offered in death (cf. 12.4), since 9.15 says that a death, Jesus’ death, occurred to redeem the people from the transgressions committed under the first covenant; and, according to 9.16–17, blood is the means or proof of establishing the death of a testator.101 Thus, Jesus’ blood, which is life (Lev. 17.11), had been poured out unto death in his self-offering (9.14)102 in order to inaugurate the new covenant (cf. 9.18–21) and redeem God’s people from their transgressions (9.12, 15); indeed, as 9.22 corroborates, ‘without the shedding of blood [ai`matekcusi,aj], there is no forgiveness’ (cf. 8.12; 10.18).103 As the argument continues, the author returns to the topic of Jesus’ high-priestly entry into heaven rather than the holy places made with hands, which are ‘antitypes’ of the true things (9.24). Not only did Jesus not enter the earthly copies of the heavenly realities, but he also did not enter heaven in order that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places ‘every year’ with the blood of another (9.25); in other words, in making the correspondence between Jesus’ once-for-all entrance into heaven (9.12, 24) and the former high priests’ once-a-year

100 Attridge 1986, 7. The phrase ‘through [the] eternal spirit’ is ambiguous, but it implies that Jesus was empowered with the Holy Spirit (cf. 2.3–4) in order to perform his work as high priest. The previous mention of the Holy Spirit (9.8) supports this referent, and the author may have decided to use aivw ,nioj rather than a[gioj (cf. 10.15, 29) in 9.14 to create continuity with 9.12 (aivw ,nioj lu,trwsij) and 9.15 (aivw ,nioj klhronomi,a ). Emmrich (2002) convincingly argues the first point from Jewish literature (pp. 25–31; cf. idem 2003, 7–12), but incorrectly concludes that heaven is where Jesus’ self-offering takes place (p. 23 n. 27; and p. 32). Jesus offered himself to God ‘without blemish’ (a;mwmoj, 9.14), which recalls the prerequisite for sacrifices made under the Mosaic law (9.13; cf. LXX Exod. 29.1; Lev. 1.3; and Num. 15.24), and thus supports the conclusion that his self-offering occurred on earth. See also Chrysostom, 440; Schlatter, 351–56; Nissilä 1979, 186–91; Braun, 269–70; and Lindars 1991, 57–58. 101 Ellingworth, 456. 102 Cf. Isa. 53.12; Mark 10.45; Rev. 5.9. 103 According to Heb. 9.15, the redemption from transgressions was achieved by the death of Christ, which means that aivwni,an lu,trwsin eu`ra,menoj in 9.12 should be translated as ‘having obtained eternal redemption,’ highlighting the fact that this action occurred in the past (on earth) rather than in his heavenly ascension. The language of redemption also complements the image of redemption in 2.14–15: setting free, through the death of Christ, those who are enslaved to the fear of death (see also the language of ‘take hold of’ in 2.16 and 8.9). The references to redemption also confirm that the ‘atonement’ of 2.17 is viewed as having occurred on earth with Jesus’ suffering of death (cf. LXX Ps. 48.8–9, where evxi,lasma parallels lu,trwsij).

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

39

entrance into the holy places (9.7, 25),104 there is an emphasis placed on discontinuity. To say Jesus did not enter heaven in order to offer himself repeatedly is not to say (or imply) that he had still offered himself as a sacrifice of atonement in heaven, though in a once-for-all manner. The analogy made between the former high priests and Jesus relates only to entering the Most Holy Place, not to the atonement, as indicated by the following remarks that place the expiatory offering and sacrifice of Jesus on earth. Unlike the priests of the past, Jesus did not offer himself repeatedly (polla,kij) in God’s presence (9.24–25); for – if entrance into the Most Holy Place requires the slaughter of a sacrificial victim – then he would have had to suffer repeatedly (paqei/n polla,kij, 9.26a). This allusion to death105 is made explicit when v. 26a is countered by claiming that Jesus appeared once at the end of the ages in order to (eivj) remove106 sin(s) through his ‘sacrifice’ (qusi,a, v. 26b). Just as man is destined to die once (a[pax avpoqanei/n, v. 27), Jesus was offered once (a[pax prosenecqei,j, v. 28) in order to remove the sins of many:107 2.17

… i[na evleh,mwn ge,nhtai kai. pisto.j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo.n eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/.

9.28

ou[twj kai. o` Cristo.j a[pax prosenecqei.j eivj to. pollw/n avnenegkei/n a`marti,aj…

The relationship between these two verses is apparent. Both contexts emphasize Jesus’ incarnation or appearance (fanero,w, 9.26) for the purpose 104 Ellipsis is used in Heb. 9.24–25 in making the analogy: ouv ga.r eivj ceiropoi,hta eivsh/lqen a[gia Cristo,j, avnti,tupa tw/n avlhqinw/n , avllV eivj auvto.n to.n ouvrano,n, nu/n evmfanisqh/nai tw/| prosw,pw| tou/ qeou/ u`pe.r h`mw/n \ ouvdV [eivsh/lqen eivj to.n ouvrano,n] i[na polla,kij prosfe,rh| e`auto,n , w[sper o` avrciereu.j eivse,rcetai eivj ta. a[gia katV evniauto.n evn ai[mati avllotri,w |. 105 N. Young 1981, 209. 106 Note the link between Heb. 9.15 (qana,tou genome,nou eivj avpolu,trwsin tw/n… paraba,sewn) and 9.26 (eivj avqe,thsin Îth/j
a`marti,aj dia. th/j qusi,aj auvtou/). In each statement, there is a purpose (eivj), namely ‘to redeem’ and ‘to remove.’ In Heb. 9.26, avqe,thsij conveys the general sense of ‘removal’ rather than ‘annulment’ (cf. 7.18; 10.9). Louw and Nida, §13.36; Ellingworth, 482–83. 107 The verb avnafe,rw (Heb. 9.28) is often translated as either ‘take upon’ or ‘bear’ (BDAG, 75); but, as Heb. 9.28 has made an allusion to Isa. 53.12 (auvto.j a`marti,aj pollw/n avnh,negken [af'n"]), avnafe,rw, like af'n", probably communicates both ideas – i.e., ‘bear away’ (Kremer, EDNT 1.94; cf. Spicq, TLNT 1.117–18). Indeed, in order to bear the sins of the people, one must remove them from the people, which coincides with the immediate context (9.26; 10.4, 11). Further, the scapegoat ritual of Leviticus 16 may be evoked in Isa. 53.4–12 and Heb. 9.28 (contra Lindars 1991, 92–93; Hooker 1994, 123; and Barrett 1999, 127 n. 28). The goat removed the sins, impurities, and guilt of Israel outside the ‘camp’ (parembolh,, Lev. 16.26), thus anticipating the sanctifying work of Jesus outside the ‘camp’ (parembolh,, Heb. 13.11–13).

40

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

of expiating or removing sins,108 and both verses express the purpose with eivj to, + infinitive; but, 9.28 has supplied the aorist infinitive. With the allusion to death in 9.26 and the comparison with death in 9.27, Jesus’ suffering of death has been united to his work of expiation.109 Moreover, not only does 9.26 prepare for 9.28, but it also speaks of the removal of sins dia. th/j qusi,aj, which is a complement to his deliverance of sinners dia. tou/ qana,tou (2.14–15).110 This conclusion is established further in chapter ten. In this discourse, Jesus is presented as having come into the world, namely the present and corrupt world (cf. 4.3; 9.26), in order to carry out God’s will (10.7, 9), which did not involve burnt and sin offerings (prosfora,, vv. 5–6, 8, 18), but the offering of his own ‘body’ (sw/ma, vv. 5, 10, 14). Once again, a contrast is made with the former priests, who stood daily and offered the same sacrifices repeatedly (vv. 1, 11; cf. 7.27),111 but whose ‘sacrifices’ (qusi,a) were unable to remove sins (vv. 4, 11): 10.4

avdu,naton ga.r ai-ma tau,rwn kai. tra,gwn avfairei/n [present infinitive] a`marti,aj.

10.11

… kai. ta.j auvta.j polla,kij prosfe,rwn qusi,aj, ai[tinej ouvde,pote du,nantai perielei/n [aorist infinitive] a`marti,aj.

Hebrews 10.4 and 10.11, with a present and an aorist infinitive (and without suggesting that there is any difference in meaning between the two), are part of a central thesis: instead of expiating sins,112 these repetitive offerings served as reminders of them (v. 3). Jesus, however, offered one, eternal ‘sacrifice’ (qusi,a) for sins and then sat down at the right hand of

108 Cf. 1 John 3.5 (evfanerw,qh, i[na ta.j a`marti,aj a;rh|) and 3.8 (evfanerw,qh o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/, i[na lu,sh| ta. e;rga tou/ diabo,lou). The parallel i[na clauses, which resemble the ones in Heb. 2.14 and 2.17, also convey Jesus’ work of removing sins and defeating the devil on earth; and 1 John 4.9–10 (cf. 2.2) confirms that he appeared (evfanerw,qh) on earth for the ‘expiation’ of sins ( i`lasmo.n peri. tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n ). 109 Nissilä 1979, 212–14; contra Gäbel 2006, 294–310. 110 Therefore, the analogy in Heb. 9.24–25 involves continuity and discontinuity: whereas the former high priest entered the holy places (repeatedly) with the blood of another in order to make atonement, Jesus entered heaven (once for all) after making atonement with his own blood – that is, after pouring out his life unto death. 111 Cf. Deut. 10.8; 1 Esd. 6.29; and dia. panto,j in Heb. 9.6; and Exod. 25.30; 27.20; 30.8, which is used in discussing the daily activities of the priests. For the daily temple routine, see Sanders 1992, 116–18. 112 The semantic overlap of avfaire,w (10.4; cf. Lev. 10.17) and periaire,w (10.11; cf. Zeph. 3.15) is substantial; both mean ‘remove’ or ‘take away’ LSJ, 285–86, 1368. And, to reiterate, the present tense (avfairei/n ) and aorist tense (perielei/n) have been used interchangeably in this discourse.

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

41

God (v. 12).113 Sequentially, earthly humiliation and self-sacrifice precede heavenly exaltation. The logic is supported by the interaction between the aorist participle of prosfe,rw and the aorist indicative of kaqi,zw; and, even though the aorist participle does not necessarily express an antecedent action, the order of the actions strongly suggests this inference.114 Thus, conducive to the prior discussion, Heb. 10.1–18, notably the comments in vv. 7, 9, and 12, communicate Jesus’ faithfulness or active obedience to remove sins by his self-sacrifice, which he did for all time. What is more, 10.10 provides another example of the author’s desire to articulate the same concept using different words. Alongside 9.26 and 2.14–15, one observes the following: 2.14–15

… i[na dia. tou/ qana,tou… avpalla,xh| tou,touj, o[soi fo,bw| qana,tou dia. panto.j tou/ zh/n e;nocoi h=san doulei,aj.

9.26

… nuni. de. a[pax evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw ,nwn eivj avqe,thsin Îth/j
a`marti,aj dia. th/j qusi,aj pefane,rwtai.

10.10

… h`giasme,noi evsme.n dia. th/j prosfora/j tou/ sw,matoj VIhsou/ Cristou/ evfa,pax.

Here and throughout this epistle, Jesus’ qa,natoj, qusi,a, prosfora,, sw/ma, sa,rx, ai-ma, and pa,qhma have been united in order to discuss the expiation and removal of sins. This integration makes any argument seeking to divide sacrifice and expiation tenuous (cf. LXX Sir. 34.18–19), including the claim that Jesus’ atoning work in 2.17 is unaccompanied by

113 Hebrews 10.12 (prosene,gkaj qusi,an eivj to. dihneke,j ) coincides with the thought of 7.27 (evfa,pax e`auto.n avnene,gkaj). Jesus’ self-sacrifice u`pe.r a`martiw/n (cf. 5.1; 10.18) is presented as a unique event by means of evfa,pax and eivj to. dihneke,j (cf. 10.10, 14). 114 For this subject, see Zerwick 1994, 85–87, §§261–63. Similarly, Heb. 1.3 contains the aorist participle of poie,w followed by the aorist indicative of kaqi,zw, therefore conveying Jesus’ session after his work of purification (cf. Hay 1973, 143; Koester, 109; and Johnson, 70–72). As a challenge to this view, Brooks (1970, 214) said that ‘on a philological level, there does not appear to be the certitude about such texts as 9.12 and 10.12 as certain critics would have us believe, since the aorist participle need not indicate action prior to the main verb but may indicate coincident action.’ This is true, but 2.9 confirms the above interpretation when it says Jesus was crowned with glory and honor because of or after his suffering of death (dia, + accusative; Robertson 1934, 583–84), which Brooks also affirms (p. 206). Unless an unwarranted separation is made between the session (e.g., 1.3; 10.12; 12.2) and coronation (2.9) of Christ, one must integrate the sequential and cultic remarks of 1.3 and 10.12 with the statements in 2.9 and 12.2. The systemic failure of Gäbel (2006) in this regard is demonstrated when he acknowledges the sequence of 2.9 (pp. 148–49), places Jesus’ sacrifice in 10.12 in heaven (p. 201; see also pp. 185–202), and neglects to discuss how 12.2 relates to the previous remarks in Hebrews (pp. 461–63).

42

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

suffering;115 and, not only is 9.28 a more suitable cross-reference than 7.25 for the interpretation of 2.17, but the comparisons between the above passages disclose an interesting pattern. It was shown that 2.14 prepares for and is parallel to 2.17; however, when investigating the contexts of 9.28 and 10.12, it is evident that 9.26 and 10.10 function in the same way and that the wording is intentionally varied. With the total argument in mind, one can see that the author used a present infinitive (i`la,skesqai, 2.17) and an aorist infinitive (avnenegkei/n, 9.28) to convey Jesus’ finished work in removing the sins of God’s people. The changes in wording and tense (similar to avfairei/n, 10.4; and perielei/n, 10.11), reveal stylistic changes in form rather than subtle changes in meaning.116 Therefore, consistent with the above, Heb. 2.17 teaches that the Son’s incarnation was the strict prerequisite for his high-priestly sacrifice on earth. Though the author moves from humiliation to exaltation, and back

115 Cf. Heb. 10.19–20, 29; and Eph. 1.7; 2.13–16; 5.2; 1 Pet. 2.24; 3.18. See also Hofius 1994, 121; Hengel 1981, 47–55; and Hill 1967, 68–69. The entire witness of Hebrews also undermines the view of Barrett (1999, 125), who says, ‘In the heavenly sanctuary Christ makes an act of atonement.’ This conclusion results from seeing the analogy that is made between the self-offering of Jesus and the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, specifically the blood that was brought into the Most Holy Place in order to make atonement (Heb. 9.7, 12, 25); but the problem is that the analogy should not be pressed too far (cf. also Bruce, 213–14), for the author compares and contrasts Jesus’ actions with the Day of Atonement, the daily sacrifices (7.27; 10.11), and the ritual sacrifices that inaugurated the old covenant (9.15–21; deSilva, 313). All three contexts inform the atonement of Jesus, especially the fact that the daily sacrifices and covenantal sacrifices did not involve bringing blood into the inner sanctum; instead, the animals were slaughtered and the blood was manipulated on a qusiasth,rion. In Hebrews, the atoning sacrifice of Christ involved his blood and body (9.14; 10.10) within the context of his suffering of death (9.15, 26), which proves that his atonement begins and ends on the altar of the cross (contra Rascher 2007, 171–78; Schenck 2007, 45–47; and Moffitt 2011, 215–96). Further, the claim that it was necessary for the heavenly things to be purified with better sacrifices (9.23) is best explained within the context of inaugurating the new covenant (9.18; 10.20); that is, kaqari,zw and evnkaini,zw appear to be cooperating to express this inauguration (cf. 1 Macc. 4.36–59), but without implying prior impurity in heaven or that the heavenly sanctuary provides the context for Jesus’ sacrifice and/or atonement. See discussion by Ellingworth, 475–78. 116 In fact, according to McKay (1972, 43), ‘it is often assumed that a change of form necessarily indicates a change of meaning, and it is a particularly clear example of the sort of muddled argument that so often sidetracks the best intentions.’ The question raised by Philo (Mos. 2.38) is also apposite: ‘[W]ho does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms [ovnoma,twn], and that the same thought [evnqu,mhma] can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression [le,xeij] to the occasion?’

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

43

again, fairly regularly,117 the focus in Heb. 2.5–18 remains on Christ’s complete identification with God’s people for the purpose of suffering death for their sins. Those who conclude that 2.17 refers to his eternal sacerdotal ministry in heaven are mistaken. The author is conveying that the Son acquired blood and flesh in order to extend mercy to sinners and express his trusting obedience (pisto,j) to God by means of his atoning sacrifice.118 In other words, his earthly actions of mercy and obedience, which secured salvation and forgiveness for God’s people (9.15; 10.18), are the ways in which he is depicted as a merciful and faithful high priest. This forgiveness was also procured through a unique event, namely his expiatory sacrifice offered once for all on the cross (7.27; 9.28; 10.12, 18; cf. Rom. 6.10).119 2.4 To Sanctify through Blood If one passage can solidify this conclusion, then it is the one in the last chapter of Hebrews. As the final exhortations are given to the people, a striking comparison is made between the high priest’s actions on the Day of Atonement and Jesus’ suffering of death at Golgotha (13.11–12). The author recounts how the bodies of animals are burned outside the camp while their blood is carried into the ‘holy places’ (cf. 9.3, 7, 25) by the high priest in order to deal with Israel’s sins (peri. a`marti,aj). Similarly, yet uniquely, Jesus is said to have suffered outside the gate, so that (i[na) he might sanctify (a`gia,zw) the people through his own blood. With the first statement (13.11), the author is indeed recollecting the words and actions of Lev. 16.27–28. On the Day of Atonement, the necessary sin offerings, which involved a bull and goat, were sacrificed, but their skin, flesh, and dung were carried outside the camp and burned with fire. The one who burned these items became unclean and was required to wash himself and his clothing before coming back into the camp. What is implicit in Heb. 13.11 is explained in Lev. 16.27–28: outside the camp is the unholy and unclean environment (Deut. 23.9–14) where purity and sanctity are lost. Conversely, purification, sanctification, and atonement for the people of Israel are acquired inside the camp at the tent of meeting (Lev. 16.19, 30). When Heb. 13.11–12, then, compares the burning of animal bodies ‘outside the camp’ (e;xw th/j parembolh/j) with the suffering of Jesus ‘out117 The epistle, however, maintains this distinction (cf. Heb. 2.9; 12.2; 13.20; and Weiß, 324 n. 15); thus, it is not the case that Jesus’ earthly sufferings – at the cross – and his heavenly service and/or entrance ‘form one event’ (Thompson 1982, 107–8; 147–48) or take place concurrently (Laub 1991, 77; similarly, G. Barth 1992, 152–54). 118 Windisch, 24–25; Schlatter, 261; Strobel, 36. 119 Chester 1991, 63–69.

44

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

side the gate’ (e;xw th/j pu,lhj), i.e., the city gate of Jerusalem,120 a deliberate and inescapable irony confronts the reader. Jesus suffered outside the gate for the purpose of sanctifying the people through his blood; that is, while performing a high-priestly task, he places himself in the most unholy setting possible. Not only were the bodies/carcasses of slaughtered animals taken outside the camp, but the Israelites and Romans regularly executed criminals outside the camp or city in order to separate them from all that was considered to be honorable and sacred.121 Seeing as dead bodies and crucified bodies caused defilement instead of cleansing (cf. Num. 19.11– 13; Deut. 21.22–23), the sanctifying work of Jesus is highly paradoxical.122 By collating his suffering and blood (13.12) within the context of his execution at Golgotha, the death of Jesus (cf. 9.14–15) has been vividly portrayed in order to convey that God’s people have been truly, though paradoxically, sanctified by Jesus’ high-priestly action on earth, not in the heavenly sanctuary.123 Hence the portrayal of Jesus includes both the location and means of sanctification, but, once again, as compared with the Day of Atonement. According to Heb. 13.11, the high priest brought only the blood of the sacrifices into the ‘holy places’ (ta. a[gia) to make atonement for sins; however, as previously intimated, 13.12 does not separate the blood and body of Jesus with regard to his sanctifying action on behalf of God’s people. To propose that Jesus suffered (pa,scw), so that he might sanctify the people through his own blood is to introduce more than blood as the means of sanctification. It is the whole person of Christ that was offered, in death, in order to sanctify the people and expiate the sins of the people. When 13.12 refers to Jesus’ sanctification of the people, it reflects back to the merciful and faithful high priest, who expiated the sins of the people (2.17). In short, removing sins and sanctifying sinners are coincident actions that occurred by means of his suffering, namely the suffering of death that previously informed 9.26–28 and accompanied his act of atonement (2.17–18; cf. 2.9, 14). Throughout the letter, procuring sanctification is inseparable from the purification and expiation of sins. Hebrews 1.3 opens with the comment that Jesus made ‘purification’ (kaqarismo,j; cf. 9.13–14, 22; 10.2) for sins before ascending to the throne, and this prepares for identifying him as both ‘the sanctifier’ (o` a`gia,zwn, 2.11; cf. 10.14) and high priest, who 120

Cf. John 19.20; and Matt. 21.33–41 (v. 39); 27.31; Mark 15.20; Luke 23.26. Cf. Lev. 24.10–23 (vv. 14, 23); Num. 15.32–36 (v. 36); Deut. 22.23–24 (v. 24). 122 Lincoln 2006, 68. 123 In other words, ‘suffering’ and ‘blood’ in 13.12 are not the prerequisites for his sanctifying work from heaven; they represent his death (Kuma 2012, 337–40), which is the effective means of sanctifying God’s people. 121

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

45

made atonement for sins (2.17).124 By the time one gets to 13.12, the concept has been reiterated in various ways, especially with the amazing assertion of 10.10, which says that ‘we have been sanctified [h`giasme,noi] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all [evfa,pax].’ The perfect participle of a`gia,zw cooperates with evfa,pax to emphasize the definitive sanctification125 that is received from his self-offering and sacrifice (cf. 10.12).126 Further, it was ‘through the offering of his body’ (dia. th/j prosfora/j tou/ sw,matoj) that the people have been sanctified, while 13.12 says it was ‘through his own blood’ (dia. tou/ ivdi,ou ai[matoj). The use of a`gia,zw in 13.12 presupposes 10.10,127 and thus the necessary inference to make is that the sanctifying work of Jesus, who suffered outside the city gate, is identical to the definitive sanctification that was previously highlighted. As a result, Heb. 13.12 serves as an interpretive key for unlocking the way that Jesus faithfully expiated sins (2.17) – the work was finished ‘once for all’ (evfa,pax) in his suffering of death on the altar of the cross.128

124 Vanhoye (2002, 43, 55, 111–12) and Gäbel (2006, 226–27) separate Heb. 1.3 and 2.17, yet this conflicts with the text of Lev. 16.30: evn ga.r th/| h`me,ra| tau,th| evxila,setai peri. u`mw/n kaqari,sai u`ma/j avpo. pasw/n tw/n a`martiw/n u`mw/n e;nanti kuri,ou kai. kaqarisqh,sesqe. 125 Cf. O’Brien, 353. 126 Peterson (1982, 148), however, argues that evfa,pax (Heb. 10.10) refers to the offering of Jesus rather than the sanctification of the people. In his opinion, the perfect participle h`giasme,noi ‘already has the effect of stressing a state of sanctification resulting from some decisive event in the past, and evfa,pax is elsewhere related to the death of Christ and his entrance thereby into the heavenly sanctuary.’ The difficulty with this position is that 10.10 assumes 10.2 (tou.j))) a[pax kekaqarisme,nouj) and parallels 10.14: by one offering Jesus has perfected for all time (tetelei,wken eivj to. dihneke,j ) those who are sanctified (tou.j a`giazome,nouj). The perfect indicative tetelei,wken has been reinforced by eivj to. dihneke,j in the same way that h`giasme,noi is by evfa,pax. Peterson concedes that tetelei,wken emphasizes the ‘permanent result’ of Christ’s self-offering and eivj to. dihneke,j ‘gives further stress to the idea of ongoing effect’ (p. 149), but he does not make this concession for 10.10. 127 The relationship between Heb. 1.3; 2.11; 9.14; 10.2, 10, 14; and 13.12 also shows that the verbal aspect of the present participles in 2.11 (o` a`gia,zwn kai. oi` a`giazo,menoi) and 10.14 (tou.j a`giazome,nouj) must be ascertained from the total discourse. As substantival participles, they are generic (cf. O’Brien, 357), with the meaning of the forms being determined by their interaction with the other references to sanctification; thus, they do not convey a continual action or process. For discussions on verbal tense and aspect, especially with respect to the participle, see Porter 1989, 377–79 (esp. p. 379); and Fanning 1990, 406–18 (esp. pp. 410–12). 128 The qusiasth,rion (13.10), then, is surely a reference to the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. As argued by Isaacs (1997, 268–84), the altar is neither a heavenly altar nor earthly eucharist: ‘This victim, like those on the Day of Atonement, was: a) not consumed either by priest or worshipper, and b) disposed of “outside the camp” (v. 11)’ (p. 281).

46

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

2.5 Merciful to Thousands Finally, it was mentioned that the adjective evleh,mwn lures some to confine 2.17 to heaven, especially when it is forced through the grid of 4.15–16. By doing this, the sacrificial and/or active aspects of evleh,mwn are emptied and replaced with an impression of Jesus’ sympathetic attitude on the throne. But remaining consistent with the OT, evleh,mwn is repeatedly found in contexts that speak of God’s merciful dealings with his people, not merely his internal compassion for them.129 For example, both have been united in Exod. 34.6b–7a: ‘The Lord, a God compassionate and merciful [evleh,mwn], patient and very merciful [polue,leoj] and true, maintaining righteousness and practicing mercy [poiw/n e;leoj] to thousands, removing [avfairw/n]130 lawlessness and injustice and sin.’ This classic text, which saturated Jewish minds and hearts, integrates the compassion of God with the deliberate bestowal of mercy to his covenant people.131 God’s mercy is displayed in the removal of lawlessness, injustice, and sin; in other words, mercy is joined to a particular purpose and manifested in a distinct action (cf. LXX Isa. 55.7). Hebrews 2.17 also orients ‘faithful’ and ‘merciful’ language towards a climactic purpose involving Jesus’ high-priestly atonement. To assert that his earthly sufferings resulted in a heavenly disposition of sympathy, and then to interpret 2.17 according to this scheme, is to reverse the flow of thought in 2.14–17. At this stage of the author’s argument, the opposite scenario has been presented in that the heavenly Son became an earthly man for the purpose of extending mercy to God’s people. There is a later reiteration of this concept when Heb. 8.12 concludes a quotation from Jeremiah: ‘For I will be merciful [i[lewj] toward their injustices and I will remember their sins no more.’ As a complement to 2.17,132 the merciful action of God is displayed in his resolve to forget sins, which means he will forgive them completely. The author also clarifies in 7.1–10.18 that Jesus’ self-sacrifice was inseparable from God’s mercy; that is, God was merciful when Jesus, the merciful high priest, shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins (cf. a;fesij, 9.22; 10.18). 129

Exod. 22.26; 2 Chron. 30.9; Neh. 9.17; LXX Pss. 85.15–16; 102.2–11; 111.4–5; 114.1–8; 144.8–9, 14–20; Jer. 3.12–15; Joel 2.13–14; Jonah 3.10–4.2; 2 Macc. 1.24–25; 8.27–29; 11.9–10; 13.10–12, 17; 3 Macc. 5.7, 11; 6.4; Sir. 2.11; 48.20; 50.19, 22–24; 51.3, 8. 130 Cf. Exod. 34.9; Lev. 10.17; Num. 14.18; Isa. 6.7; 27.9. 131 Biesenthal (109), a Jewish-Christian scholar in the 19th century, is one of the few who relate Exod. 34.6–7 to the adjective evleh,mwn in Heb. 2.17. 132 Cf. Exod. 32.12 (i[lewj genou/ evpi. th/| kaki,a| tou/ laou/ sou); and Exod. 32.14 (i`la,sqh ku,rioj peri. th/j kaki,aj h-j ei=pen poih/sai to.n lao.n auvtou/). For this use of i`la,skomai, see also 2 Kgs. 5.18; 2 Chron. 6.30; Pss. 24.11; 64.4; 77.38; 78.9; Lam. 3.42; and Luke 18.13.

2. Faithful in Service to God: Hebrews 2.17

47

While the language of Heb. 2.17 is similar to subsequent references to Jesus’ (priestly) mercy from heaven (4.14, 16; 7.25), this does not mean that a heavenly perspective should be inferred from the author’s remarks here. There are links between 2.17–18; 4.16;133 and 7.25, but whereas later verses will place Jesus’ actions within the context of intercession, 2.17 is concerned with Jesus’ merciful death on behalf of God’s people. Indeed, this is the predominant motif in the immediate context of 2.5–18, and therefore we should say that the merciful and faithful attributes of Jesus ‘were expressed in action, and in our humanity. And the mercy he has for us was dispensed in particular on the cross, where his supreme highpriestly sacrifice was offered for our sakes. Moreover, this mercy of his was made effective by his faithfulness.’134 To conclude, then, pisto,j in Heb. 2.17 communicates Jesus’ trusting obedience or faithfulness as high priest on earth. This means his high priesthood began on earth,135 with the potential of his office being developed from the moment of his incarnation,136 and ‘durch den Hohepriesterdienst des Christus auf Erden in Barmherzigkeit und Treue ist sein Dienst im Himmel möglich geworden.’137 The possible contradiction to this view, however, is found in 8.4, which says, ‘if he were on earth, [then] he would not be a priest since there are those who offer gifts according to the law.’ But, while ascribing priestly acts to Jesus in the epistle (e.g., 1.3; 7.27; 9.28; 10.12; 13.12), the author is reiterating the common, Jewish objection to identifying Jesus as a (high) priest based upon the regulations of the Mosaic law (cf. 7.13–14). The concern is aptly addressed because if Jesus was on earth, then the people of Israel would not regard or recognize him as a priest ‘according to the law’ (cf. 7.16) given the fact that he arose from the tribe of Judah rather than the tribe of Levi. The author’s rhetorical and scriptural approach to this dilemma is to establish that Jesus was in133 For example, the similarity between bohqe,w (2.18b) and boh,qeia (4.16) is evident and the ‘help’ involves Christ’s intercession (7.25); but, his heavenly help results from and comes after his suffering of death, i.e., atonement (2.17; cf. 2.9), which is signaled by the causal evn w-| in 2.18a (cf. Zerwick 1994, 40, §119) In other words, the result in 2.18b should not be read back into 2.17, so that evleh,mwn and pisto,j become heavenly attributes. 134 P. Hughes, 120. 135 Chrysostom, 389, 428; Theodoret, 154, 163–64, 168–69; Delitzsch, 1.142–43; Lünemann, 134; Schaefer 1968, 370–85; Fiorenza 1969, 274–76; Lincoln 2006, 88. 136 Delitzsch (2.75) wrongly makes this point when discussing Heb. 9.11–12, but the idea is true for Heb. 2.17 and elsewhere. 137 Rissi 1987, 61. Similarly, Hübner 1995, 3.39; and Riggenbach (61 n. 57), who says, ‘Demnach betrachtet der Verfasser Christus schon während seines irdischen Lebens als Hohenpriester, aber als vollendeten Hohenpriester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks erst mit seiner Erhöhung zur Rechten Gottes.’

48

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

deed a true priest, yet a priest ‘according to the likeness of Melchizedek’ (7.15). In light of the imperfection associated with the old covenant, there was a need for another priest to arise on the stage of history (7.11),138 one who would be a priest forever, not according to a specific commandment or restriction of the Mosaic law, but rather according to the likeness of the king-priest Melchizedek as well as the ‘power of an indestructible life’ (du,namin zwh/j avkatalu,tou, 7.16). This language of indestructibility or, more appropriately, ‘perpetuity’139 is meant to underscore the endless or permanent character of his priesthood, similar to Melchizedek (cf. 7.3). According to 7.23–24, death prevented former priests from continuing in office, but Jesus holds a ‘permanent’ (avpara,baton) priesthood because he continues forever – the strong implication being that he was already a priest on earth and death did not end his service. Although Jesus tasted death on behalf of all (cf. 2.9; 9.15), death did not prevent him from remaining as a priest; like Melchizedek, he continues (eivj to.n aivw/na) to exercise this office and, unlike Melchizedek, he does this in the heavenly sanctuary. As the eternal and sinless Son, he has the inherent power or ability to remain as a priest forever,140 but while his high-priestly role and office continues in heaven and has no end, it first began on earth in his incarnation (cf. 10.5–7). Further, the meaning of pisto,j in Heb. 2.17 corresponds well with the intent of 2.13, since the latter announces Jesus’ resolve to trust (in God) and the former advances his active obedience (to God). Rather than viewing 2.17 as a picture of the exalted and trustworthy Son, we see a humbled Son, who was faithful to the Father in terms of fulfilling the specific highpriestly task entrusted to him, namely to expiate or remove the sins of the people, and thus to sanctify them once and for all. As the author clarifies from the broader context, Jesus has accomplished this purpose by means of 138 The language of ‘arise’ in Heb. 7.11 and 7.15 is not referring to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, but rather to his appearance on earth in the incarnation (see also Deut. 18.15; 1 Sam. 2.35; 2 Sam. 7.12; Isa. 11.10; Jer. 23.5; Sir. 47.1; 1 Macc. 14.41; Pss. Sol. 17.21, 42; and Acts 20.30). Note also the parallelism in Heb. 7.14–15 with respect to avnate,llw and avni,sthmi, which resembles and perhaps even depends upon Num. 24.17: ‘a star shall arise out of Jacob and a human being shall arise out of Israel’ (avnatelei/ a;stron evx Iakwb kai. avnasth,setai a;nqrwpoj evx Israhl). 139 Cf. LSJ, 48; and avkata,lutoj in 4 Macc. 10.10, which speaks of ‘unceasing’ or ‘perpetual’ torments. 140 In other words, in saying that Jesus became a priest (forever) according to the ‘power of an indestructible life,’ the author does not mean to convey that he became indestructible in his resurrection/exaltation (Cockerill, 323–25), and thus first became a priest in heaven. The point is that his inherent and unique character (1.8–12; 4.15; 7.26) ensures that death would not and could not prevent him from continuing to live and to serve on behalf of God’s people.

3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6

49

his suffering of death (cf. 2.9–11, 14, 17–18). And though the example of Jesus cannot be imitated with respect to making atonement for sins, 2.17 nevertheless presents his faithfulness to God as the example to consider and follow (cf. 12.3).141 The steadfast faithfulness of Christ is something the original audience needed to contemplate as they considered what their allegiance to Christ may require of them (12.4).

3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6 Having advanced Jesus’ trust and obedience in Heb. 2.13 and 2.17, the author continues to develop this theme in 3.1–6, which again uses the adjective pisto,j for the purpose of comparing the honorable prophet Moses with Jesus, the Son. These verses assume and conclude the earlier discourse (i.e., 1.1–2.18), but they also form a bridge to the subsequent paraenesis (3.7–4.13),142 saying, Therefore, holy brothers, sharers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful [pisto,n] to the one who appointed him as Moses also [was faithful] in his house. For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as the one who built [the house] has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the one who built all things is God. On the one hand, Moses [was] faithful in his whole house as a servant to testify to what shall be spoken, but Christ [was faithful] as a son over his house. We are his house, if indeed we hold fast to [our] confidence and boasting of hope.

Previous analyses agree that continuity exists between Jesus and Moses, but specific conclusions vary considerably. In these verses, a host of difficulties is presented, including the puzzling reticence about how Jesus was faithful (pisto,j) and how exactly the comparison relates to what precedes and follows. For many, Heb. 3.1–6 again concentrates on the priestly office, but the following will argue that the analogy is not, first and foremost, dealing with Jesus’ high priesthood; it centers on his exemplary role as God’s

141 See also Michel, 164; Attridge, 95, and n. 190; and Johnson, 103–4, 150–51; contra Wallis 1995, 150 n. 24. 142 Lane, 73–74; Ellingworth, 193. Grässer (1984, 12) goes further in saying, ‘Das Verhältnis des Mose zu Christus ist nicht Thema, sondern Mittel für den paränetischen Zielgedanken, daß der » Ruhm der Hoffnung « (v. 6) in der Treue des Sohnes einen guten Grund hat.’ Grässer repeatedly argues that the Jesus-Moses comparison is not centered on the relationship between the Mosaic and Christian Heilsökonomie, but rather serves the author’s subsequent exhortations (e.g., Heb. 3.7, 15; 4.7), especially by means of Exodus typology (pp. 5, 13–15). Though Grässer is correct to draw out this distinctive, he inevitably creates a false dichotomy.

50

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

apostle (messenger).143 From the LXX, New Testament, and Hebrews, it seems that both figures are praised because of their faithful mediation of God’s revelation. Given the explicit purpose statement (Heb. 3.5) and immediate context, it is justifiable to conclude that pisto,j means faithful and relates to the specific act of testifying to God’s people. Each was obligated to mediate divine revelation, but Jesus is called the avpo,stoloj (and avrciereu,j) that all must consider as they struggle to maintain their confidence amid their contemporaries. Instead of being an exhortation to contemplate Jesus as the ‘trustworthy’ and heavenly high priest, the analogy is meant to highlight his faithful apostolic witness in comparison to Moses, so that those who are tempted to cease from testifying to the gospel might reflect on the Son’s example (and warning) of maintaining boldness to the end. 3.1 Defending Moses’ Faithfulness The Jesus-Moses comparison draws upon Num. 12.7. After an allusion is made in Heb. 3.2, the author gives a partial quotation in Heb. 3.5 that clarifies any ambiguity.144 In this setting, we are told that Miriam and Aaron ‘spoke against’ (evla,lhsen kata,) Moses because he had taken a Cushite woman as his wife (12.1). No further explanation is provided, yet the context suggests that Aaron and Miriam considered Moses’ decision to be disobedient; and the repeated reference to Moses’ questionable union (v. 1) serves to underscore the seriousness of the issue. Why, then, was his marriage a point of contention? Surveying the Old Testament reveals that Miriam and Aaron perhaps grouped Cushites with Egyptians and Canaanites due to their common origin (Gen. 10.6). Because God commanded Israel to avoid the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians,145 as well as making covenants with them (e.g., marriage), they most likely concluded that God’s warnings also extended to the Cushites (or Ethiopians). Moses’ first wife, the Midianite

143

While the building metaphor (vv. 3–4) necessarily implies Jesus’ apostolic and high-priestly actions, the priesthood does not supply the main point of reference for the analogy (vv. 5–6). 144 D’Angelo (1979, 69) unconvincingly argues that ‘the text cited in He. 3.2 is not Nu. 12.7 (although the allusion is present and held in abeyance) but 1 Chr. 17.14…’ There may be secondary allusions to 1 Sam. 2.35; 2 Sam. 7.11–13; and 1 Chr. 17.10–14 in Heb. 3.2–4, but the words of 3.2 are more conducive to Num. 12.7 than 1 Chr. 17.14. Another obvious difficulty with D’Angelo’s proposal is that 1 Chronicles 17 concerns David’s successor, not Moses. See additional critiques by Grässer 1984, 15 n. 66; and Ellingworth, 201. 145 Exod. 23.23–24; 34.11–16; Lev. 18.1–3.

3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6

51

Zipporah (Exod. 2.16),146 seems excluded from this ethnic triad, and thus explains why no one objected to Zipporah even though she too was a nonIsraelite.147 The narrative reveals that Aaron and Miriam regarded their accusation to be just and validated themselves by asking, ‘Has the Lord spoken only to Moses? Did he not also speak to us?’ (v. 2). The apparent tension is that God never prohibited Moses from this marriage; and upon hearing these words, God not only confirms Moses’ unique status as his authorized prophet (vv. 2b–9), but says that Moses is ‘faithful [pisto,j] in my whole house’ – this final statement functioning as a strong correction to the previous criticism. Therefore, the issue addressed in Num. 12.1–16 is not, primarily, Moses’ authority, as is often repeated,148 but rather his faithfulness or obedience, which is implicitly questioned (v. 1) and then explicitly defended (v. 7).149 3.2 Describing Moses’ (and Jesus’) Faithfulness While this narrative provides part of the textual background for the analogy between Jesus and Moses (Heb. 3.1–6), there is a great deal of confusion with respect to the point of the analogy. That is, how do they converge on the subject of pisto,j?150 Both are described as faithful, but Heb. 3.2 ‘does not specify in what that fidelity consisted’;151 and, though the author expands on Moses’ faithfulness as a servant in God’s house 146 Josephus (A.J. 2.252–53) spoke of Tharbis, daughter of the king of the Ethiopians, who married Moses; and, she is distinguished from Sapphora (i.e., Zipporah), Moses’ first wife, who was the daughter of a priest named Raguel (A.J. 2.277). 147 In response to Noth 1968, 94. 148 E.g., Gheorghita 2003, 112–13; Hamm 1990, 281; Vanhoye 1986, 97. 149 The same point was made by Philo (Leg. 2.66–67; cf. 3.228) when reflecting on the ‘shamefulness’ of Miriam, who dared to accuse (kathgore,w ) Moses of wrongdoing. 150 Following a lengthy discussion, D’Angelo (1979, 152) raised this question: ‘What is the point of comparison between Christ and Moses? How are they alike and how is Christ greater than Moses?’ Her proposal is that the author is contrasting Jesus and Moses on the basis of the ‘glory’ (do,xa) motif in 3.3–4: ‘The difference between Jesus and Moses is precisely that Jesus is the one who descended, while Moses is the one who ascended – the lowliness of the one is temporary, the exaltation of the other, not eternal… The purpose of the comparison then is to spell out the relationship between the status of Moses and the status of Christ’ (p. 153; cf. pp. 151–99). However, as will be demonstrated, she has not sufficiently analyzed the structure of 3.1–6 or addressed the with-respect-to-what question of Jesus’ faithfulness as compared to Moses’ faithfulness. In other words, she transitions too quickly to the contrast of glory (vv. 3–4) rather than developing the specific comparison made with respect to pisto,j (vv. 1–2, 5–6) and how this theme functions in the context. 151 Attridge, 108. Regardless of the lack of specificity in 3.2, Attridge concluded that Jesus’ appointment is ‘presumably to his priestly office,’ and 3.6 clearly shows that Jesus’ faithfulness ‘cannot be restricted to his earthly career.’

52

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

(3.5), ‘greater ambiguity surrounds what is meant by Jesus being faithful as God’s Son (w`j ui`o,j, 3.6).’152 Some of the difficulty of course results from what is said and what is omitted. The introduction of the title avpo,stoloj (3.1), lack of specificity (3.2), seemingly misplaced building metaphor (3.3–4), and asymmetrical structure (3.5–6) all contribute to the confusion and need for clarity. Upon closer examination, however, what seems obscure at first is in fact a skillfully created comparison that is focused on a specific action. Leaving the imagery of Heb. 3.3–4 aside for the moment, it is widely acknowledged that the analogy begins in 3.2 and resumes in 3.5–6. The following contrasts are apparent: whereas Moses was faithful ‘in’ God’s whole house as a ‘servant,’153 Christ was faithful ‘over’ God’s house as a ‘son.’ Though v. 2 and v. 6 do not specify the way in which Christ was (o;nta)154 faithful over his household, v. 5b does communicate how Moses was faithful. Indeed, it is absolutely critical to establish this point before attempting to explain Jesus’ faithfulness because the pisto,j in question coincides with (w`j) and depends on Moses. Therefore, the question must be raised: Moses was faithful with respect to what? As God’s servant, Moses was faithful in a task that typifies a prophet: eivj martu,rion tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn. Once again, the preposition eivj introduces the idea of purpose. To say that Moses was faithful for a testimony (i.e., witness), emphasizing the nominal form of martu,rion, is equal to saying to testify (i.e., to bear witness) or for the purpose of testifying to what shall be spoken. The translations are similar, but the latter two more adequately convey the purpose of eivj martu,rion.155

152

Wallis 1995, 149. For identifying Moses as a qera,pwn, see Exod. 4.10; 14.31; Num. 11.11; 12.7–8; Deut. 3.24; Josh. 1.2; 9.2; 1 Chron. 16.40; and Wis. 10.16 (implied from vv. 16–19). 154 The present participle o;nta is a historical present, and thus should be translated as a past tense – was (cf. Gen. 6.9; 44.14; 1 Sam. 14.21; 17.40; 2 Sam. 12.31; Luke 22.53; 23.7; Acts 7.12; 24.10; 1 Tim. 1.13). Contra Wallis 1995, 149 n. 23; Gordon, 72–73; and Vanhoye 2002, 71–72. This suits the context because eivmi, is necessarily implied in 3.2b and 3.5a in regard to Moses (de Wette, 202; Ellingworth, 202, 209). Numbers 12.3 even says, ‘And the man Moses [was] very humble, more than all the people, who were [o;ntaj] on the earth’ (cf. NAS, RSV, ESV). 155 The phrase eivj martu,rion occurs in Deut. 31.19 (song of Moses) and Deut. 31.26 (law of Moses). The Hebrew text ( d[el.) behind both confirms the purpose statement, especially with the particle preposition (![;m;l.) in Deut. 31.19, which explains the subsequent use of the l in the same text. In fact, the l ‘sometimes continues another preposition, the meaning of which it virtually assumes… thus l is found continuing ![;m;l....’ Joüon, §133d. For eivj martu,rion in the NT, see Matt. 10.18; 24.14; Mark 13.9; Luke 21.13; and John 1.7. 153

3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6

53

Another issue to consider, however, concerns the sense and referent of the future passive participle tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn. Because this is the only fut. pass. ptc. in the NT, the meaning remains elusive. The most common interpretation is along the lines of ‘what will/would be spoken,’ thus stressing a future event; but it is also possible that the intent centers more on one’s duty instead of a future action, specifically the future testimony of the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15–19).156 Beginning with Heb. 8.5, the author quotes LXX Exod. 25.40, where Moses was instructed by God to build the tabernacle: ‘You shall make [poih,seij, fut. act. indic.] everything according to the type that was shown to you on the mountain.’ The future tense is imperatival and is correctly translated as ‘You must make.’ In Heb. 10.28–29, with its a fortiori argument comparing the penalty for ignoring the law with the penalty for insulting the Son and the Spirit, the author asks, ‘How much worse punishment, do you think, shall he deserve [avxiwqh,setai, fut. pass. indic.], who has spurned the Son of God… and has outraged the Spirit of grace?’ But the rationale is plain that he should be counted worthy of more retribution and should incur a stiffer penalty given the subjects being profaned.157 Hebrews 12.20 also recounts God’s prohibition to Israel with respect to ascending or touching the mountain’s edge (Exod. 19.12–13): whoever did so ‘shall be stoned’ (liqobolhqh,setai, fut. pass. indic.). The point is not that the offender will be stoned sometime in the future; rather, he should/must be stoned. Earlier in Heb. 12.9, a reminder is given as well that earthly fathers disciplined us and we respected them, ‘Shall we not much more be subject [u`potaghso,meqa, fut. pass. indic.] to the Father of spirits and live?’ Far from being temporal or predictive, the author notes that everyone should and must submit to their heavenly Father in order to live.158 Interestingly, this sense of obligation recurs in 13.17 when the readers are exhorted, ‘Obey and submit to your leaders, for they are watching over your souls as 156

In the New Testament, future participles are telic (Matt. 27.49; Acts 8.27; 22.5; 24.11, 17) and substantive (Luke 22.49; John 6.64; Acts 20.22; Rom. 8.34; 1 Cor. 15.37; Heb. 3.5; 13.17; 1 Pet. 3.13). Smyth (1984, 454, §2044) remarks, ‘The future participle marks an action as in prospect at the time denoted by the leading verb. Since it expresses an idea of will, it shows that an action is purposed, intended, or expected.’ See also Robertson 1934, 1118–19; and BDF, 178, §351. As for Heb. 3.5, scholars agree that the phrase is difficult and unique, but the typical conclusion is that ‘it makes the most sense if we take it to refer to the final revelation of 1, 1f.’ Laansma 1997, 268 n. 78. This is evident in many English versions that insert the word ‘later’ (NAS, RSV, ESV; cf. NIV), assuming this testimony concerns what would be spoken in the future through Christ rather than what should be spoken. 157 Delitzsch, 2.188–89. 158 Lane, 423–24; deSilva, 451–52 (esp. n. 15).

54

Chapter 2. Jesus and Faith

those who shall give [avpodw,sontej, fut. act. ptc.] an account.’ Once again, leaders will give an account to God because they must account for what has been entrusted to them.159 Thus, all the above (with the future active indicative, future passive indicative, and future active participle) convey the expectation of an action based on an obligation. The last example is also particularly intriguing as it might reveal that the author was inclined to use the future participle in this way.160 Further, in the (Greek) Old Testament, one observes not only that God commands Moses to speak,161 as well as Moses’ faithfulness/obedience to keep these commands,162 but also that the commands are expressed using the imperatival mood and future tense: lalh,seij and evrei/j.163 This data, along with the above, may therefore confirm that tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn in Heb. 3.5 concerns those things that God expected or required Moses to speak.164 In other words, it is possible the author intended to convey that Moses was faithful to testify to what should or must be spoken.165 His obedience of course extends from pre-Exodus to post-Exodus events, yet the law (in its entirety) remains at the center of what he communicated to the people of Israel.166 If this is the meaning of Heb. 3.5, then it would cohere with what the epistle says later, namely that ‘every commandment according to the law was spoken [lalhqei,shj, aor. pass. ptc.] by Moses [u`po. Mwu?se,wj] to all the people’ (Heb. 9.19; cf. 7.14).

159 Cf. MHT, 3.158; Zerwick 1996, 689; see also Strobel, 181–82; Braun, 472–73; Bruce, 385–86; Delitzsch, 2.394–95; and Zimmermann 1977, 12. 160 Further, Heb. 12.1–2 uses avpoqe,menoi (aor. ptc. = avpoqw,meqa) and avforw/ntej (pres. ptc. = avforw/men) as co–ordinate commands with tre,cwmen. McKay 1994, 82–83. 161 E.g., Exod. 6.6, 11; 25.2; Lev. 17.2; 21.1; 23.10; Num. 5.6; 8.2; 9.10; Deut. 1.42; 5.30; 18.20. 162 E.g., Exod. 6.9; 7.7; 34.31–32, 34; Lev. 21.24; 23.44; Num. 9.4; 11.24; 14.39; Deut. 4.45; 27.9; 32.44. 163 lalh,seij, Exod. 7.2; 30.31; Lev. 7.29; 20.2; Num. 18.26; 27.8; evrei/j, Exod. 3.16, 18; 4.15, 22; 7.9, 16, 26; 8.16; 9.1, 13; 19.3, 6; 20.22; 23.22; Lev. 1.2; 12.2; 15.2; 17.2, 8; 18.2; 19.2; 21.1; 22.18; 23.2, 10; 24.15; 25.2; 27.2; Num. 5.12; 6.2; 8.2; 11.18; 15.2, 18, 38; 18.26, 30; 28.2–3; 33.51; 34.2; 35.10 (cf. Joüon, §113m; and MHT, 3.86). 164 Instead of seeing the passive voice as a passivum divinum (e.g., Wider 1997, 149). 165 Similar conclusions have been made by Bengel, 372; Davidson, 84; Bleek, 175; Kurtz, 120–21; Winer 1870, 428; Héring, 39; Bénétreau, 1.154–55; and Lünemann (146), who says that it means ‘to give testimony to that which should be spoken, or proclaimed to the people. Ta. lalhqhso,mena are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ… which must have been more precisely specified… but the law to be proclaimed by Moses, at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended.’ Further, Hebrew uses the passive participle to convey this notion; for example, Ps. 76.8 says, ‘You must be feared’ (ar'An). Joüon, §121i. 166 Hence, tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn is probably a genitive of content, which denotes the (communicative) content of martu,rion (cf. Matt. 13.18; 1 Cor. 1.18; Gal. 3.10).

3. Faithful to the One Who Appointed Him: Hebrews 3.1–6

55

Irrespective, however, of whether tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn (3.5b) conveys what should be spoken by Moses, notably the law (cf. Sir. 45.1–5),167 or what would be spoken (at a future time by the Messiah), the author presents Moses as having faithfully mediated God’s revelation to Israel. That is, even though the use of the future tense in both the LXX and Hebrews allows for and perhaps favors the ‘should’ interpretation, the main point to note is that Moses is put forward as one who, in obedience, bore witness to what God revealed to him. The testimony of Moses may refer to God’s revelation in general168 or the specific words of the law in which God promised to raise up a prophet like Moses,169 a prophet who would and must speak all that God commanded him (Deut. 18.18); but, either way, the ‘testimony’ of Heb. 3.5 would still apply to Christ in 3.6, especially when considering the details of 3.1–6 and how this text relates to its OT, NT, and immediate contexts.

167 Contra Vanhoye (1967, 291–305; cf. idem 1986, 95–107), who says that pisto,j in Heb. 3.1–6 means ‘trustworthy’ (fide dignus; cf. Hamm 1990, 281–82; Ellingworth, 202; Isaacs, 50, 53; and Gray 2003, 139–40). His reasons include: (1) the Hebrew verb !m;a' in Num. 12.7 means Moses was established in a privileged position (p. 293), thereby underscoring the authority that was entrusted to Moses (auctoritate concredita, p. 303), and (2) Num. 20.12 and Deut. 32.51 explicitly deny Moses’ obedience (pp. 293–94). Thus, pisto,j (LXX Num. 12.7; Heb. 3.5–6) refers to Moses’ trustworthiness, as well as Jesus’ trustworthiness as our heavenly high priest, who was also endowed with authority (auctoritate praeditum, p. 304) upon his exaltation (Heb. 3.3). However, aside from the remarks above, the niphal constructions of !m;a' (as in Num. 12.7) can mean ‘faithful’ when applied to God and man (BDB, 53; e.g., Deut. 7.9; Ps. 78.37; Isa. 1.26; Hos. 12.1). First Samuel 2.35 says, ‘And I will raise up for myself a faithful [pisto,n] priest, who shall do all the things in my heart and in my soul.’ Pisto,j is supplied for the niphal participle !m'a/n