Theology Proper in Hebrews, Part 2
(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
God Is the Recipient of Sacrificial Atonement
One particularly crucial link of Christology and theology proper appears in the sacrificial theme. As in the OT, God is the recipient of sacrifices, particularly sacrificial atonement (5:1–3; 11:4). There is much to say about sacrifice in biblical theology that must be addressed another time. What is important to note for now is that God is the recipient of it as the one who commands it to be done. This explains why the Son, in order to effect everlasting salvation, had to offer himself in propitiation (2:17; 9:11–14; 13:7–13), and had to present himself as the perfect offering (9:28–10:18; 12:24).
Before I proceed further, I wanted to draw further attention to the Trinitarian dynamic of 9:14. Here the author speaks about the blood of Christ, who offers himself without blemish through the Holy Spirit to God the Father. We see here one of the roots of the later doctrine of perichoresis and unity of action in the Trinity (opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa). While the roles the members of the Trinity play in any given action may be differentiated to varying extents, the fact remains that there is no action of God in which all three members of the Trinity are not acting in unity; they are all involved in every aspect of every action, albeit in extents and roles that are not always strictly the same. The same is true here in the work that brings reconciliation through purification and forgiveness of sins. In this one action, Christ effects reconciliation by offering himself to God through the Holy Spirit on behalf of others who were created to bear the image of God but cannot do so as a vocation because of their sinfulness. The Holy Spirit—the same Spirit who unites Christ with Christians and makes the latter like the former—effects reconciliation in linking the work of the Son and the Father, which he does by being united with Jesus in his sacrifice and being the one through whom this sacrifice is presented to God. God the Father effects reconciliation from beginning to end by dictating this work as the way of salvation to set the world aright, sending Jesus and the Holy Spirit to make it happen, and receiving the sacrifice of Jesus as that which satisfies his will and propitiates his wrath toward sin by purifying his image-bearers.
God Appointed Jesus as High Priest
Theology proper is further connected to Christology by the fact that the main christological description of Jesus in this text as the heavenly high priest is a result of the will of God the Father. God is the one who sent Jesus, hence Jesus’s description as “apostle” in 3:1 as the “sent one,” the representative who embodies and fulfills his will. And he is the one who appointed him as high priest (3:1–2). In fact, this note that God is the one who appointed Jesus as high priest forever (5:4–6) frames the central argument in chs. 6–10. God is the one who made him the mediator of the new covenant (12:23–24), fulfilling the promise of Jer 31 set out in ch. 8.
God as Judge
Given the eschatological framework of this letter established from the beginning with reference to this age being “the last days,” it is unsurprising that a significant element of the author’s theology proper is describing God as Judge. This is shown in the description of God as the one to whom all must render an account in 4:13, and this description is linked with the effects of the word of God/the gospel on people. It is also implicit in reference to the everlasting judgment in 6:2 and to God’s justice in 6:10. The author makes reference to the final judgment in connection with Jesus’s Second Coming and the salvation he will bring in 9:27–28. If there should be any question about who is the Judge, the author explicitly declares that God is the Judge of all in 12:23 and describes God as the consuming fire in 12:29. The ethical function of referencing this truth about God should be clear, and it is directly applied to ethical instruction in 13:4 as the author warns that God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
God’s Throne of Grace
Of course, this same God is the one who occupies the throne of grace. He is the one who gives mercy and grace for timely help to those who approach him. And this is where we see again the link of theology proper and Christology, as others can only approach the throne of grace in the heavenly sanctuary because of Jesus (4:16; 7:19; 10:19–22; 12:14–15; cf. 11:6). Likewise, when the author speaks of the city of God for which God’s people hope, we see that one also cannot approach this holy city of God except through Jesus. This is so because Jesus enacted God’s will, doing what God said to bring others to him. And since we have noted in this two-parter and elsewhere how resurrection functions in Hebrews to accomplish God’s will and how it is related to Jesus’s heavenly ministry whereby he gives access to God, one can just as well say that, because resurrection is by God’s power, God the Father himself has opened this way through his Son, inaugurating the new creation and new, holy life apposite to it. The God who made Christ complete with the resurrection will make his followers complete by the same living way.
God Set Up the Heavenly Sanctuary
As this imagery of the throne of grace, of approaching God, and of access to him are all tied to the picture the author gives us of the heavenly sanctuary, this picture, too, is linked with both Christology and theology proper. After all, the author says that the heavenly tabernacle in which Jesus ministers is one that God himself has set up (8:2; 9:11–14). It is the source-model for which the earthly tabernacle served as a replica. As such, it required a greater sacrifice than the ones used in the sacrifices and cleansings associated with the earthly sanctuary (9:23–28). This illustrates all the more how God’s will shapes every aspect and every institution of the covenant from its purposes to the means to the priesthood to the sacrifice to the sanctuary in which the sacrifice has its effects. Likewise, the holy city that is coming, which presents the broadening of the sanctification of the sanctuary, is also established and made what it is by God, as he is the source of the city (12:18–29).
God as the Object of Faith
It is worth noting that the Son, despite being on the divine side of the Creator/creature distinction, is never, strictly speaking, identified as the object of the action of faith and faithfulness in Hebrews. Rather, God the Father is the object of Jesus’s action of faith (3:2, 5–6; 5:7–9; 12:2). As I have presented in my work on narrative christological solidarity, faith in Hebrews is christological in that Jesus Christ is the participatory paradigm of faith, the one whose faithfulness establishes union with others so that those who embody the gospel story embody this same faith and will receive the same outcome of resurrection and exaltation as the one they are in union with. As the climactic figure of faith, he is the one who fully demonstrates that God rewards—particularly eschatologically—those who seek him (11:6). Indeed, like the other people in the history of faith, his action is directed toward God (11), and he brings that history to its climax by embodying God’s will and bringing to fruition what he had promised the many predecessors. Jesus is the supreme embodiment of both human and divine faithfulness, but he is only the object of faith in that he is identified with God; there is no independent statement of faith in the Son, as such. This also makes sense of the fact that Jesus is enacting God’s will, effecting reconciliation as God’s Son, and in all ways is constantly pointing to God. Indeed, when our author describes the fundamental teachings that the audience has received, one of those teachings is that of “faith in God” (6:1). With the construction of this phrase with ἐπί, one could think of this notion as referring to faith that is directed toward or founded upon God. This notion of faith, in turn, is connected with so many other points of theology proper that we have noted before, especially with God as the one who makes promises and keeps them inexorably.
Closing Doxology
Finally, we must consider the theology proper in the closing doxology of 13:20–21. This is yet another text that shows the intimate connection of Christology and theology proper. First, God is referred to as the God of peace. This seems to have been a standard reference to God, especially in or near epistolary postscripts, as the source of the peace that the author wishes for the people (Rom 15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23).
Second, the author refers to God as the one who “brought back up from the dead our Lord Jesus.” This is an unusual verb for referring to resurrection, but this is clearly the event referenced here, and the phrase “from the dead” (ἐκ νεκρῶν) resonates with Jesus’s prayer in 5:7 to be saved ἐκ θανάτου. This shows the sense in which Jesus’s prayers were heard, as the resurrection saves him from out of death. Because of the particular case of Jesus, around whom all of God’s promises are shaped and in whom they all have their “yes,” God has shown himself to be the God who raises the dead, which was a subject of fundamental teaching (6:2; cf. 11:19). By extension, and by virtue of the solidarity I have noted previously, the sheep of this great shepherd can expect that the same God will raise them, too.
Third, the author says that Jesus is the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the everlasting covenant, which gives us an indirect reference to God’s work. After all, the covenant is everlasting because it is established by the indestructible, resurrection life Jesus received from his Father. It is also everlasting because of the resurrection to everlasting life that the people of God have yet to attain. But the God who raises the dead will give this to the sheep as he has given it to the shepherd.
Fourth, it is through Jesus Christ that the author wishes for God to equip the people in everything good in order to do God’s will. Consistent with the emphasis in this last chapter on the leaders, the author specifically hopes that God will do in them what is pleasing through Jesus Christ. As noted previously, this notion of God working “in” them, and doing so through Jesus Christ, is in line with the promise of the “interiority” of the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34), that it should involve the inside-out transformation of the people and the directives of it should be inscribed on their hearts. That this is done through Jesus also fits with the fact that Jesus is identified as the sanctifier at multiple points in this book (2:11; 10:10, 14; 13:12).
Finally, there is the expression of praise in terms of “glory” (as I have noted already, this is perhaps the chief expression of worship and worshipfulness), which is directed to God. It is most naturally directed to God the Father rather than to Jesus, the nearest antecedent. Not only is this standard in other doxologies (Rom 11:36; 16:27; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 1 Pet 4:11; Jude 25; Rev 7:12; though see the more ambiguous 2 Tim 4:18 and Rev 1:6), but God is the subject of this single sentence in vv. 20–21 and the most natural referent syntactically. Still, the fact that there is some ambiguity here illustrates again the link of Christology and theology proper, including in terms of worship, since God directs us to worship the Son in any case.