b) Expiatory Sacrifice?
. . . The author will say later
that every high priest is appointed to offer sacrifices for sins (5.1) and he
will show that Christ’s passion and glorification constitute an absolutely
perfect expiatory sacrifice. He will compare Christ’s liturgy with the Jewish
ceremonies of the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16; Heb 9.7-15, 25-28). We cannot
therefore deny the presence, in the letter, of a doctrine of sacrificial
expiation, and it follows that we must allow a close link between the
removal of sins here (2.17) and the events of Calvary.
c) The Work of the Glorified
Christ
However, this relation is not
necessarily one of total equivalence. The activity affirmed here is
not to be confused with what the author will later call the sacrifice of Christ
(10.12). The Greek text in fact suggests a difference. When he speaks of
Christ’s sacrifice, the author if always careful to present it as a ‘unique’
event (10.12, 14), occurring in the past ‘once for all’ (7.27; 9.12, 26, 28).
To this end he consistently uses the Greek aorist, which has this meaning, and
he strictly avoids the present which would indicate a continued or repeated
action (9.25). Here, however, he uses the present infinitive (hilaskesthai),
even though this form is less common in the Bible than the corresponding aorist
(Lev 1.4; 6.30; 8.15; etc.). The author is so attentive to this kind of detail
elsewhere that we cannot ignore the difference here. He certain envisages a lasting
activity and not a unique intervention. The expiation he speaks of is
thus distinguished from Christ’s sacrifice. And in fact this phrase as a whole
make clear that he is speaking of the work of the glorified Christ: he had
to be made like his brothers and sisters, even in suffering and death, in order
to become a perfect high priest, capable of freeing the people from their sins.
The sacrifice took place only once and transferred Christ from earthly
existence to heavenly fullness. ‘Expiation’ takes place afterwards, with no
temporal limit. It is clearly not accompanied by suffering, since the one who
‘expiates’ sins is the glorious Christ. In this way, we can see that the word
‘expiate’ in its modern usage no longer conveys the idea expressed by the Greek
verb.
d) Intercession?
In another passage in the letter
(7.25), the priestly work of the glorified Christ is described as intercession.
. . . The verb ‘intercede’ describes an ongoing ministry. It is in the present
infinitive, just like the verb ‘expiate’ is here. . . . It is better, however,
to maintain a distinction. The fact that both expressions apply to Christ’s
heavenly ministry is not enough to justify identifying them completely. By
their specific meaning, they cover two different aspects of this ministry.
‘Intercession’ is a process directed towards God; ‘removal of sins’ is the
exercise of a particular capacity toward the people. This capacity is doubtless
related to heavenly intercession, but the formulation expresses an even closer
relation with the sacrifice of the cross, offered ‘for sins’ (10.12; 9.15). The
enduring efficacy of Christ’s unique sacrifice is displayed in this ability to
remove sins. . . . In the New Testament, 1 John makes striking links between
similar thoughts. It is first said that ‘Jesus’ blood […] purifies us [in the
present] from all sin’ (1 John 1.7; cf. Heb 9.14), and then that Jesus is
‘trustworthy (postos) and just to forgive us our sins . . . ‘ (1 John
1.9; cf. Heb 2.17); finally, the themes of heavenly intercession and
expiation are linked but not confused: ‘if anyone does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our
sins’ (1 John 2.1-2; cf. 4.10).
e) Priestly Ministry
In speaking here of removing sins,
the author complements what he said earlier (2.14-15) about Christ’s victory
over the devil and the freedom he won for human beings. And he gives a more
priestly description of this victory. The two characteristics of the high
priest are clearly seen here: the one who removes sins shows that he really is
‘trustworthy in relation to God’. He exposes the full and complete
communication of divine authority, for ‘who can forgive sins but God alone?’
(Mark 2.7). On the other hand, removing sins is the epitome of priestly
mercy; in this way the priest demonstrates a profound compassion towards
people oppressed by evil and separated from God. By its efficacy, this human
compassion is seen to be at the same time a participation in God’s mercy (cf.
Pss 65.4; 78.38; 103.3, 8-10) (Albert Vanhoye, “Christ as High Priest in
Hebrews 2.17-18,” in Vanhoye, A Perfect Priest: Studies in the Letter to the
Hebrews [trans. Nicholas J. Moore and Richard J. Ounsworth; Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 477; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018],
39-41)
Such present propitiation by Christ is said to be for the sins “of
the people.” The “people” (λαος)
in this text is those who, at the present time, are believers, showing
that, as with 1 John 2:1-2, the then-future sins of regenerate people are not
propitiated at the moment of their initial conversion, again refuting many
erroneous (read: blasphemous) theologies one finds, especially among Calvinists
and others:
f) For the People
The ministry of forgiveness is
carried out for the ‘people’. The ‘many children’ . . . possesses [per 2.16],
through its connection to a single origin, a concrete principle of unity: all
the faithful belong, one way or another, to Abraham’s offspring. He here adds
to this unity of origin the present bonds of a living community. . . . In the
Old Testament, the title ‘people’ specifically denotes Israel, and
distinguishes it from the rest of mankind, which constitutes ‘the nations’. . .
. By using the word ‘people’ at several points, the Letter to the Hebrews
emphasizes the continuity that exists between the people of Israel and the
Christian Church. (Ibid., 41)
