Sunday, October 2, 2022

Luke Timothy Johnson on Jesus' Sharing in Our Humanity and Role as Heavenly High Priest in Hebrews 2

  

. . . 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)