|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:03:51 GMT -5
4. The first five verses of chapter two comprise the first exhortation in the Hebrews epistle.
As noted before, the writer followed a consistent pattern in his letter, in which he punctuated sections of his instruction with an exhortation that highlights a primary
implication of that instruction. In that way, he made sure his readers grasped his meaning and its import and applied it properly to their own faith and practice. Here, his
exhortation proceeded out of his instruction comparing Jesus with God’s angelic servants, but with a focus on something the Son and angels share in common, rather than what
distinguishes them. That commonality is their role as testators: Both are God’s ambassadors appointed to bring His word to men. And since the Son and angels both speak on God’s behalf, men are obligated to embrace and obey the words of both. But this is where the writer introduced the crucial distinction that is the focal point of his exhortation: The Son’s superiority over the angels implies that there is a greater gravity to His words and a greater consequence for failing to embrace and conform to them.
a. The author introduced his exhortation with the phrase, “on this account” (often rendered for this reason or therefore), which told his readers that he was going to draw out an implication of his preceding instruction: If the Son is superior to the angels – and He is, and if angelic testimony is unalterable and binding, how much more is that true of the Son’s testimony? In making his point, then, the writer presented an a fortiori (from the lesser to the greater) argument, which was common in Jewish reasoning and rhetoric and characterizes his approach throughout the epistle (ref. 3:1-6, 7:8, 23-25, 8:1-6, 9:13-14, 10:11-12, 28-29, 12:7-10; cf. also Proverbs 11:31, 15:11, 21:27; Amos 2:1; Matthew 11:20-24, 12:10-12; Luke 23:27-31; Romans 5:15-21, 11:12, 24; 2 Corinthians 3:7-11; etc.).
It’s not just that the Son Himself is superior to the angels, the same is true of His testimony. The angels testified to men with a view to God’s promised day of deliverance and renewal; the Son’s testimony (in His person, words, and deeds) affirmed that that day had come; He spoke of the “great salvation” the angelic administration anticipated and served. But more than simply speaking of it, Jesus embodied Yahweh’s salvation as the incarnate Word. In Him, all of what God had spoken of from the beginning was now coming to pass.
Jesus was the human embodiment of God’s revealed word (Torah), and so His deeds, as well as His words, commanded a proper response from all who observed and listened to Him. He came into the world as the living, tangible word of God, but a word that men could willfully resist and refuse (John 1:11, 5:39-40). But beyond that, those who did embrace Him could find themselves unwittingly drifting away from Him and His word through carelessness or distraction. Thus the Hebrews writer exhorted his readers to apply all diligence to hold fast to what they’d heard, less they find themselves straying from it (2:1). This verb was used in various ways, and carried with it two primary images. The first was a ship adrift, either because it had slipped anchor, or because wind or currents carried it off course. The other was a ring that slipped unnoticed off a finger, to become lost to its owner. The present context suggests the first image, but both involve the same dynamic, namely an imperceptible falling away through inattentiveness.
The possibility of people who’ve embraced Christ and His gospel drifting away from Him typically carries the minds of contemporary readers to the question of eternal security and whether a person can “lose his salvation.” But the Hebrews writer wasn’t concerned with this question at this point, though he would soon speak to it (6:1-8). The issue here isn’t a false or temporary embrace of Jesus, but the obligation of those who embrace Him to hold tightly to Him with a
disciplined, diligent and undistracted grasp. Even those who’ve truly found life in Jesus are able to wander from its truth and power (Ephesians 4:17-24).
b. Again, the point of comparison in the exhortation is angelic testimony versus that of the Son. Both share a divine origin and nature, and the writer highlighted this
with respect to the angels by reminding his readers that their words were unalterable and carried an exacting penalty for disregard and disobedience. This reminder was just that, and the writer gave it for rhetorical effect. He wasn’t telling his readers anything they didn’t know; they understood from their Scriptures and their own history that the word spoken by Yahweh’s angels is just as binding and consequential as words from His own mouth.
The writer spoke only in general terms, suggesting that he wasn’t singling out any particular angelic utterance. At the same time, the context seems to point toward the angels’ role in God’s communication of the Sinai Covenant (Law of Moses). It was those “words” that especially bound Israel with the obligation to hear and heed and imposed explicit penalties for disobedience. It was also the words of the covenant that Israel was repeatedly warned about straying from (cf. Exodus 24:1-8 with Deuteronomy 6:1-25). At the same time, the Old Testament scriptures never directly mention angels playing a role in the giving of the covenant, though Moses’ final blessing on the tribes of Israel comes close to suggesting this
(Deuteronomy 33:2). The Hebrew text is unclear, but seems to read, “He came from the midst of a multitude of holy ones,” which the Septuagint translators rendered as the Lord coming with a multitude of angels. This translation reflects the common Jewish view of that time that angels were indeed involved in the ministration of the covenant at Sinai, a view that both Stephen and Paul seemed to have held (cf. Acts 7:52-53; Galatians 3:19).
c. Perhaps the best indication that the writer had the Sinai episode in mind is his parallel allusion to the New Covenant and its gospel. He didn’t mention either
covenant, but instead spoke of the danger of neglecting “so great a salvation.” But it’s clear that he was referring to the good news of the New Covenant in the Messiah, for this was the “salvation” spoken by the Lord Jesus, which was then proclaimed by His witnesses and confirmed by His Spirit (2:3-4).
This raises the question of why the Hebrews writer chose to express his point this way. If the issue is straying from Jesus’ words (“what we have heard”), why did he refer to this straying as “neglecting so great a salvation”? One possibility is that he was viewing Jesus’ words as instruction concerning salvation. Thus, drifting from Jesus’ instruction is turning aside from the salvation He heralded.
This perspective, then, gives the impression that the writer was speaking about those who disregard or distort the “gospel message” by which people are saved. In this case, his warning pertains to the condemnation that awaits those who set aside Jesus’ offer of salvation. But this view doesn’t at all suit the context, and so must be rejected. The writer wasn’t concerned with what people do with the message of salvation, but how Christians order themselves in relation to Jesus’ instruction in light of the salvation – the new life – that they possess in Him. His warning wasn’t directed toward prospective converts, but to those who are in Christ. This is obvious from the context, but also from the fact that he included himself in his warning: “we must pay closer attention to what we have heard…” (vv. 1, 3).
The tragic outcome the writer was warning about isn’t the final condemnation of those who reject Jesus, but the declension, loss and shame that inescapably come to Christians who aren’t watchful and diligent in living out their salvation (Philippians 2:12). Yes, some might prove in the end to have never known Him (ref. 3:12-15, 6:1-8), but many others will find their negligence producing the worthless yield of “wood, hay, and straw” (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).The writer recognized that some of his readers might depart from Jesus entirely,but here he was more focused on the insidious threat of carelessness and compromise. His warning reflects his fear of these brethren straying from Jesus, even while believing that they were holding onto Him. Furthermore, he wasn’t so much concerned with negligence in their practice, as in their understanding and thinking
– their drifting away from the truth as it is in Jesus (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:1-4; Ephesians 4:11-24; 1 Timothy 1:3-7, 6:20-21; 1 John 5:18-21; 2 John 1-4; etc.).
d. One final consideration (driven more by contemporary concerns than those of the writer) is the matter of “signs and wonders” in attesting Jesus’ words (v. 4b).
Many have viewed this statement as biblical warrant for the idea that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit’s power are crucial to the effectiveness of gospel preaching. This was the premise of the “power evangelism” idea popularized by the Vineyard movement. But this claim must be argued on other bases than this passage, for the writer was speaking about the apostolic ministry and how God confirmed the truth of their testimony about Jesus, not providing a pattern for evangelism. There were no scriptures affirming their message, and the message itself was radical and unthinkable: The apostles proclaimed a new order of human existence – the kingdom of God – that had Jesus’ resurrection at the center. In that
early setting, such a message demanded attestation that manifested its truth.
Though not stated, this exhortation hints at a challenge these Jewish believers likely faced from their countrymen: Whereas God had confirmed the truth of Torah by mediating it
through angelic beings, this new “word” concerning Jesus was merely the testimony of men. But the truth was that the apostolic gospel had an even greater and more compelling
attestation. For Jesus Himself had proclaimed this “word,” and His witness was authenticated by His resurrection (Romans 1:1-4). And now Yahweh was adding His own
“amen” by the powerful working of His Spirit. But this greater witness pertained to a greater word – the ultimate and complete Word that compels faith and faithfulness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:05:43 GMT -5
5. The balance of chapter two continues the writer’s larger argument concerning the Son’s
superiority to the angels, but with a notable shift in emphasis. The previous section
highlighted the Son’s regal supremacy – the fact that He is God’s anointed King and
Sovereign through whom He governs and upholds all things. That dimension of
superiority implicated the Son’s humanity, since it’s as the messianic Son of David that
Jesus exercises His rule at God’s right hand. This next section (2:5-9) continues the same
essential emphasis, but as focusing more explicitly on the Son’s humanity. He is superior
to the angels as God’s royal sovereign, but as He is True Man.
This is evident from the passage the writer used to introduce and frame this section. He
cited from Psalm 8, which is another psalm penned by David. It, too, has messianic
overtones, though it isn’t as overtly messianic as some of the previous psalms the writer
drew from (Psalms 2, 45, and 110). This psalm sings God’s praises, marveling at His
wisdom and glory in creation, but as it has its focal point in man, the unique image-son.
Psalm 8 celebrates the Creator-God by celebrating the being that He created in His own
image and likeness to administer His rule over His creation. And so this psalm, too, is a
royal psalm, but one that advances the writer’s argument by enlarging its scope.
1) First, it moves the concept of Jesus’ regal sovereignty beyond His status as the
messianic Son of David to His identity as the Last Adam – man in truth.
2) But, again, this movement is only an expansion. For the messianic concept and
messianic revelation, which reached their apex in David and the Davidic
Covenant, are central to God’s outworking of His purpose for man. The Scriptures
emphasize that the regal Son of David – the Messiah the Scriptures revealed and
promised – would both embody the reality of man as regal image-son, and be the
instrument by which the human race would at last attain to this created design.
The balance of chapter 2 continues and develops the theme of Jesus’ superiority to the
angels, and it does so as building on the writer’s exhortation, as well as his previous
instruction. Thus the basic structure of the overall context (1:3-2:18): The exhortation of
2:1-4 reflects and focuses the instruction in chapter one, and this exhortation then
provides the springboard for the instruction that completes the chapter and larger context.
a. The writer shows this relationship by his transitional term: “For, He did not
subject to angels the world to come…” This term is an inferential conjunction,
meaning that it introduces an inference drawn from the preceding material. In this
instance, the inference looks back to the exhortation that immediately precedes it,
or to the previous instruction in chapter one, or to both.
- Some believe that the writer’s exhortation forms a parenthesis, and so
view his inference as looking back to the argumentation that closes out
chapter one. Thus his point: Angels are simply ministering spirits, sent
out to render service to the heirs of salvation. It is those human heirs to
whom God has determined to subject the world to come.
36
- Others believe the inference is more closely tied to the exhortation itself.
In this case, the writer was tying the obligation of faithfulness to Christ’s
salvation to the fact that the world to come is to be ruled by human
beings. His point, then, seems to be that the saints’ regal destiny in
God’s purposes for His creation should drive their understanding and
orientation toward the salvation that is theirs in Jesus. They need to
conscientiously attend to this salvation in the present, because it has its
goal in the world to come and their role in it.
However, it’s not necessary to choose one view over the other. In fact, the flow of
the passage suggests that the writer was drawing his inference from all that
precedes it. Even if the inference most specifically refers to 2:1-4, that exhortation
flows directly from the preceding instruction. So also, viewing 2:1-4 as a
parenthesis doesn’t change the fact that it binds together the instruction that
precedes it and the inference that follows. And because 2:5 introduces the
argument that finishes out the chapter, it’s best to view this verse as drawing an
inference that implicates the entirety of the first two chapters. For these chapters
are concerned with God’s ultimate design for His creation, which has His human
creature at the center, even as it has its focal point in Jesus the Messiah.
And so verses 5-8 continue the writer’s line of argumentation, which is that the
Son is superior to the angels as God’s enthroned King and sovereign Lord. At the
same time, he shifted his emphasis: The human dimension of Jesus’ lordship
(evident in the Davidic contexts cited by the writer) now takes center stage. And
not merely with respect to Jesus, but the entire human race. Jesus’ status as the
glorified, enthroned Son of Man has its ultimate goal in man’s regal destiny as
image-son; it is to man, not angels, that God has subjected the world to come.
b. Again, the writer elaborated on this truth by citing from Psalm 8, which praises
the Creator in view of the surprising and remarkable place man holds in His
design for His creation. The psalm concerns the human creature and not a specific
person, but the Hebrews author applied it specifically to the one man, Jesus. Some
have argued that he made this application based on the psalm’s use of the
expression, “son of man.” Jesus appropriated this expression as His primary form
of self-designation, and the claim is that this led the Hebrews writer to see a
reference to Him in the psalm (cf. also Daniel 7:13, which was also interpreted
messianically, both by the Jews and the early Christians). But in reality, the
writer’s connection of this psalm with Jesus goes far beyond terminology.
In the psalm, and elsewhere in the Old Testament scriptures, the phrase, “son of
man,” is a synonym for man (note the parallelism in the question in Psalm 8:4).
The expression, “son of…” emphasizes a person or thing’s likeness to something
else; so a “son of lawlessness” is a person characterized by lawlessness. Thus the
phrase, “son of man,” emphasizes the nature and qualities of humanness, and so
was an eminently appropriate way for Jesus to refer to Himself; in every respect
and to the fullest degree, He was the truly human One.
37
c. “Son of man” highlights humanness in distinction from other created beings, and
the psalmist looked to the creation account to identify that distinction. What
distinguishes man from all other created beings – including angels – is his created
identity and function. Man alone is created in God’s own image and likeness, but
for the purpose of manifesting God’s tangible presence and administering His rule
over His creation (cf. Psalm 8:5-8 with Genesis 1:26-28). Form always follows
function, and man is image-bearer for the sake of his role as image-son. The glory
of man is his unique status as image-son; by design, all things submit to the
Creator’s sovereign lordship by being in subjection to the human son who shares
the divine image and likeness.
The author of Hebrews could read Jesus into Psalm 8 precisely because He is man
in truth – man as depicted and celebrated in the Psalm; man existing according to
his created nature and function as ordained by God from the beginning. But the
writer was acknowledging and highlighting more than this:
His ultimate reason for interpreting Psalm 8 in terms of Jesus was his recognition
that human destiny – the human existence that the psalm celebrates – is realized
in Jesus; man becomes truly man in the Son of Man.
He understood that Psalm 8 applies to human beings as such because it applies
first and foremost to the man Jesus. Or, to put it the other way round, this psalm
cannot speak of the creature man except as it first speaks of the singular Man. For
as he exists in himself in his present state, man isn’t – and cannot be – the
glorious image-son celebrated in the psalm. Unless the Son of Man is its true
subject, the psalm’s portrayal is only a cruel deception, and the psalm itself
evaporates as an empty and idle wish-dream.
d. The Hebrews writer highlighted human lordship as realized in the Son, but he
associated it with “the world to come.” Was he, then, denying Son’s rule over the
present world? If so, this sets him at odds with the apostolic witnesses, and even
Jesus Himself (cf. Matthew 28:18 with Acts 2:34-36; Ephesians 1:18-23; etc.). A
few observations are helpful in this regard.
1) First, the writer wasn’t merely affirming the Son’s (and man’s) rule in the
world to come, but denying that this rule will belong to angels (v. 5).
There was a tradition in Israel (not least in the Qumran community of the
Essenes associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) that assigned a central role
to angels in God’s governance of the world in the Olam Ha Ba (the
renewed world of the messianic age). For their part, the Essenes believed
that two messianic figures (one regal and one priestly) would govern
God’s kingdom in the messianic age, but both would be subject to the
archangel Michael. Michael was a powerful “lord” on Yahweh’s behalf in
the present world (Daniel 10), and so he would be in the age to come. The
epistle’s Jewish audience was almost certainly aware of this tradition, and
many believe the writer’s statement was directed toward it.
38
2) Second, the writer stated that this “world to come” was the subject of his
instruction – that “concerning which we are speaking.” This provides
important insight into his meaning, for the larger context is concerned with
the present reality of Jesus’ lordship as God’s messianic King. In some
sense at least, the writer clearly believed that the “world to come” already
exists in the present. Moreover, he associated this coming world with the
salvation that Jesus proclaimed and His followers have entered into.
If verse 5 only pertained to vv. 1-4, one might possibly argue that the idea
of a present salvation is consistent with an entirely future “world.” That is,
the writer was warning and exhorting his readers to be faithful with the
salvation they possess in the present, in view of the fact that they are heirs
of a “world to come.” But its clear from the wider context that the writer
was looking beyond simply 2:1-4 when he said that the world to come was
the subject of his instruction.
3) A third observation builds on and reinforces the previous one. And that is
the writer’s statement that the subjection of all things to the Son is not
fully realized: “we do not yet see all things subjected to Him” (v. 8b). At
the same time, he clearly believed that the human lordship celebrated in
the psalm and centered in the Son is a present reality; even now, “we see
Jesus “crowned with glory and honor” (cf. vv. 7, 9).
The implication of all of this is that Jesus’ sovereign reign as the Son of David
and Last Adam is an already-but-not-yet phenomenon. He rules as the True Man
crowned with glory and honor, and the messianic King enthroned at God’s right
hand (ref. 1:3, 8-9, 13). Jesus possesses all authority in heaven and earth, but not
everything presently yields to His authority. In the words of the Hebrews writer,
He has taken His throne, but His enemies have not yet become, in the ultimate
sense, the footstool for His feet (cf. 1:13, 2:8).
This same already-but-not-yet principle applies to the “world to come.” Again,
this expression translates the Jewish concept of Olam Ha Ba, and the Jewish
readers of the epistle would certainly have interpreted it that way. In Jewish
eschatology, Olam Ha Ba refers to the messianic age – the kingdom of God – that
Messiah would inaugurate through His triumph. He would conquer the powers
that had taken Yahweh’s people captive, and so liberate the prisoners and restore
them to their God. But because Israel’s subjugation resulted from covenant
violation, restoration meant reconciliation – the renewal of the covenant
relationship. From Israel’s side, this meant cleansing, forgiveness and a new
heart; it meant life out of death, the resurrection from the dead (cf. Deuteronomy
30:1-6; Ezekiel 36-37). From Yahweh’s side, it meant the restoration of His
dwelling place and His return to take His place in the midst of His people (Isaiah
40, 59; Ezekiel 37; Zechariah 1-2). This is the Olam Ha Ba – the “world to
come,” and Jesus inaugurated this new world in Himself as the exalted firstborn
from the dead. The “world to come” has broken in, but as yet awaiting its fullness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:09:02 GMT -5
6. Psalm 8 provides the framework for the writer’s present argument about Jesus’ supremacy over God’s angels. In a word, He is superior to them because He is True Man
– man as celebrated in the psalm. But the psalm’s celebration of the creature man points to another dimension of this superiority: Jesus is superior as True Man, but also as Man unto mankind. Until His birth, there had never been a human being who matches the depiction in Psalm 8; if it were not true in Him, it would not be true at all. But the psalm speaks of the human creature, and not merely one human being. Therefore, the truthfulness of Psalm 8 depends on it presenting an accurate depiction of the human race, but it doesn’t do so because of the fallen human condition. And so, either the psalm is false, or it’s prophetic; either its vision of man is flawed, or it predicts man’s final conformity to his created design and purpose. The Hebrews writer believed the latter, and he had come to recognize that this human destiny has been attained in Jesus. He is the man depicted in Psalm 8, but in order that the psalm’s vision should be fully realized.
This is the subject of the balance of chapter two (vv. 10-18), and in these verses the writer shows how the man Jesus accomplished God’s will for His human creature – how it is that He is True Man for the sake of mankind; how, in Him, the truths highlighted in Psalm 8 have become “yes and amen” for Adam’s race.
a. The Hebrews writer centered this fulfillment of human destiny in Jesus’ vicarious suffering and death – the fact that He “tasted death for everyone” (2:9). Drawing on the language of Psalm 8, he asserted that the Son who is superior to the angels was “made for a little while” lower than the angels, but unto the goal that He should be “crowned with glory and honor.” And Calvary – the “suffering of death” – was the means of this movement from lowliness to exaltation.
David penned the eighth psalm with the understanding that God has ordained a glorious, regal destiny for His human creature, in spite of his present lowly status and condition. (The verb rendered “made a little lower” concerns inferiority of status or position, not essence; cf. John 3:30.) David anticipated the day of man’s exaltation (made lower than the angels for a little while), and the Hebrews writer recognized that that day had come in Jesus’ person and work. He took upon Himself man’s lowliness as a son of Adam under the curse, but for the sake of all of Adam’s children. Jesus’ solidarity with Adam’s race in sharing their lowly state and condition had its goal in them sharing His glory and honor. He became all that they are so that they should become all that He is; the suffering that secured His own perfection as man, the image-son (2:10), looked to the perfection of mankind. God saw fit to make the incarnate Son the pioneer (founder) of salvation, so that He should become “the firstborn among many brothers” (cf. Romans 5:18, 8:3, 16-17, 28-30; 1 Corinthians 15:20-23; 2 Corinthians 5:14-21).
This is the reason the Hebrews writer associated Jesus’ suffering and death with “the grace of God.” His suffering, culminating with His death at Calvary, was the outworking of God’s grace, because it had its object in God’s gracious recovery of His image-children. The Father perfected His Son through suffering with a view to His goal of “bringing many sons to glory.”
40
All of this, then, highlights the crucial truth that Jesus’ exaltation in glory and honor through the suffering of death must be understood as His personalrealization as the Son of Man of God’s goal for His human creature.
- Jesus was “crowned with glory and honor” in His enthronement, but this was simply the intended climax of His resurrection, which attested Him to
be the “Son of God with power” (Romans 1:3; cf. also Acts 2:29-33). The Son’s glorification at the Father’s right hand, then, focuses on the fact that He is True Man – man as God’s exalted and honored Image-Son. (Thus the Hebrews writer associated this outcome with Psalm 8).
- Jesus’ suffering and death brought Him the glory of fully realized humanness, but not for His own sake alone; His dereliction unto glory and
honor served God’s gracious purpose to bring many sons to glory.
b. All of this has profound implications for how we must understand Jesus’ atoning work, the nature and process of that atonement, and the effect of it. The Hebrews writer spoke of that work in terms of several key ideas.
1) First, he presented Jesus as the pioneer of salvation, rather than merely a substitutionary sacrifice. The language connotes the idea of a trailblazer – of Jesus leading the way into salvation so that others can follow.
2) This trailblazing path went from lowliness (“made lower than the angels”) to exaltation (“crowned with glory and honor”). Most importantly, this is the path God ordained for His human creature. This is the point the writer was making in connecting Jesus with Psalm 8.
3) Third, this path was the path of suffering. It was through “the suffering of death” that Jesus ascended from lowliness to glory and honor. In context, this exaltation refers to His resurrection from the dead and enthronement at the Father’s right hand (ref. 1:3; cf. also Acts 2:32-33).
4) But Jesus blazed this trail from lowliness to glory and honor, not for His own sake, but for the sake of Adam’s race: He became True Man for the
sake of man. Jesus “tasted death for everyone,” so that His triumph and exaltation at the Father’s right hand should be the destiny of mankind.
Again, the writer situated Jesus in Psalm 8, not because the psalmist did, but to emphasize that He embodies the vision of man depicted and
celebrated in the psalm, but in order that the psalm should speak truthfully about the creature man, as it purports to do.
5) Jesus, then, is the pioneer of salvation, but in the sense that salvation speaks to the human destiny God ordained for His image children. In this way, Jesus was Himself the first fruits of salvation; He was the first to experience this human destiny; He was the first man to be “saved.”
41
This is a profound point that must not be missed: All Christians acknowledge and celebrate the fact that Jesus is Savior, but perhaps most
oversimplify that truth and its implications for human beings. Jesus is Savior, but as the first man to experience God’s saving work. He isn’t
merely the sinless Son of God who saves men, He is the Last Adam. Jesus walked the path from lowliness to glory as a true son of Adam, bearing in
Himself the Adamic curse of alienation, sin and death. He embodied fallen man and underwent man’s just condemnation, then to be raised to newness
of life. In that sense, Jesus Himself experienced the very salvation that God determined for mankind, but He did so as blazing the path for others.
6) Thus the writer emphasized that Jesus’ path of lowliness, suffering, death, resurrection, and exaltation had Adam’s race in view; it was the Father’s ordained gracious process to “bring many sons to glory.” Jesus’ experience secured salvation for men, but in the sense that their salvation would involve them undergoing the same experience. God’s intent was that human beings should follow Him as the appointed trailblazer, and this means taking up the cross as He did and losing their lives as they know it, in order to find their life in Him (Matthew 16:21-25; Romans 8:16-17).
7) And this life in Jesus is the life for which man was created and destined. It isn’t a happier life in this world, or even the soul’s blissful and everlasting rest in heaven. It is the glory and honor the psalmist spoke of, and that the Hebrews writer understood to have been realized in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation at the Father’s right hand. The life that Jesus holds out to men is the authentic life of God’s image-children. But these children are sons in the Son, so that their path of sonship is His path; it is the path of suffering unto death yielding glory and honor – the glory and honor that reflect the human vocation of dominion over the creation in God’s name and for His sake (cf. Genesis 1:26-31; Psalm 8:3-9; Romans 8:12-17; 2 Timothy 2:11-12; Revelation 5:1-10).
This is the framework within which Jesus’ atonement must be understood. One might argue that this framework is too narrow, and only reflects the emphasis of this one passage. But, if the Hebrews writer rightly understood God’s work in the Messiah, then his instruction must accord with the entire scriptural treatment of this topic – not simply in the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well. For the messianic person and work fulfilled Israel’s Scriptures, which the New Testament documents were written to demonstrate. And in fact, a careful and proper reading of the Bible shows that the Hebrews author did indeed share the perspective and understanding of atonement found in all the Scriptures.
1) The foremost thing to recognize, then, is that the goal of Jesus’ atonement was sonship – not legal satisfaction for law-breaking, forgiveness for sin, or even purification from corruption and defilement. God’s concern was to realize human destiny, not uphold and secure a moral/ethical standard.
42
2) Therefore, atonement is relational rather than legal. It concerns the relationship between God and His image-children, not their conformity to
a legal code or standard. Many might wish to point to the Law of Moses and its myriad commandments and sanctions in order to argue otherwise,
but the Law of Moses was the covenant that defined and prescribed the relationship between Yahweh and Israel as covenant Father and son
(sometimes expressed in terms of a husband/wife relationship; Isaiah 50-54; Hosea 1-2) (cf. Exodus 4:22-23; Isaiah 1:2-3; Hosea 11:1-4). Thus
God treated Israel’s lawlessness as relational infidelity; Israel was a harlot who pursued other lovers, not a rule-breaker (Ezekiel 16, 23).
3) Sin is fundamentally relational violation, and thus it yields alienation. God, in turn, acknowledges this alienation by imposing the judgment of
exile. This principle emerged with the disobedience in Eden (Genesis 3), and was constant throughout the life of the covenant household, expressed
in exile from the camp of Yahweh’s habitation (Leviticus 24:13-23), exile from His sanctuary land (Deuteronomy 28:58-68), and ultimately exile
from His very life and presence (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).
4) Thus, atonement focuses on the restoration of the divine/human relationship – the ending of exile (Luke 4:16-21, 9:18-31). It includes
forgiveness and cleansing, but as they fit within the concepts of liberation and ingathering, covenant renewal, and Yahweh’s return to His people, so that Father and son again dwell together in intimate fellowship. These things are the marrow of the Old Testament’s promise of the kingdom,
which was to be inaugurated through the messianic person and work.
This understanding of atonement, then, helps to explain how it is universal without implying (or necessitating) that every human being is finally saved. First and foremost, Jesus’ atonement was universal in that it pertained to the entire created order. The whole creation was subjected to the futility and death of the curse (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:20-21), not because it committed any offense against its Creator, but because its relationship with Him is in and through man.
Therefore, when the God/man relationship was compromised, so was the Creator/creation relationship. Man’s alienation resulted in the alienation of the whole created order. So man’s restoration is the ground of the creation’s restoration (Romans 8:19-22). God’s great design in Jesus’ atoning death looked beyond humans to the heavens and earth (Isaiah 65-66; Colossians 1:19-20).
But Jesus’ atonement equally pertains to all people. If He was a true son of Adam
– and the writer insists that He was (vv. 7-9, 14-18), then His suffering and death as man pertain to every son of Adam (2 Corinthians 5:14-21). He took up our corrupt humanness to put it to death in Himself, and emerge in the new and true human life that defines man as exalted, regal image-son. But He did so as the “pioneer of salvation”: He led the way, and we follow by owning our death in Him, and so finding life – our true human self – through union with Him
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:10:38 GMT -5
In the mind of many Christians, the purpose for the incarnation was simply to facilitate
the work of atonement: Only a human being can be a suitable vicarious sacrifice for
human beings. Moreover, that individual must be free of all personal corruption and guilt
– that is, he must be unique among human beings if he is to be an effectual substitute.
This has led to all sorts of conclusions regarding the distinctions between Jesus and all
other humans. Some, for instance, have argued that the very fact of incarnation proves
that Jesus was a different sort of human being – not a true son of Adam, but the unique
God-Man. One offshoot of this view is that Jesus’ shed blood had atoning efficacy
because it was divine blood; it was the blood of God Himself. But the truth is that any
attempt to distinguish Jesus’ humanness from all other human beings actually undermines
a right understanding of His atoning work and its basis and goal. The propriety and
efficacy of Jesus’ atonement depends utterly on His being a true son of Adam.
This point is central to the Hebrews writer’s argument here, and it comes into sharp focus
in the balance of the chapter (vv. 11-18). In the previous verses, he spoke of Jesus’
human identity in connection with His sacrificial death, but his focal concern was the
goal of that death, namely bringing many sons to glory. Jesus’ death as man was for the
sake of mankind, and not simply that human beings would be saved from condemnation.
Rather, Jesus’ atonement had man’s created destiny – his sonship – in view. But not
human sonship as distinct from His own, but the sonship He enjoys as True Man.
c. God’s design in the death of His incarnate Son was that the beings He created in
His own image and likeness should become sons in truth – sons who share the
likeness of the One who is the True Image-Son. Put the other way round, Jesus’
goal – the goal of His incarnation, death and resurrection – was that His Father
should become the same Father of other human beings: Those set apart to the
Father and the One who set them apart are “all from one” (v. 11; cf. John 20:17).
This phrase has to do with source or origin, and so, in context, the writer might
have meant one Father (NAS) or one human stock (NIV). In the end, each implies
the other, so that the overall meaning remains the same: Jesus was born a son of
Adam to fulfill His Father’s intent to have many children.
But if the children and the Son share the same Father and same human origin and
nature, it follows that they are brethren – not hypothetically, or in some remote or
abstract theological sense, but truly and fully. This is the subject of verses 11-13.
Contemporary readers can easily get side-tracked with such questions as the
eternal sonship of the Logos, or how the Father’s relationship with His unique
Son differs from His relationship with other human beings, but the writer’s
concern here was the solidarity between Jesus and the human race, as both are
children of Adam and children of God. The man Jesus was the Son of God, not as
eternally divine, but as truly and fully human. So He is glorified and enthroned as
the truly human Son (note again the writer’s citations in 1:5-13), and this
Father/son relationship is what the Hebrews writer had in mind when he spoke of
the Father bringing many sons to glory (v. 10). This is the framework for
understanding how these children of God are Jesus’ brethren.
44
Once again, the Hebrews writer turned to Israel’s scriptures to show that this was
God’s goal all along. The two passages he cited from are Psalm 22 and Isaiah 8.
1) Psalm 22 is another messianic psalm, and the fact that it’s referenced
several times in the New Testament shows that the early Christians
recognized it as such (cf. Matthew 27:39-46; Mark 15:24-34; John 19:37).
But, whereas the psalms previously cited highlight the regal aspects of
Messiah’s person and work, Psalm 22 is a psalm of rejection, dereliction,
humiliation, and cruel suffering. This emphasis alone connects the psalm
with the present context, for the Hebrews writer has stressed Jesus’
suffering and death as the means by which God restored His imagebearers to Himself so that they should become children in truth. And yet,
the author didn’t draw from portions of the psalm that speak to Messiah’s
suffering. Rather, he cited a verse (v. 22) that has the sufferer proclaiming
Yahweh’s name to his brethren.
In the context of the psalm, verse 22 speaks to this person’s confident
testimony in the midst of his rejection and abandonment: What he was
enduring was according to Yahweh’s faithfulness and good purpose. The
sufferer understood – and those observing his ordeal needed to understand
– that his dereliction would see the nations returning to his God to serve
Him with a sincere heart, lauding Him for His righteousness and power in
accomplishing such a marvelous and unexpected work (vv. 25-31). His
travail, which seemed so clearly to argue against the messianic triumph
and kingdom, was actually the triumphant means of its inauguration.
This is the meaning of verse 22 in its own context, and the Hebrews writer
didn’t depart from it. Rather, he simply shifted the perspective somewhat.
In the psalm, verse 22 presents the sufferer’s declaration concerning
Yahweh, his God, while in Hebrews the citation focuses on the sufferer’s
brethren who hear that declaration. So also, in the psalm those brethren
appear to be fellow Israelites, while in Hebrews the brethren are those –
Jew and Gentile – who are children of God in the Son; those who are part
of the renewed covenant household Jesus is forming in Himself (cf.
Romans 8:9-17; Galatians 3:15-29; Ephesians 2:11-22).
But, in both contexts, the statement highlights the same core truth that God
ordained the dereliction and death of His messianic Servant to accomplish
His good purpose to banish the curse, establish His everlasting kingdom,
and populate it with true image-children. Yahweh would acquire sons and
daughters through the Servant’s travail, and the Servant would acquire
true brethren. Thus the Lord would fulfill His promises to Abraham,
David and Israel to become King over all the earth and Father to all tribes,
tongues, nations and peoples (ref. again Isaiah 53-54; cf. Genesis 17:1-8;
Exodus 25:1-8; Isaiah 9-12; Jeremiah 24:1-7, 31:1-33:26; Ezekiel 34, 37;
Hosea 1-2; Zechariah 2, 8:1-8; Revelation 21-22).
45
2) The other passage the writer drew from is Isaiah 8. The first quote closely
corresponds to the Septuagint of 8:17b, and the second reflects the first
part of 8:18. This passage has a very different context and concern than
Psalm 22, but the early Christians regarded it as messianic as well. They
saw references to Jesus in Isaiah 8 itself (cf. Isaiah 8:14-15 with Romans
9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8), but the messianic quality of this particular chapter is
greatly enhanced by the wider context that spans chapters 7-12. This larger
section promises the preservation of David’s house and kingdom in
connection with the future reality of Immanuel (7:1-16).
- The historical setting was a threat to Judah and her king, Ahaz, by
the allied forces of Israel (the separate kingdom formed when ten
of the Israelite tribes renounced Rehoboam and embraced
Jeroboam I as their king) and Aramea (Syria). Fearing for his life
and throne, Ahaz pursued his own alliance with Tiglath-pileser, the
king of Assyria, in the hope that this would enable him to finally
prevail in the ongoing conflict that had already taken a heavy toll
on Judah (cf. 2 Kings 16:1-9; 2 Chronicles 28).
- It was in this context that Yahweh sent His prophet Isaiah to Ahaz
to tell him what his seemingly shrewd alliance was going to yield.
The Assyrian king and his armies would indeed deliver Jerusalem
from the Israelite-Aramean forces, but the result would be
Assyrian occupation of Judah and Assyrian authority wielded over
Ahaz’ dominion. The Gentile power Ahaz so eagerly embraced to
deliver David’s throne was going to overshadow it (8:1-8).
- What King Ahaz needed to understand – what Isaiah was sent to
affirm – was that his fears were unfounded; no attempt to destroy
David’s throne would succeed. The Israelite-Aramean alliance
wasn’t going to accomplish this, and neither would the Assyrian
presence in Judah – either through Tiglath-pileser or his grandson
Sennacherib (Isaiah 36-37). All such efforts would fail, not
because of Judah’s might or powerful alliances, but because of
the promise of Immanuel (8:9-10). David’s throne and kingdom
would endure because they were Yahweh’s throne and kingdom;
Judah, with Jerusalem as its crown jewel, was Immanuel’s land.
- Thus Yahweh charged Isaiah to guard against being drawn into the
people’s fears and unbelief; he was to fear the “Lord of Hosts” –
Yahweh, the God of the armies of heaven and Israel – and trust His
faithfulness, and so find Him to be his sure sanctuary. For their
part, Israel and Judah would continue to stumble over their God
until their stumbling reached its climax in the day when He
returned to Zion in His messianic Servant (8:11-15).
46
- Yahweh had determined to preserve David’s kingdom for a season,
but desolation and exile were coming to it as well. This judgment
was well deserved and not to be averted (ref. Ezekiel 23-24), and it
would stand until the promise of Immanuel was fulfilled and
Yahweh again rose up to deliver the captives, restore David’s
throne, and establish His everlasting kingdom (8:19-9:7). At that
time, He would cleanse the unfaithful children and destroy the
powers that had subjugated them (9:8-10:34), raising up the
Davidic Branch to achieve this triumph, renew the habitations and
restore His presence among His people (11:1-12:6).
This is the prophetic context the Hebrews writer drew from, and the verse he cited
plays a significant role in it. For, overarching the terror and uncertainty that Judah
was enduring, and would endure in the coming centuries (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:1-
27, 32:1-22, 36:1-21; Jeremiah 7:21-34; Lamentations 1-2), was the abiding
obligation to trust the God of Abraham and David and His unwavering promises.
The people of Judah saw conspiracy, threat and danger on every hand (even from
the prophets sent to them – cf. Jeremiah 1:1-19, 7:1-27, 18:1-28:17, 37:1-38:28),
and their reaction was to look anxiously around them for remedy, rather than
trusting the Holy One of Israel and His faithfulness (Isaiah 41:1-20). But Isaiah
and his children and disciples, who were signs to the unbelieving and fearful in
Israel (ref. 7:3-4, 8:3-4, 16-18), were to continue in patient, watchful, and hopeful
trust (8:16-18). Their discipleship as faithful brethren would one day be fully
realized when the object of their faith formed a new brotherhood in Himself.
Again, it’s important to emphasize that the Hebrews writer didn’t select these two
citations arbitrarily because they happen to mention the concept of brotherhood.
They do speak to this topic, but as part of a larger surrounding context. He cited
these particular statements with a view to their scriptural and prophetic contexts,
and it is those contexts that contribute to his argument.
- The excerpt from Psalm 22 highlights the Son’s role as testifier. He
proclaims His Father’s name to His brethren and solicits their collective
praise. It’s true that the Son Himself deserves and rightly receives glory
and honor from His brethren as the pioneer of salvation – the One who led
them into His Father’s house. But He receives all honor and praise as
having carried out His Father’s glorious design. His glory is His Father’s
glory, and thus He leads His brethren in proclaiming the Father’s name
and singing His praises. In worship and praise, too, He is one with them.
- The citation from Isaiah 8 also emphasizes the idea of testimony, but from
a different angle. Here it is the testimony, not of proclamation and praise,
but of manifested faithfulness. This is the faithfulness first shown by the
Son in trusting Himself to His Father and His good purpose, and now
replicated in His brethren – those who have become faithful sons in Him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:24:33 GMT -5
Jesus is a brother to His own, not in a philosophical or metaphorical sense, or simply in
terms of His love and affection for them. He and the Father’s children are brethren in the
fullest sense, as sharing the same human origin and nature. In the incarnation, the divine
Logos united Himself to the human race by sharing in the same human stock; Jesus was
every bit a son of Adam, just as all men are. This is not to say that He was marred by sin
and alienated from His Father, but His blamelessness resulted from His conscious and
complete contradiction of His Adamic humanness, not His exemption from it.
Jesus opposed and condemned the fallen human nature and condition from within it, not
from outside of it as a different kind of human being. As observed by the church father
Gregory Nazianzus, “the unassumed is the unhealed.”
In order to consummately heal the being He created in His own image and likeness, God
needed to become one with him. So “the Word became flesh”; Jesus was born a genuine
son of Adam, but unto the goal of becoming a new Adam – the “Last Adam.”
- He put to death Adam’s fallen race in Himself, climaxing with His crucifixion, in
order to be raised from the dead as a new kind of man – man as God intended him
to be; man as celebrated in Psalm 8.
- But Jesus wasn’t raised simply as a new human individual, but a new Adam: He
came out of the grave as the “first fruits from the dead”; His triumph in death and
resurrection was the triumph of mankind. Jesus is the fountainhead of a new
human race (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, 42-49) that shares His life and nature, and so
shares the same Father and is related to Him as true brothers and sisters.
This new human family of regal image-sons was the reason for the incarnation and
atonement, which bore its “first fruit” in Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement at the
Father’s right hand (cf. Genesis 1:26-31; Psalm 8; Jeremiah 33:19-22; Romans 8:16-18;
1 Corinthians 6:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:8-14; Revelation 5:1-10, 21:1-22:6). Having thus
accomplished His mission on behalf of mankind, Jesus is not in any way ashamed or
reluctant to call His Father’s other image-children His brethren (vv. 10-11).
d. Again, this brotherhood isn’t theoretical, philosophical or metaphorical, but
ontological. That is, the Son and His brethren equally share in “flesh and blood”
(v. 14a). The point is not that Jesus had a physical body like other people, but that
He was a fully human being. The wider context indicates that this was the writer’s
meaning, but it’s absolutely clear from what follows. To fulfill His vocation,
Jesus “had to be made like His brethren in all things.” This was because His
vocation involved representation and substitution. Jesus entered into the human
calamity in order to resolve it in Himself, and so enable mankind to fulfill its
created design. And at the heart of this calamity was the matter of lordship and
dominion: Man was created to be God’s image-son – His vice regent embodying
His life, exercising His mind and will, and administering His loving and wise rule
over His works. Man was created to embody God’s lordship, but he’d tragically
found himself reflecting a different lord and administering his lordship.
48
That lord had promised freedom to the image-children, but they’d only exchanged
one master for another. Liberation from the divine mind and will hadn’t brought
human autonomy, but only subjection to a different, contrary mind and will. And
because of what man is in his essential being, this liberation was deliverance from
life into death: Man is the image and likeness of God, animated by His life and
made authentic by His mind; when the divine-human intimacy is forfeited, man
ceases to be man – he dies to himself and becomes a living lie. Death has
consumed him, though his heart continues to beat (cf. Genesis 2:16-17, 5:1-5). In
this condition, the mind that informs and governs man is estranged from the
divine mind, but this vacuum is filled by the mind of another – the great contrary
mind. The promise of self-actualization rendered the human image-son the
enslaved son of the anti-human adversary, namely the satanic power.
The great evidence of Satan’s absolute sway isn’t immorality, injustice, violence,
wickedness, foolishness, or any other unfortunate or evil characteristic of human
beings and human culture. All such aspects of human existence only point to the
singular proof of the power and reign of the “god of this age.” It is the
universality of death that proves the devil’s universal dominion. Again, the
scriptural concept of death is first a spiritual and ontological one, rather than a
physical one. Mortality is a consequence of death, not the substance of it; the
death of the human body follows from the death of the human being.
This perspective is critical to understanding the relationship between sin and
death, and how it is that the devil possessed the power of death (v. 14b).
- Just as death pertains, in the first instance, to the human being, so it is with
sin. Whereas people naturally think of “sin” in terms of particular
thoughts, words and deeds, such phenomena are only symptoms of it. Sin
is deviation (“missing the mark”) at the point of the very essence of one’s
humanness. And because humanness is defined by perfect intimacy with
God (“I in you and you in me”), sin exists whenever this intimacy is
compromised. This is the sense in which “the wages of sin is death,” and
it’s the reason that death is the inherent consequence of sin, and not a
punishment that God imposes
- The scripture indicates that this deviation was, in the first instance, the
fruit of satanic deception aimed at inducing doubt and suspicion toward
God (Genesis 3:1-5). The deceiver sought to disrupt, and ultimately
fracture, the intimacy between the Creator-Father and His image-children,
and he succeeded in his endeavor (Genesis 3:6-13). Thus Satan is the
author of death (Genesis 3:16-24), and he has wielded it as the great and
compelling power of his dominion ever since. This is what the writer
meant by saying that the devil “has the power of death”; it isn’t that death
is ultimately under his control, but death – as the fundamental and
universal principle of human existence – characterizes the realm of satanic
rule, and it is the chain that keeps human beings under his dominion.
49
The Hebrews writer recognized that death is the most profound form of slavery,
for it is something that people have no power over, and so cannot liberate
themselves from. Once alienated from God and severed from His life, human
beings have no recourse of remedy. Even if men could discover a “fountain of
youth” that granted them immortality, it would not deliver them from death. It
would only sustain them in that state, perpetuating forever their pseudo-human
existence as the most tragic and unimaginable curse. In reality, though, such a
situation could never exist, for man is both flesh and spirit; it is impossible that
his outward condition should be unaffected by his inward deviation.
Death is the ultimate enslavement (and so the great instrument of satanic power),
and this bondage expresses itself in various ways. Undoubtedly, the most
profound of those is fear. Here, the writer seemed to connect fear with physical
death (v. 15), and it’s certainly true that many people are tormented and even
enslaved by their fear of dying. But there is a greater, more fundamental fear that
grips every human being, and this was the writer’s ultimate concern. This fear is
the deep-seated, ever-present uneasiness and apprehension that are inherent to
human existence in alienation from God (Genesis 3:6-10).
- The destruction of divine-human intimacy resulted in God becoming a
fearful unknown to His image-children. Unable to know Him in truth, as
He actually is, they are left to either fashion Him in their own image, or
avoid Him altogether. Either way, people are plagued by fear – the
nagging, often unconscious fear of God as the other. Even those who deny
God’s existence are acknowledging Him as other.
- This fear of the unknown “other” defines people’s inherent relationship
with God, but also with other human beings. To the extent that people
don’t detect a semblance of themselves in others, they instinctively view
them with uneasiness and reserve, if not suspicion or even fear. All of
these responses, conscious or otherwise, reflect the reality of human death
– the state of separation/alienation (“me and not me”) that defines natural
human existence. So it was that fearful hiding and finger-pointing were
death’s “first fruit,” and it quickly ripened into lethal antipathy.
The Hebrews writer understood the meaning and power of death, and had more
than physical mortality in mind when He spoke of Jesus delivering God’s imagechildren from death and the one who wields its power. Jesus did overcome
mortality (evident in His own resurrection), but as a consequence of His victory
over death in its entirety (John 11:25-26; Romans 8:1-11). And by conquering
death, Jesus also stripped Satan of the power that he possessed because of death –
the power that works through fear (1 John 4:16-18). But as death is a conquered
foe that isn’t yet destroyed (1 Corinthians 15), so it is with the devil; Jesus
triumphed over him and continues to plunder his house, yet he’s still at work in
the world as he awaits the day of his destruction (cf. 1 Peter 5:8 with Matthew
12:22-29; John 12:23-33; Romans 16:17-20; James 4:7; Revelation 2:10, 12:1ff).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 10:25:56 GMT -5
e. Jesus’ triumph as man – encompassing His incarnation, atonement, resurrection
and enthronement – was for the sake of Adam’s race. In everything, He is Man
unto mankind, and it is precisely as Man – the truly human, regal Image-Son –
that Jesus is superior to the angels. The writer has stressed this throughout this
context, and he underscored the point with a direct and succinct affirmation: Jesus
“didn’t lay hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham” (2:16).
Scholars have long debated the writer’s intent in using this verb. Many of the
early church fathers believed that he was speaking of Jesus taking to Himself our
human nature and form. This interpretation certainly fits the context, and it seems
to have predominated through the Reformation. Others have argued that the writer
was referring to Jesus “taking hold” of men in salvation. If this was his meaning,
the point is that Jesus is not the savior of angels, but of human beings. More
recent scholars have tended to assign to the verb the softer sense of “helping” or
“giving aid.” This meaning is reflected in most modern versions of the Bible,
including the NKJV, ASV, ESV, NASB, and NIV.
In New Testament usage, this verb occurs nineteen times, and always has the
basic idea of seizing, appropriating, or taking hold of something or someone.
- Most often, it refers to laying hold of or seizing another person, in either a
good or bad way (Luke 9:47, 23:26; Acts 16:19, 17:19, 18:17, 21:30, 33).
- It’s also used of taking hold of someone’s words. Here the idea is catching a
person in what he says in order to use his words against him (Luke 20:20-26).
- Lastly, Paul used it of laying hold of eternal life (1 Timothy 6:12, 18-19).
Whether in the New Testament or the Greek Septuagint, the verb never carries the
sense of helping or assisting. It’s also important to note that Hebrews writer used
an entirely different verb when he spoke of Jesus coming to the aid of His people
in verse 18. And so, scriptural usage and the present context seem to best support
the idea of Jesus “taking hold of” the seed of Abraham in the sense of becoming
one with them in incarnation and atonement.
Some have questioned why the writer felt the need to make this distinction
between angels and human beings; why would the idea of Jesus taking up the
nature and form of angels even be a consideration? The answer may perhaps be
found in the Jewish Qumran doctrine discussed earlier. Recall that the Qumran
community (associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) held the expectation of two
messianic figures, one kingly and the other priestly. But both of these individuals
would be subject to the archangel Michael. In this sense, the eschatological hope
of the Dead Sea sect was ultimately tied to an angelic deliverer, and the Hebrews
writer may have had this in mind. If so, he was reemphasizing the subordination
of angels in the messianic work; indeed, that work doesn’t pertain to them, but
concerns the human children of the covenant father Abraham (ref. again 1:14).
51
It may seem surprising that the writer used the expression, “seed of Abraham,”
rather than a more universal term. The entire context emphasizes that Jesus took
to Himself human nature and form; why, then, say that He took hold of the
offspring of Abraham? There are at least two clear reasons for this:
1) The first is the most obvious, which is that the epistle’s recipients were
Jews. They understood, from the Scriptures and their traditions, that their
God – the God of Israel – was going to send His Messiah to Israel in
keeping with His covenant oath to Abraham (Luke 1:26-79, 2:1-32). Israel
was the “seed of Abraham,” and the Messiah was going to bring
forgiveness and deliverance to Israel by embodying Israel in Himself as a
son of Abraham (cf. Isaiah 49:1-13; Matthew 1:1; John 1:44-51). Jesus did
indeed “take up” human flesh and blood as a true son of Adam, but
specifically as a covenant son of Abraham (Luke 3:23-38).
2) The Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be a son of Abraham,
and that He would be Yahweh’s instrument for purging and renewing His
covenant people. The Messiah would embody Israel in order to deliver and
renew Israel. But this restoration of the Abrahamic household was going
to reach beyond Abraham’s biological children to the Gentiles. Yahweh
promised Abram that he would be the father of many nations, and He
certified His promise by changing Abram’s name (Genesis 17:1-7). The
prophets were clear that Messiah was going to restore the house of Israel,
but so that they should fulfill their Abrahamic calling to mediate the
knowledge of their God to all the earth’s families. Israel’s ingathering
would see the Gentiles’ ingathering (Isaiah 11:1-13, 49:1-13, 53:1-55:13).
Thus the writer wasn’t denying that Jesus took hold of all men in the incarnation
and atonement; rather, he was underscoring for his Jewish readers that this
profound work was precisely God’s fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. In
Jesus, the singular Abrahamic seed, Abraham’s offspring become true covenant
children. This renewal is “for the Jew first,” to fulfill Yahweh’s word to the
fathers and prophets, but with a view to the ingathering of the nations, so that the
Father’s house should be filled to overflowing (cf. again Isaiah 11, 49, 53-55 with
Luke 13:22-14:24; Acts 1:1-8, 9:1-11:18). His design in the Messiah is that all
who share in Him are Abraham’s children and heirs of the promises (Galatians 3).
f. Jesus “laid hold of” of Abraham’s children by becoming one with them – “being
made like His brethren in all things,” sharing their Adamic “flesh and blood.” But
He did so for the sake of His priestly vocation and ministration (2:17); He did so
to fulfill His Father’s design to “bring many sons to glory.” Two things are
important to note about this statement:
1) The first is the writer’s description of Jesus Himself as God’s great high
priest: “It was necessary that He be like the brethren in all things, that He
might become a merciful and faithful high priest…”
52
Most English versions treat merciful and faithful as equal, parallel
adjectives modifying the term, high priest. But the writer’s expression set
apart and highlighted the adjective “merciful,” so that it conveys this
sense: Jesus had to share the likeness of the brethren in every respect, in
order to become merciful, and a faithful high priest.
2) Mercy is an integral dimension of Jesus’ high priesthood, but the writer
wanted to distinguish this quality because of how it connects His work
with the One who appointed Him. A priest who isn’t merciful denigrates
his calling, and in this sense mercy is inherent to Jesus’ faithfulness as
God’s high priest. But the Hebrews writer wasn’t simply identifying
mercy and faithfulness as two marks of a true and effective priest. Rather,
he was emphasizing a key dynamic in Jesus’ priesthood:
- God sent His Son into the world to execute a preordained priestly
vocation on behalf of men and the wider creation. Jesus’
faithfulness consisted in His full embrace of this vocation and His
perfect devotion to it. Thus His faithfulness was directed toward
His Father and His specific calling in His Father’s purpose; He was
a faithful high priest “in things pertaining to God.”
- But, in order to faithfully execute His priestly vocation, Jesus
needed to be characterized by mercy. There are two dimensions to
this, inherent in the fact that priests are mediators between two
parties. First, Jesus needed to have a heart of sincere mercy toward
men, and this required that He fully share in their human condition.
But He was also representing His Father in His priestly
ministration, so that His mercy toward men is His Father’s mercy.
This is the focus of the last part of verse 17.
Importantly, this is the first time the writer mentioned Jesus’ priestly
vocation, and he went on to make it a central theme in the balance of his
epistle. This shows that he regarded his statement in verse 17 as
foundational, and thus he constructed it as a summary overview of Jesus’
high-priesthood. The statement consists of three parts: The middle part is
the heart of the statement, as it designates Jesus as God’s high priest. That
designation, then, looks backward to Jesus’ priestly role on behalf of men
(v. 17a), and forward to His priestly role on behalf of God (v. 17c).
In order to fulfill His vocation as high priest, Jesus needed to be man unto
God, and God unto man. This dual representation was depicted in Israel’s
priesthood, which mediated the covenant relationship between Yahweh
and His covenant “son.” The Law of Moses was the covenant charter, and
it depended for its success on a mediating priesthood (ref. 7:11-12).
Israel’s priesthood, though, was preparatory and prophetic, and looked to
another priesthood to mediate the relationship between Father and sons.
53
Jesus is the sole priest in that new priesthood, and the writer goes on to
emphasize that this new priestly system is a radical departure from the
Levitical system that anticipated it. Not only does it have but one priest,
that priest is of a radically different sort (ref. chaps. 7-10). And the heart
of Jesus’ uniqueness as high priest is that He truly and fully represents
both parties in His priestly mediation.
- Like the Levitical priests before Him, Jesus mediates for human
beings as sharing their human nature and condition (vv. 14,17). He
bears their weakness and infirmity before God, representing them
as they are. But He also represents them as they ought to be – as
God created them to be. Jesus mediates for men as a son of Adam,
but with the goal of bringing many sons to glory as the Last Adam
(8:1-9:15, 10:1-22).
- But Jesus’ greatest distinction from the Levitical priests is that He
is God unto man in a way that no other man could be. The former
priests represented Yahweh to Israel, expressed in their absolute
consecration to Him (cf. Exodus 28:36-38, 29:38-46; Leviticus
21:1-24; Numbers 1:45-53, 3:11-13, 8:5-22; etc.), but they didn’t
embody Yahweh as Jesus does. Jesus’ mediation to men on God’s
behalf is the mediation of God Himself.
The writer underscored this truth by the way he closed his statement,
which highlights the God-ward dimension of Jesus’ priesthood. Sadly,
most English versions tend to obscure his meaning, which is best captured
as follows: Jesus became all that men are in order to become merciful
toward them, and so a faithful high priest on behalf of God and His intent,
which was resolving the human calamity and obtaining image-children.
By means of incarnation, Jesus became merciful toward men, which mercy
is exercised through a faithful (agreeing and conforming) high priesthood
in which He manifests and fulfills God’s merciful design in forgiveness,
cleansing, and reconciliation.
Again, this meaning is often missed, particularly because of the translation
choice of the word “propitiation.” In contemporary usage, propitiation is
frequently treated as a technical term that refers to satisfaction of divine
wrath, which is viewed as one of the core components of atonement. But
the Greek term (and its cognates) highlights the idea of forgiveness and
cleansing by virtue of mercy (cf. Luke 18:13, Romans 3:23-26; note also
the Septuagint version of 2 Kings 5:18; 2 Chronicles 6:28-30; Psalm
25:11, 65:2-3, 79:9). The same is true of the Hebrew counterparts – hence
the “mercy seat” (the gold cover of the ark of the covenant) was the place
of propitiation in the Levitical system (ref. Exodus 25:17-22; Hebrews
9:5; cf. Deuteronomy 21:8; Psalm 79:9; Proverbs 16:6; Isaiah 6:5-7).
54
The writer’s focus in verse 17 – which he intended to encourage and
strengthen his readers – is the crucial truth that Jesus’ vocation as high
priest entails His merciful ministration of God’s forgiving and reconciling
mercy toward men. This only underscores the error and detriment of
viewing Jesus as interposing Himself between a wrathful God and the
objects of His wrath. Sadly, many Christians (and non-Christians) hold
this view, and notions about propitiation only reinforce it. But propitiation
speaks, not to God’s indignation because of human failure to conform to a
moral standard, but His unrelenting love that is committed to seeing His
image-children fulfill their created nature and vocation. Yes, God is
wrathful toward sin, because it falsifies and corrupts His creation, and it is
sin that He condemned in Jesus (Romans 1:18-19, 8:1-4). But God’s wrath
flows from His love, and it’s love that motivated Him to intervene and
reconcile all things to Himself. This is the context for God’s wrath toward
men; it speaks to the ultimate outcome for those who suppress the truth –
in their minds and lives – of His all-embracing triumph in His Son (ref.
John 3:16-17, 36; Romans 2:1-8, 5:1-10, 8:1-39; Ephesians 1:2-6, 2:1-7; 2
Corinthians 5:14-21; Colossians 1:19-20; Titus 3:1-7; 1 John 3:1, 4:7-10).
g. A high priest represents men, and so must share their nature; he must be
one of them. But he must also be merciful, and this requires that he
understand and empathize with the weakness and infirmity of those under
his care. And the only way to truly empathize with another person is to
share the same experiences. Hence there are two reasons that Jesus “had to
be made like the brethren in all things”: The first is His work of
representation and substitution, and the second is His work of renewal and
intercession. The first focuses on Jesus’ incarnation and atonement, and
the second on His ministration as enthroned King; the first focuses on His
identity as a son of Adam, the second on His being the Last Adam.
Fully sharing in the human nature and condition was essential to Jesus’
work that culminated with Calvary, but it is equally essential to what
Calvary inaugurated. Both dimensions of Jesus’ high-priestly work depend
on Him being truly human, and His resurrection and exaltation haven’t
distanced Him from the brethren whose humanness He shares. Though
enthroned at the right hand of God with all things in subjection to Him,
Jesus knows human weakness and the oppression of temptation (2:18).
He’s been tempted in all that is common to Adam’s offspring, and so
understands their ordeal and fully empathizes with them. At the same
time, Jesus’ suffering in temptation transcends that of all other men, for no
other son of Adam has resisted and contradicted his condition and its
struggles and temptations the way Jesus did. And so, He’s not simply an
empathetic high priest, but an effectual one. It’s one thing to commiserate
with others in their weakness, failures and suffering; it’s quite another to
provide them with remedy. Jesus is such a friend and brother; He meets
His own with the resource of sovereign love (4:14-16; Romans 8:28-39).
|
|
