For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς) (1 Tim 2:5)
There is an old saying: “the apple does
not fall far from the tree.” This is true of the theological ineptness of Lynn
Wilder (the tree) and Micah Wilder (the apple). For a discussion of Lynn’s
deficient (even by Trinitarian standards!) Christology, see:
Lynn
Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment
In his recent book, we find the following
from Micah Wilder (it comes from a pastor who “witnessed” to him while still
LDS, but he is now in agreement with the theology of the following):
Pastor Shaw looked at
us and squinted. He then titled his head to one side and broke into a large,
patented toothy grin. With his deep, raspy voice, he launched into a long
tirade that was proclaimed with so much rhythm that it seemed to command authority.
“In the Bible, it
says that when Christ died on the cross, the veil of the temple was torn in
two. Do you know what that means?” I had no immediate answer, and neither did
my companion. Even if we did have a retort, Pastor Shaw gave us no time to respond.
“It means that the
need for a man to intercede between us and God is over. We now have direct
access to the Father through His Son, Jesus,” he said again with vibrant hand motions.
(Micah Wilder, Passport to Heaven: The Truth Story of a Zealous Mormon
Missionary Who Discovers the Jesus He Never Knew [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest
House Publishers, 2021], 58)
“I put my faith in
the Word of God—the Bible—and in the Jesus of Nazareth as revealed in the
Bible, not in man” (Ibid., 86)
However, the New Testament and even
Trinitarian scholars will admit that, contra Micah Wilder, the application of
Jesus’ atonement and His High Priestly intercession is predicted, not upon his
being divine, but his being a man.
Fortuitously, I recently read two volumes that
addressed this issue from Trinitarians (so they cannot claim they have an anti-Trinitarian
bias):
R.B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and
Heavenly Offering in Hebrews (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 172; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019) and
David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the
Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 141; Leiden: Brill, 2013)
The following is from Jamieson:
. . . Jesus was
appointed high priest at his entrance to heaven, on the basis of his being made
perfect by resurrection . . . The process of Jesus’ perfection consists in the
whole series of prerequisites for his appointment to Melchizedekian high
priesthood; his entrance into perfection is his acquisition of all he needed in
order to become high priest. Jesus had to be perfected to be appointed priest .
. .he was only perfected at his resurrection.
We can pick up this
trail at the three places where Hebrews says Jesus was perfected:
For it was fitting
that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory,
should make the founder of their salvation perfect (τελειωσαι) through suffering.
(2:10)
Although he was a
son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect (τελειωθεις), he became the
source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high
priest after the order of Melchizedek. (5:8-10)
For the law appoints
men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came
later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect (τετελειωμενον) forever. (7:28)
In 7:28, Jesus’
perfection is a perfect-tense reality: He is appointed high priest -as one who
has been made perfect. Jesus’ appointment to high priesthood depends on his
achieved state of perfection. And the two prior passages describe how Jesus
came to achieve this state. In 2:10, the parallels with the preceding verse are
instructive. In 2:9, 2:10, the parallels with the preceding verse are
instructive. In 2:9, Jesus is “crowned with glory and honor because of the
suffering of death”; in 2:19, the author asserts that, in leading many sons to
glory, it was fitting for God to “make the founder of their salvation through
suffering.” This parallel indicates that the process of Jesus’ perfecting
included his suffering, his perfection was necessary in order for him to
pioneer his people’s salvation, and his perfection is somehow coordinated with
his being “crowned with glory and honor.”
Further, 2:10 begins
a discussion of Christ’s solidarity with his human siblings that continues
through, and culminates in, the purpose statement of 2:17: “Therefore he had to
be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful
and faithful high priest in the service of God, to atone for the sins of the
people.” This purpose statement draws an inference (οθεν) from the entire
discussion begun in 2:10, and specifically from the assertion of 2:16 that
Christ savingly lays hold not of angels but of humanity. In order to become his
people’s all-sufficient savior, Jesus had to be made like them in every way.
Because of the humanity he came to share with his people, he is not ashamed to
call them brothers (2:11-12); because he became human to save, he embraced as
children those whom God gave him (2:13). Because the children share in flesh
and blood, he took on the same (2:14). This ontological solidarity is
recapitulated in the assertion of 2:17 that “he had to be made like his
brothers in every respect” (2:17). However, Jesus’ being made like his brothers
in every respect involved not only his assumption of flesh and blood but also
his endurance of temptation through suffering: “For because he himself had
suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (2:18).
Jesus’ ability to serve as a high priest is grounded (γαρ, 2:18), in part, on
his experience of temptation in suffering. What qualified Jesus to become high
priest was not only his ontological solidarity with humanity, but his faithful
endurance of the entire desperate human condition. Therefore, the implication
of “become” (γενηται) in 2:17 is probably not that in his earthly life Jesus already was
high priest but had to become merciful and faithful. Instead, the man Jesus
had to become high priest (cf. 5:10; 6:20; 7:16). Hence 2:17-18 confirms
that Christ’s completed earthly career is prerequisite to his becoming high priest
. . . in relation to 2:10, 5:9-10 adds that not only is Jesus perfected through
suffering but he only attains the status of perfection after his suffering has
concluded, namely after his death. The implicit sequence of 5:7-10 is: (1)
Jesus learned obedience through suffering, up to and including his death; (2)
after this suffering and death he was delivered from death and made perfect;
(3) at that time or shortly thereafter, he was appointed high priest and so
became the source of his people’s salvation. IN the second step, Jesus is
perfected at his resurrection. (R.B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly
Offering in Hebrews [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
172; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019], 25-27, 30, emphasis in bold
added)
As Moffitt noted:
The Humanity of the Son in the Realm of the Angelic Spirits
. . .the argument
begin in Heb 1 culminates in Heb 2. As it unfolds, the author makes the claim
that the crucial factor that qualifies the Son for his throne in the οικουμενη, and therefore
enables his exaltation above the angels, is the fact that he is not a
ministering spirit made of fire and wind, but a human being. To be more
precise, the way the author employs and explicates Ps 8 indicates that it is
the Son’s humanity—his flesh and blood—that gives him the right to sit at God’s
right hand and reign over the other heavenly beings. No angelic spirit was ever
invited to take the throne at God’s right hand because no angelic spirit has
flesh and blood . . . it is apparent that one of the definitive
distinctions between angelic beings and human beings is that human beings have
bodies of flesh and blood. The fact that the Son had to take on such a body to
become human suggests that flesh and blood are among the elements constitutive
of humanity for this author. Exactly this point sheds light on the scene of the
Son’s heavenly enthronement described in 1:6. If, in keeping with the contrast between
the royal Son and the angelic spirits developed in Hebrews’ discussion of Ps 8
in chapter two, the Son is appointed to reign over the οικουμενη because of his
humanity, then it is absolutely necessary that the Son have his humanity—his body
of flesh and blood—with him when he ascends into heaven. Just as the human,
flesh-and-blood Adam, the image of God, was to be worshipped when he was
brought in all the glory of his humanity from the earth into the presence of
God and the angels, so the Son, the effulgence of God’s glory and the exact
representation of his being, is to be worshiped by the angels when God brought
him into the οικουμενη.
To point the point
differently, if the Son had left his flesh and blood on earth to return to the
realm of the fiery heavenly spirits as only a spirit himself, he would have
left behind his most important credential for dominion over the world to come—his
humanity. The author’s Adamic anthropology and corresponding eschatological interpretation
of Ps 8, in other words, clarify how and why the Son differs from the angels. The
Son’s invitation to sit where no angel has ever been invited to sit—his elevation
in the οικουμενη to a royal status above the position of the ministering spirits—is explained
by his being a blood-and-flesh human being. (David M. Moffitt, Atonement and
the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Supplements to
Novum Testamentum 141; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 141-42)
. . . I now turn to
address again the question of where Jesus’ body was offered to God. If the
resurrection of Jesus’ human body informs the author’s argument in Heb 10, it
is plausible to think in terms of Jesus’ resurrected body being offered to God
in heaven. The portion of Ps 40 which the author cites and the rest of the
context of Heb 10 suggest that this offering ought not to be identified with
the death of Jesus’ body on the cross. Four additional lines of evidence
support this hypothesis.
First, Jesus’ death,
while implicit in this context (it was the ultimate moment of suffering that he
endured), is not explicitly equated with the offering of Jesus’ body. The text,
in other words, does not demand that the offering be identified as Jesus’ death
on the cross. The author simply states that Jesus’ body was offered. HE does
not clarify where. Given the implicit role of Jesus’ resurrection in the scriptural
citations and the logic of the case, it is possible to suggest that the body
offered to God was Jesus’ glorified body. This presentation occurred in heaven
when the resurrected Son entered into God’s presence.
Second, I have
already demonstrated in this study that Jesus assumes the throne at God’s right
hand because he is human being, not a ministering spirit (Heb 1:7, 14).
As has been noted, the argument of these opening chapters of Hebrews creates
the presumption of Jesus’ body being in heaven. When, in the context of the
patterns of the righteous sufferer receiving resurrection life, the writer speaks
of Jesus’ body, this presumption further adds to the plausibility of this body
being Jesus’ resurrected body. That is, since Jesus’ body is in heaven, it is
not necessary to assume that the offering of Jesus’ body to God must have taken
place on earth. Such an offering could have been made in heaven.
Third, in the third
chapter of this study I argued that the confession of Jesus’ resurrection
stands at the heart of the author’s argument for why and where Jesus is
qualified to serve as a high priest. As 8:4 says, on earth Jesus has no
qualification to serve as a priest and to present gifts and offerings to God.
Having arisen into the kind of life typified by Melchizedek, however, he has
the qualification he needs—indestructible life. Further, having ascended into
heaven, he is in the one place where he can serve as high priest. Given these
points, the possibility that Jesus’ resurrected body is that is offered to God
becomes a probability. If Jesus can serve as a high priest only after his resurrection
and if he can only serve in the heavenly realms, then the offering of his body—as
a high-priestly act that effects atonement—is most likely conceived of by the
author as an offering made in heaven. Jesus’ body was offered to God, in other
words, in the only place and at the only time after which Jesus was qualified
to make such an offering—in heaven, after his resurrection.
Fourth, as noted, all
this aligns with the shift in Heb 10 from a discussion of what Jesus offered
(see 8:3) to the parenesis of the last half of the chapter. Even more telling,
the logic of Jesus’ resurrection as I have attempted to explain it dovetails
perfectly with the next portion of the homily: the litany of faithful ones in
11:1-12:2 who are witnesses for the audience of what it looks like to live as
those who look forward to the “better resurrection.” These faithful ones will live,
and Jesus is the chief example.
In sum Heb 10:5-10 should
be read in terms of the entire pattern of Jesus as the righteous suffer who has
received the supreme vindication. The Son’s coming into the world clearly
highlights the incarnation of this heavenly figure. A body was prepared for him
and with that body he lived and died with perfect faith, without sin. As such,
Jesus became the first one to receive the full and perfect inheritance of
resurrected life. He was therefore able to take his body into heaven where it
was presented before God.
The implications of
this logic are crucial for understanding the author’s argument. In his view,
the significance of the incarnation continues after the suffering and
death of Jesus. In addition to Heb 10:10, several interpreters point to 10:20
as further evidence that Jesus left his body (in 10:20 his “flesh”) behind as
he ascended spiritually into heaven . . . I note that such a conclusion runs
counter to all the evidence so far compiled in this study. For the writer,
Jesus arose bodily to the kind of life had promised to his people. With this perfected
humanity, he ascended into heaven. There the body of Jesus, the Christ, was
presented to God. To put it another way, Heb 10:5-10 expresses more fully the
author’s statement in 9:24 that “Christ entered . . . into heaven itself, now
to appear in God’s presence on our behalf” (εισηλθεν . . . Χριστος...
. εις αυτον τον ουρανον, νυν εμφανισθηναι τω προσωπω του θεου υπερ ημων). After
making atonement by way of this offering, he sat down on the throne at God’s
right hand. There he waits until his return to the world/κοσμος. When he comes back
he will bring salvation, the better resurrection life God has promised, to all
his followers. At that point the inheritance he obtained will be made available
to all God’s people. (Ibid., 254-56)
. . . in Heb 10;20
the confidence offered as inspiration for the auditors is not oriented towards
Jesus’ death. Rather, in keeping with the importance of Jesus’ vindication in
Heb 10 . . the way opened to them
through the veil and into the holy of holies where the presence of God dwells—i.e.,
into the promised inheritance of the οικουμενη to come—is described
as new (προσφατον) and living (ζωσαν). The way opened by Jesus is new because
access to this realm was not available to God’s people through the Mosaic
covenant (cf. 11:39-40). It is living because the one who opened it did so by
virtue of his resurrection.
The syntactically
possible reading of Heb 10:20 offered by Hofius, in which Jesus passes through
the veil of the heavenly tabernacle by means of his flesh, may not be the simplest
one, but the context of the argument of Hebrews more than tilts the balance of probability
in its favor. Moreover, Hofius was headed in the right direction when he
pointed to Jesus’ incarnation as the meaning of “flesh” in 10:20. Where he went
wrong was to limit this to Jesus’ life on earth. Jesus’ earthly life (and
death) per se is not the means by which Jesus’ blood and flesh, that is, his
body, were offered to God. Jesus’ glorified incarnational existence—his resurrected
flesh and blood—entering the holy of holies in heaven effected atonement.
To put the matter
differently, the thought of Heb 10:19-20 epitomizes the argument of Heb 9:11-10:18.
It is by means of his blood (δια δε του ιδιου αιματος [9:12]; εν τω αιμιτι ‘Ιησου [10:19]—that
is, by means of the sacrifice he offered (δια της θυσιας αυτου [9:26]), which
includes the presentation of his human body to God (δια της προσφορας του σωματος ‘Ιησου Χριστου [10:10];
τουτ’ εστιν [δια] της σαρκος αυτου [10:20])—that Jesus passed through the heavenly tabernacle and
veil (9:11, δια της μειζονος και τελειοτερας σκηνης; 10:20, δια του καταπετασματος) into God’s presence to present his body/bloody/self
in order to make atonement. Just as the blood of bulls and goats carried by the
Levitical high priests is both the agent that enables them to pass through the
veil and enter the earthly holy of holies (9:12) and the object offered
as the means by which they obtain atonement (9:13), so that it is in the case
of Jesus. The sacrifice he carried with him (his blood/body/self) both enabled
him to pass through the veil of the heavenly tabernacle and served as
the sacrifice he offered to God in order to obtain atonement. Like the blood
carried out by the high priest, the power of Jesus’ resurrection life not only
protected him as he entered God’s presence, it was also the sufficient means for
obtaining atonement. (Ibid., 282-83)
It is clear that Micah (and Lynn) Wilder
are misinformed even about their newfound Trinitarian Christology, let alone
New Testament Christology that results in a deficient view of the atonement, resurrection, and Christ's high priestly activity which applies the benefits of his atonement (cf. 1 John 2:1-2; Heb 2:17). It is not the Latter-day Saints, but the likes of the Wilders who preach a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
