Forgiveness through the intercession of Jesus
While not as universally attested as the view of his death as salvific, the notion of Jesus’ continuous intercession for those who have sinned surfaces in a number of texts that otherwise differ widely in theological character. Paul expresses his conviction that Jesus ‘is at the right hand of God’ and ‘intercedes (εντυγχανει) for us’ (Rom 8.34), but he does not mention sins specifically. Likewise, the author of Hebrews states that Jesus ‘can also save forever those who come to God through him, since he always lives to intercede (εντυγχανειν) for them’ (Heb 7.25). It is possible in view of his subsequent discussion of the high-priestly sacrifice for sins (7.26-7) that the author here envisages a ministry of praying specifically for sins to be forgiven, but he does not say so explicitly.
First John clearly associates Jesus’ intercessory work with forgiveness claiming that ‘if somebody sins, we have an advocate (παρακλητον) with the Father, Jesus Christ who is righteous’ (2.1). The notion that the righteous departed pray for the forgiveness of the sins of the living is firmly rooted in several variants of early Judaism, and the phrasing in First John is strikingly evocative of Philo’s articulation of this conception. What Philo predicated of the ancient saints of Israel, First John attributes to Jesus: the continuing ministry of praying before God on behalf of sinners, at least on behalf of those sinners who have not committed mortal sin (see 5.16-17)
Luke’s narration of the death of Stephen (Acts 7.54-60) also assigns the role of advocate to Jesus. Scholars have frequently taken Stephen’s invocation of Jesus, ‘Lord, do not hold (μη στησης) this sin against them (7.60) as equivalent to saying ‘Lord, forgive this sin for them’ and thus as expressing the notion that the heavenly Jesus forgives sins. But this interpretation appears to be based on the misunderstanding of ‘to establish’ (ισταναι) and ‘to remit’ (αφιεναι) as antonyms in 1 Macc. 13.36-40; 15.2-9, where a careful reading reveals that these verbs are by no means anonymous. A more relevant philological background for Stephen’s prayer is provided by the regulations concerning vows and pledges in Num 30.11-15 LXX, which allow a husband either to nullify (περιαιρειν) his wife’s vows and pledges by speaking out, or to validate (ισταναι) them by keeping silence. In the former case, ‘the Lord will forgive (καθαρισει (MT: יסלח )) the woman (30.13). In Acts 7.60, Stephen analogously petitions Jesus not to validate the sin of the assassins, but to nullify it by speaking on their behalf, reserving for God the prerogative of properly forgiving their sin. This also explains better why Jesus is standing, rather than sitting, at the right hand of God in Stephen’s vision (Acts 7.55-56): Jesus is not functioning as a judge, but as the advocate of his faithful witness (cf. Luke 12:8-9), who exemplarily asks him to speak also in favour of the enemies.
This understanding of Acts 7.60 affects the construal of Peter’s advice to Simon Magus, ‘ask the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven for you’ (Acts 8.24). The identity of ‘the Lord’ is obscure. If it refers to God, a post-baptismal sin may be forgiven by God without Jesus playing any instrumental role (cf. 3.19). If, by contrast, it refers to Jesus, then his function could be understood in either of two ways: as the one who actually forgives sins, or as the heavenly advocate, who intercedes for the sinner before God. The contextual nearness between 7.60 and 8.22 speaks for the latter alternative, as does the passive construction ‘will be forgiven’ (αφεθησεται), which may indicate that the implicit agent of forgiveness is not identical with ‘the Lord’ to whom the prayer is addressed. (Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Ministry [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 97-99)
