. . . the Son’s participation in humanity is not general or abstract,
but specific. It takes place in the single human person, Jesus (2:9), who
belongs to a particular family of humans, namely the descendants of Abraham.
For the use of the “seed” (sperma) of
Abraham in the New Testament, see Luke 1:55; John 8:33; Acts 7:5; 13:23; Rom
4:13; 9:7; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 3:16, 29; in Hebrews see 11:11 and 18. The pioneer
of salvation has “grasped” (epilambanesthai)
this specific historical people. The verb has the same basic meaning as koinōnein and metechein, used in 2:14. The Son has “taken hold” of this people in
the sense that he associates with and participates fully in their being (cf.
Matt 14:31; Luke 9:47; 14:4; Acts 9:27; 1 Tim 6:12). The verb can also carry
the nuance of “coming to the aid of,” when read in light of passages like Jer
31:32, which will be cited in Heb 8:9: “On the day when I took their hand to
lead them from the land of Egypt.” In his encomium of the heroes of faith, the
author of Hebrews will say of Abraham, “Therefore also there were born from one
man (aph’henos), and him indeed
nearly dead, descendants as many as the stars in the sky and as countless as
the sand on the seashore” (11:12). It is this particular people (laos) that the Son seizes hold of to work
out humanity’s salvation (2:18).
As a consequence (hothen) of
this close association of the Son and his brothers, it follows that it was
necessary for him (ōpheilen) to be
like them kata panta (“in every
respect”). This statement does not simply repeat the foregoing. Beyond an
ontological bond with humanity or even a biological connection to the family of
Abraham, there is an even deeper level of engagement required of the pioneer of
salvation. His likeness to his brothers must extend to the experience of the
same testing and suffering that are theirs. For the perception of gods
“becoming like men” (homoiōthentes
anthrōpois), see Acts 14:11, where the natives of Lystra think Barnabas and
Paul are Zeus and Hermes (cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses
8.611–724). More than appearance is meant here, though: the Son becomes “like”
humans in the sense that he fully participates in their somatic condition and
emotional sensibilities; see the use of homoipathēs
(“of like feeling”) in Acts 14:15 and Jas 5:17. Similarly, see Paul’s language
about Christ Jesus, who “emptied himself, … being born in the likeness of men”
(Phil 2:7). The overall thought in the Hebrews passage—that participation in
the human condition is a dimension of making expiation for sins—is likewise
paralleled in Rom 8:3: “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could
not do; by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (en homoiōmati sarkos hamartias) and to
deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.”
In 2:10 Hebrews spoke of salvation in terms of “perfection,” which we
saw contained a likely allusion to the language of the lxx about Israel’s cult; in 2:11 the language of cult became
explicit when Hebrews spoke of “the one who makes holy and those who are made
holy.” Now in 2:17 the author of Hebrews depicts the Son’s work as “making
expiation for the sins of the people,” using the specific term hilaskesthai, which in the lxx translates Hebrew kipper, “to make expiation/atonement”
(see Exod 32:14; Pss 24:11; 64:3; 77:38; 78:9). In the lxx such expiation comes about through the sprinkling of
blood on the hilastērion (kappōret, “mercy seat”). See Exod
25:16–22 for the description of the hilastērion
in the tent of meeting, and Lev 16:2–28 for the ritual of Yom Kippur (“Day of
Atonement/Expiation”). The term draws the reader once more into the circle of
the descendants of Abraham through allusion to their cult, and makes more
specific the programmatic statement in the prologue, “having made purification
for sins” (Heb 1:3). Despite the importance of this background for the
composition, Hebrews uses hilaskesthai
only here and hilastērion only in
9:5. Paul also speaks of the hilastērion
with the blood of Jesus in Rom 3:25, and hilasmos
(“expiation”) is used of Jesus in 1 John 2:2 (“he himself is expiation for our
sins”) and 4:10 (“He sent his son as an expiation for our sins”).
The internal and moral understanding of Christ’s sacrificial act is
revealed in the statement that he needed to become like his brothers in every
respect (cf. Heb 4:15), so that he might become (genētai) a “merciful and faithful high priest in the worship of
God.” I translate the phrase ta pros ton
theon (lit. “the things toward God”; see also 5:1) as the “worship of God”
because it is familiar and elegant, and the translation is appropriate so long
as worship is understood not as peripheral but at the very heart of religion.
The translation “in matters pertaining to God” would be superior, if it
reminded us that for Hebrews the essence of Christ’s work is to “represent humans”
in their movement toward God.
Here is Hebrews’ first use of its characteristic title for Jesus, “high
priest” (archiereus; see 3:1, 14, 15;
5:1, 5, 10; 6:20; 7:26, 27, 28; 8:1, 3; 9:7, 11, 25; 13:11). The designation is
unique among the New Testament writings, which otherwise use the title only for
Jewish high priests (e.g., Matt 27:1; Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2; John 7:32; Acts
4:1). The designation “high priest” is found frequently for the chief minister
in Greco-Roman religions (see Herodotus, Persian
War 2.37; Plato, Laws 947A; and
often in inscriptions). The lxx
uses archiereus to translate the
simple kōhēn (“priest”) in Lev 4:3;
Josh 22:13; 24:33; other instances all have textual variants. In other places, ho hiereus ho megas (“the priest, the
great one”) is used to render kōhēn
(Jdt 4:6, 14; Sir 50:1; Zech 3:1, 9; 6:11), a designation that also occurs in
Heb 10:2. In the Maccabean literature, in contrast, archiereus appears frequently (e.g., 1 Macc 10:20; 12:3; 2 Macc
3:4; 4:13; 3 Macc 1:11; 4 Macc 4:13, 16). The use of the term appeals to the
author of Hebrews first because it asserts the superiority of this one priest,
Christ, over all the many priests (hiereis)
who labor in an ineffectual worship (Heb 7:20, 21, 23; 8:4; 9:6), and second
because it matches the sense of “origin/cause” embedded in the designation of
Jesus as archēgos (2:10).
It is noteworthy that Hebrews’ treatment of Christ’s priesthood first
emphasizes his moral dispositions. His being made like his brothers in every
respect enables him to be merciful (eleēmōn)
and faithful (pistos) as a priest.
The adjective pistos pertains to the
theme of the faith of Christ that Hebrews argues is essential to his priestly
act (see above at 2:13, and the characterization of Jesus as “pioneer and
perfecter of faith” in 12:2), and
anticipates the statement to follow in 3:2 that Jesus was “faithful (pistos) to the one who made him”
(deSilva, 120). Jesus’ fidelity is turned toward God and also toward his
brothers, whom he represents before God. Hebrews, therefore, also speaks of his
being “merciful.” The adjective eleēmōn
bears a strong affective element—lenience is shown toward another because of a
feeling of “pity” or “compassion,” a sense of empathy with their situation
(Homer, Od. 5.191; Epictetus, Discourses 2.21.3). In the New
Testament, the adjective otherwise appears only in Matt 5:7, “Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” But in the lxx it is used frequently with reference to God, as the
translation of ḥesed, God’s
characteristic disposition of “lovingkindness” (see Exod 22:7; 34:6; Pss 85:15;
102:8; 110:4; 111:4; 114:5; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13). Indeed, the combination pistos kai eleēmōn might well be read as
roughly equivalent to the Lord’s own self-designation as full of ḥesed wĕ’ĕmet, “steadfast love and
faithfulness” (Exod 34:6). Jesus brings the same dispositions to his role as
priest, who is turned toward God (ta pros
ton theon) for the sins of the people (tas
hamartias tou laou). (Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [The
New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012],
101-4)
