Felix H. Cortez
A majority of scholars hold that the author of Hebrews uses Day of Atonement imagery to describe Jesus’ ascension and that a typological relationship exists between them.1 Edgar V. McKnight and Christopher Church clearly summarize this view:
“In Hebrews, the ritual of the Day of Atonement metaphorically describes Jesus’ work of salvation as a Day of Atonement ceremony performed in heaven (Heb 6–9). Jesus is the high priest of a heavenly sanctuary. He enters into the most holy place with his own blood to achieve eternal redemption for the people.”2
Most scholars consider that Hebrews structures the description of Jesus’ ascension in three stages that correspond to the Day of Atonement ritual: (1) the passion and death of Jesus correspond to the immolation of the victim (Heb. 9:13, 14); (2) the ascension to heaven corresponds to the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies (vv. 11–12); and (3) Jesus’ purification of believers corresponds to the purification of the heavenly sanctuary (v. 23).3 Some add a fourth stage: Jesus’ second coming corresponds to the exit of the high priest from the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (v. 28).4 Thus, Emile Guers calls Hebrews “[le] divin commentaire” of Leviticus 16,5 and Timo Eskola refers to the cultic argument of Hebrews as a “Christological pesher on the cultic text of Leviticus (16:15).”6
However, the issue is not as straightforward as it seems. Harold W. Attridge has correctly warned, “The application of the model of the Yom Kippur ritual to the death of Christ in Hebrews is a complex and subtle hermeneutical effort.”7 First it is important to recognize that the Day of Atonement is not the dominant motif, either in the general argument of the letter or its central section. It is explicitly referred to in three passages in the central section: 9:6–7, 24–25, and 10:1–4.8 Nevertheless, Scullion—who wrote a traditio-historical study of the Day of Atonement—rightly reminds us that “the key to this central section is not Yom Kippur itself, but the connection that the author makes between the cult and the new covenant.”9 Thus, Hebrews describes Jesus mainly as the Mediator of a new covenant (7:22; 8:6; 9:15) and refers to His sacrifice primarily as the “blood of the covenant” (10:29; cf. 12:24; 13:20).10 This is especially evident in that Hebrews emphasizes the cultic image of the sprinkling of Jesus’ blood in heaven—but not in the context of the Day of Atonement.11 Instead, it describes this sprinkling as part of the inauguration of the new covenant (10:19, 29; 12:24; 13:20; cf. 9:15–23).
In fact, it is the blood ritual for the ratification of the Mosaic covenant, not the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement, that provides the cultic image to present Jesus’ death and entrance in the heavenly sanctuary as providing forgiveness of sins (9:15–23).12
Thus, Loader was correct in warning us that the peculiarity of the Day of Atonement “must not be stressed so much, that it is described as the essential theme or predominant thought of this section.”13 The examples mentioned at the beginning of this chapter show that it is difficult to escape the temptation of overemphasizing the role of the Day of Atonement in the argument of Hebrews. In fact, despite his own warning against this mistake, Loader has been critiqued by Harold Attridge for the same reason.
In his discussion of the high priestly act of Christ, Loader—while noting the rich texture of Hebrews—concentrates primarily on the Yom Kippur typology. While this is certainly an important element of the author’s complex argument in chapter 9, it is not clearly the dominant one. Rather, what seems to ultimately control the development of his theme is the notion that Christ’s death is primarily a covenant sacrifice, a theme to which Loader gives insufficient attention.14
I want to suggest a perspective different from a Day of Atonement typology that may better explain Hebrews’ exposition of Jesus’ ascension and ministry in heaven. This perspective has three main premises:
1. Hebrews conceives Jesus’ ascension to heaven as the inauguration of His office as “Son” at the “right hand of God” (Heb. 1:2–3, 13; 10:12–13; cf. 8:1–2; 12:1–2; cf. 4:14–16). In this sense the title Son—or Son of God—is eminently used in Hebrews as a royal title.
2. Hebrews understands the title Son as the fulfillment of the promise made to David, which is applied to Jesus explicitly in Hebrews 1:5: “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14).
3. All other achievements related to Jesus’ ascension (i.e., the provision of rest, the institution of a new priesthood, the inauguration of the new covenant, the cleansing of sin, the reform of the cult) are a function of, or derive from, the Son’s installation as King.
In summary, I suggest that the common Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David—through whom God has fulfilled the promises made to David on behalf of his people—functions as a subtext of this early Christian work and provides an integrating element to the different aspects of its argument.
This chapter is divided into two parts. First I will briefly analyze the argument that Hebrews relates to the notion of Jesus’ sonship. In the second part I will compare Hebrews’ notion of the sonship of Jesus to (1) the rule of the sons of David in monarchic Israel and (2) the expectations regarding the eschatological Son of David in the biblical prophets.
It is clear from the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews that the title son plays a fundamental role in its argument. In the introduction (1:1–4) the author divides the history of salvation into two ages: (1) the “long ago” in which God revealed Himself “in many and various ways by the prophets” and (2) “these last days” in which He “has spoken to us by a Son” (vv. 1–2). Thus, the present age in which the readers of Hebrews found themselves was characterized by the revelation in the Son.
Hagner opines that “[Son] is clearly the central Christological designation of Hebrews.”15 In this regard Marie E. Isaacs correctly notes an important fact: “[F]or the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ primary status is not that of Melchizedekian high priest but son of God… . In many ways Jesus’ work may be compared with that of his biblical predecessors, namely Moses and the high priest, but in each case it is his sonship which is used to highlight the contrast between his status and theirs.”16
The notion that Jesus the Son is King over the cosmos is emphasized throughout Hebrews, which asserts five times that Jesus sat down “at the right hand” of God (8:1; cf. 1:3, 13; 10:12–13; 12:2). In fact, the letter concludes by affirming this notion when refers to Jesus as “that great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20; cf. Ps. 78:71; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; Matt. 2:6; 26:31 [par. Mark 14:27]).17
Hebrews 1–3 focuses on the notion of the Son as King. After a spectacular introduction this section begins with a description of the enthronement of the Son in a catena of seven Old Testament quotations in 1:5–14. This catena is grammatically arranged in three sentences.18 Each introduces an aspect of the enthronement ceremony of the Son: (1) God adopts Jesus as His royal Son (v. 5); (2) God presents the Son to the heavenly court (who make obeisance), presents the royal symbols (throne, scepter, anointment), and proclaims the eternal rule of the Son (vv. 6–12); and finally (3) God enthrones the Son, marking the actual conferral of power (v. 13).19
Important for this study is that Hebrews seems to build upon the common Christian notion that God has fulfilled in Jesus the promises He had made to David regarding his son.20 Second Samuel 7 contains four promises to David, which later are referred to as God’s covenant with David (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 89:3, passim; 132:11–12): (1) a great name (2 Sam. 7:9), (2) a place for Israel (land or temple?; v. 10), (3) rest from his enemies (v. 11), and (4) a son whose throne/kingdom will be established forever, who will build a temple for God, and who will be adopted by God (vv. 12–16).
Hebrews applies this promise to Jesus, the Son. God has appointed Jesus “heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2; cf. Ps. 2:8), given Him a great “name” (Heb. 1:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:9), adopted Him as His own Son (Heb. 1:5; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7);21 established His throne forever (Heb. 1:8–12; cf. 2 Sam. 7:13–16), and sat Him at His “right hand” (Heb. 1:13–14; cf. Ps. 110:1).22 Furthermore, Hebrews 4 suggests that Jesus leads the people into the rest of God, and Hebrews 3:3–4 may suggest that Jesus is the builder of the house of God—though not absolutely and independently, but under God (8:2).23 Note, however, that Hebrews does not seek to prove the point of Jesus’ Davidic sonship; rather, Hebrews assumes it and builds argument upon it, although the Davidic promises seem to function as a subtext more than as a part of the argument. The Son accomplishes other things as well.
Hebrews 3–7 focuses on the appointment of Jesus as High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary. The sonship of Jesus and His High Priesthood are intimately connected.
“So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’; as he says also in another place, ‘You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’” (5:5–6).
The quotation of Psalm 2:7 in this context is a deliberate attempt to connect the notions of sonship and priesthood.24 Thus, Hebrews argues that Jesus’ status as Son made Him not only ruler of the universe when He sat at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1), but also High Priest forever “according to the order of Melchizedek.” Both aspects of Hebrews’ Christology are intimately related.
Hebrews 8–10 focus on Jesus as Mediator of the new covenant, which is intimately connected to His appointment as heavenly High Priest. Hebrews argues that this appointment requires a change in the law of priesthood, which required that the high priesthood belong to the children of Aaron in the tribe of Levi. The appointment of Jesus, who was a descendent of Judah, is evidence that this law had been abolished (7:12–19). This change is considered by the author to announce the inauguration of a new covenant.25
Hebrews 9:15–23 compares Jesus’ death to the sacrifice offered by Moses for the ratification of the first covenant. Moses’ ratification of the covenant is understood as a complex event that included the sacrifice of oxen, described in Exodus 24, and the anointing and inauguration of the sanctuary (Exod. 40; Lev. 8–9; Num. 7). Hebrews argues explicitly that Jesus’ sacrifice fulfills two functions: it mediates a new covenant and it redeems from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (9:15). Jesus sacrifice is also understood as a complex event that included His death on the cross (v. 15) and His entrance into the heavenly sanctuary to cleanse it and, by implication, to inaugurate it (v. 23).
Jesus’ death and inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary mark the fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant: “I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (Heb. 8:12; cf. 10:17). Thus, Hebrews concludes that Jesus “has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).
The effectiveness of the sacrifice of the Son to cleanse the believers has another consequence. It makes the repetition of animal sacrifices unnecessary. Hebrews emphasizes time and again that Jesus offered Himself “once for all” (7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). Since Jesus’ sacrifice provides true cleansing with no more consciousness of sin (10:2), Hebrews concludes that “[w]here there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin” (10:18). Therefore, Jesus’ sacrifice and inauguration of the new covenant includes the reform of the cult from many sacrifices to one sacrifice. Now believers are exhorted to offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and good works as their worship to God (13:9–16; cf. 12:28).
Hebrews depicts Jesus’ ascension to heaven as the inauguration of His office as Son at the “right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12–13; cf. 1:3, 13; 4:14–16; 8:1–2; 12:1–2). The identity of Jesus as Son is related to several important aspects of the argument of Hebrews.
1. The catena of 1:5–14 describes the enthronement of the Son as ruler over the universe.
2. The Son is the ideal Helper or Leader for those who are being tempted and who suffer in their journey to God’s rest (4:14–16).
3. Jesus was appointed “priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6; quoting Ps. 110:4).
4. The Son is Mediator of the new covenant (7:22; cf. 6:4; 10:29).
5. The Son cleanses the conscience from sin (9:26).
6. The Son has reformed the cult by abolishing the sacrifices (9:9–10; 10:1–9).
Righteous Davidic Kings in Monarchic Israel
A cursory study of the rule of righteous sons of David shows intriguing parallels to the achievements of Jesus as Son in the letter to the Hebrews. The books 1 and 2 Kings consider that only three kings of Judah did what was “right in the sight of the Lord” as their “father David” had done (1 Kings 15:11). They are Asa (15:11), Hezekiah (18:3), and Josiah (22:2).26
A brief analysis of the actions of these righteous sons of David in the Hebrew Bible shows that their rules followed a fairly consistent pattern, which reached its most perfect expression in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. At this moment it is possible for us only to enumerate their actions and provide the references. Seven main elements comprise this pattern.
1. After ascending to the throne, the righteous Davidic king would renew the covenant between God and the nation.27
2. He would cleanse the land from spurious forms of worship.28
3. The king would build or repair the temple and then consecrate it.29
4. The king would reform the cult through ordinances that secured a better service for the worshipers, and he would reorganize or reestablish the cultic function of the priests and Levites.30
5. The king would either reign over “all Israel” or promote its reunification.31
6. God would give Israel “rest” by defeating the enemies of the king. 32
7. In several cases a faithful priest would rise alongside the Davidic king.33
Davidic Expectations in the Prophets
These seven main elements that comprised the pattern of the rule of righteous Davidic kings are alluded as well in the oracles of the prophets concerning the Davidic ruler God would raise in the future. In Isaiah, the exilic, and postexilic prophets, these elements are elevated to an eschatological dimension.
1. Righteous kings promoted the renewal of the nation’s covenant with God; the eschatological king of Ezekiel 37:26–27 will mediate a new “covenant of peace,” “an everlasting covenant” between God and the nation (cf. Isa. 55:3).
2. Righteous kings cleansed the land from idolatry; the eschatological king “will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them” and forgive them (Ezek. 37:23; cf. Isa. 55:7).
3. Righteous kings repaired the temple; the eschatological king “shall build the temple of the LORD” (Zech. 6:13; cf. Ezek. 37:26, 28).
4. Righteous kings reformed the cult by modifying the laws of the sacrifices and reorganizing the priesthood; the eschatological fulfillment implicates the writing of the Law in the heart of the nation so that “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD” (Isa. 11:9; cf. Ezek. 37:24; cf. Hos. 3:5; Zech. 12:10; also related are Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:26–27).
5. Righteous kings attempted to reunite Israel by means of the cult; the eschatological king, however, will “gather the dispersed of Judah [and Ephraim] from the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:10–13; cf. Amos 9:11–12; Hos. 3:5; Ezek. 37:16–22; Mic. 5:3).
6. God defended the righteous kings from their enemies and provided rest for the land; the eschatological king “shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth” and even the natural order will be transformed so that no one will “hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain” (Isa. 11:3–9; cf. Isa. 9:5–7; Mic. 5:4–5).
7. Finally, the figure of a faithful priest often appeared alongside righteous kings; alongside the eschatological king “there shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them” (Zech. 6:13; cf. Jer. 33:16–26; Hos. 3:4–5).
Davidic Expectations in Early Judaism
The Early Judaism period attests to the diversification of the messianic hope in general and the Davidic hope in particular.34 Among those who cling to the hope in the fulfillment of the Davidic promises, the prophets mentioned above continue to have significance. The author of Pss. Sol. 17 expects that the hoped-for Davidic king—almost a divine figure—will mediate the renewal of the covenant, gather the Jews from the land of their exile, cleanse the nation from sin, and bring righteousness and holiness to them.35
The Qumran covenanters expected the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant in the last days as well (4Q504, 4Q252, 4Q174, 4Q161, 4Q285, probably 4Q246). The Branch of David is an eschatological figure that will lead the forces of the Sons of Light to victory against their eschatological enemies (the Kittim). It is interesting that this figure appears alongside the “sons of Zadok,” the priests, but has a subordinate role to them. In fact, they oversee his activities. It is significant, however, that in the document 4Q174 (Florilegium), the hope for the restoration of the throne to the Davidic line is one of several expectations for the “last days.” The other expectations are the building of the sanctuary of the Lord—which is intriguingly described as “a temple of man” (I, 1–6), the provision of rest from the sons of Belial (I, 7–9), and the restoration of a righteous priesthood from the line of Zadok (I, 14–19; quoting Ezek. 44:10 in line 16).
The below chart summarizes, then, the similarities between the rule of righteous Davidic kings and the rule of the Son in Hebrews.
| Achievements of the Davidic Righteous Rulers | Implications of the Enthronement of Jesus as Son |
| Renewal of the covenant between God and the nation (2 Chron. 29) | Mediation of a new covenant (Heb. 8–10) |
| Cleansing of the land from spurious forms of worship (2 Kings 23:1–25) | Cleansing of the conscience (9:14) and removal of sin by the interiorization of God’s law in the believers (9:24–10:10) |
| The building or repair of the temple is followed by its consecration through cleansing (2 Chron. 6–7; 34) | God builds the temple (3:3–4; 8:2) Jesus consecrates the heavenly sanctuary with better sacrifices (9:23) |
| Reform of the Cult. This includes: (a) the centralization of the sacrifices at Jerusalem as disposed in Deut. 12:4–7 (b) new stipulations regarding the priestly and Levitical courses as revealed to David (1 Chron. 28:11–19) |
Substitution of the Levitical priesthood with a new high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5–7). Substitution of animal sacrifices with the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ (10:10). Inauguration of a new spiritual worship for the believers (12:28–29; 13:10–16) |
| Reunification of Israel | God establishes a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Heb. 8:8) |
| “Rest” from the enemies (2 Sam. 7:1) | Availability of God’s rest (3:7–4:16) |
| The emergence of a faithful priest | Jesus is a faithful high priest over the house of God (3:1–6) |
Of the seven aspects of the rule of righteous Davidic kings, Jesus fulfills six of them. It seems that the notion that Jesus is the righteous king of the Davidic expectations constitutes an important subtext of the argument of Hebrews.
I have pointed out that a majority of scholars hold that the author of Hebrews uses Day of Atonement imagery to describe Jesus’ ascension to heaven and that a typological relationship exists between them. This paper suggests, however, that Hebrews describes Jesus as the Davidic son, a Heavenly King-High Priest that ascends to heaven to inaugurate His eternal rule, provide rest to his people, and inaugurate a New Covenant. This new covenant involves the inauguration of a heavenly temple, and the reformation of the cult and the priesthood. Thus, the author of Hebrews celebrates that God has fulfilled in Jesus all that He had promised in the Davidic covenant.
This helps us to understand better the general argument of the epistle. The author seeks through carefully crafted arguments, compelling logic, and moving examples to strengthen the sagging faith of Christians who courageously suffered in the past through public shaming, persecution, and financial loss but have now begun to drift away from Christ and are even in danger of blatant unbelief. In this context, the author exhorts the believers: “let us hold fast to our confession” (4:14; cf. 3:1; 10:23). The confession to which he refers was probably a confession similar to the description of the Gospel in Romans 1:3–4: “the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (cf. Rom. 8:34). Based on this Christian notion of the Davidic messianic identity of Jesus, the author exhorts the readers “Do not … abandon that confidence of yours” (Heb. 10:35). Instead, the believers should follow the Son “crowned with honor and glory” whom God has appointed the archēgos (prince) of their salvation (2:6–10). “Therefore [the author concludes], since we are receiving a kingdom [I would specify “a Davidic kingdom”] that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe” (Heb. 12:28).
__________
1 E.g., “Nel mistero della sua morte e risurrezione Cristo ha quindi realizzato in pienezza tutti gli effetti che l’at si proponeva con il suo complesso sistema sacrificale e con i solenni riti del Giorno dell’Espiazione” (“In the mystery of his death and resurrection Christ has, therefore, carried out in fullness to all intents and purposes what the OT intended with its complex sacrificial system and with the solemn rite of the Day of Atonement”), Fulvio Di Giovambattista, Il Giorno dell’Espiazione nella Lettera agli Ebrei, Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), 199.
2 Edgar V. McKnight and Christopher Church, Hebrews–James, SHBC, 115. Marie Isaacs agrees, “In his book, The Epistle of Priesthood, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915), 136, Alexander Nairne suggested that the main message of Hebrews was, ‘Think of our Lord as a priest, and I will make you understand.’ We need to be more precise than that, however. It is not to priests in general, but to ancient Judaism’s high priest in particular, and even more particularly, to his part in the Day of Atonement ritual, that our author turns his thought.” “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” HeyJ 38 (1997): 55.
3 Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St. Meinard, Ind.: Grail, 1960), 170–202. Also (I cite only the more recent examples), Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini, BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 62–64; Susan Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews,” JSNT 28 (2005): 117–24; Donald A. Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High Priest: The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, McMaster New Testament Studies, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 259–60; Craig R. Koester, “God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, NovTSup, ed. M. M. Mitchell and D. P. Moessner, no. 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 373; Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, 13; McKnight and Church, Hebrews–James, 115; Kenneth L. Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 14–15, 72; Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity : the Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tuübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 225, 180–97; Daniel J. Brege, “Eucharistic Overtones Created by Sacrificial Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CTQ 66 (2002): 66–70; Norman H. Young, “The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” AUSS 40 (2002): 61–68; Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11 (2001): 188, 192; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 291; Di Giovambattista, Il Giorno dell’Espiazione nella Lettera agli Ebrei, 196.
Others consider that the Day of Atonement is used in Hebrews to explain Jesus’ ascension—but not His death—as a sacrifice. Ina Willi-Plein, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, 28; Joseph Moingt, “La fin du sacrifice,” LumVie 43, no. 2 (1994): 24–25. Or, that “the intent of the apostolic writer is not to show that Calvary is the antitype of the Day of Atonement, but that Calvary is the antitype of all the sacrifices of the OT.” William G. Johnsson, “Defilement/Purification and Hebrews 9:23,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, no. 4 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989), 80.
4 E.g., Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, no. 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 423. Against, William G. Johnsson, “Day of Atonement Allusions,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 115. César Augusto Franco Martínez has challenged the view that this passage refers to the parousia, arguing that it refers to the “revelación del Resucitado, de la que sólo los que le acogen como Salvador son beneficiarios” (“revelation of the Risen One, of which only those who embrace him as Savior are beneficiaries”), Jesucristo, su personay su obra, en la Carta a los Hebreos: Lengua y cristología en Heb 2, 9–10; 5, 1–10; 4, 14 y 9, 27–28 (Studia Semitica Novi Testamenti 1; Madrid: Ciudad Nueva, 1992), 383.
5 Quoted by F. Dunkel, “Expiation et Jour des Expiations dans L’épître aux Hebreux,” RRef 33, no. 2 (1982): 63. Gelardini has recently suggested that Hebrews is an ancient synagogue homily for Tisha be-Av, the most important day of mourning in Jewish tradition and intimately related to the Day of Atonement. These two days are the only ones in the liturgical year in which the most rigorous fasting is required. “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, 107–27.
6 Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 142 (2001), 357.
7 Harold W. Attridge, “The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” HTR 79 (1986): 9.
8 For a brief evaluation of the allusions to the Day of Atonement identified by Hebrews’ scholars, see Johnsson, “Day of Atonement Allusions,” Issues in the Book of Hebrews (ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 4; Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1989),112–15. It is alluded to—perhaps—in several others (Heb. 1:3; 3:2, 5, 6; 2:11, 14–15; 4:14, 5:3; 6:19–20; 9:5, 23, 28; 13:9–16).
The Day of Atonement was important for early Christians (Acts 27:9; Barn. 7:3–11) and may have been used in other New Testament writings beside Hebrews to describe and interpret Jesus’ death on the cross (e.g., Matt. 27:15–23; John 1:29; 17:19; Rom. 3:25–26; Gal. 3:10, 13; 1 Pet. 2:22–24; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; Rev. 8:1–5; 11:15–19; 15:1–8). See Ben Ezra, Impact of Yom Kippur, 145–257. Regarding John 17:19, see Douglas Farrow, “Ascension and Atonement,” The Theology of Reconciliation (ed. Colin E. Gunton; London: T & T Clark, 2003), 71. For references to Revelation, see G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine, BNTC, ed. Henry Chadwick (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 103–11, 140–46; Farrow, “Ascension and Atonement,” 90–91. Jon Paulien accepts that Revelation 11:15–19 points to the Day of Atonement but considers that 8:1–5 and 15:1–8 refer to the inauguration (and de-inauguration) of the sanctuary. “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus, Sanctuary, and Temple in the Plot and Structure of the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 33 (1995): 252–53.
9 James P. Scullion, A Traditio-historical Study of the Day of Atonement (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 252.
10 Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
11 See William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin, no. 47b (Dallas: Word, 1991), 223. The high point of the ritual of the Day of Atonement came when the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices upon and in front of the mercy seat to purify the sanctuary (Lev. 16:15–16). Interestingly, Hebrews departs from the language of the LXX to describe the manipulation of blood by the high priest on the Day of Atonement: the blood is not “sprinkled” on the sanctuary but “offered” (9:7). See William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 223. Also Darrell J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical, 1993), 70.
12 M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, SBLDS, no. 142 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 246; Haber, 109–10.
13 Review of William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, JBL 103 (1984): 304.
14 Ibid. (emphasis his).
15 Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High Priest,” 249.
16 Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 178.
17 For a discussion of the royal connotations in the description of Jesus as the great Shepherd of the sheep, see Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High Priest,” 263–65.
18 The sources of the seven quotations are the following: Hebrews 1:5 quotes Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 (par. 1 Chron. 17:13). Hebrews 1:6–12 quotes (a form not directly attested of) Deuteronomy 32:43b LXX, Psalms 104:4 (103:4 LXX), 45:6–7 (44:6–7 LXX), and 102:25–27 (101:26–28 LXX). (We cannot be certain of the source of the quotation of Hebrews 1:6. Beyond Deuteronomy 32:43b LXX, other possibilities are Psalm 96:7 LXX, Odes Sol. 2:43b, and 4QDeut 32:43. Odes Sol. 2:43b is the closest text, but manuscript evidence suggests that this reading is not older than the fifth century AD and the result of Christian editing. For an analysis of the different solutions to the problem, see Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Biblische Untersuchungen 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), 53.) Hebrews 1:13 quotes Psalm 110:1 (109:1 LXX).
19 Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 108–10; F. Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief, in Biblische Un- tersuchungen 15 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1980), 56; Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Goöttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 116–17.
20 This notion appears in pre-Pauline and Pauline formulations in Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8. See also Acts 13:33–34; Mark 12:35–37 and par.; Luke 1:32, 69; Rev. 5:5; 22:16. See Eduard Lohse, “υἱός Δαυιδ,” TDNT 8:482–8.
21 See G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. W. C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:76; Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, England: Paternoster, 2005), 111–20. See also Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological Contribution to Hebrews,” TJ 22 (2001): 3–21.
22 Psalm 110 was understood as messianic in the New Testament (Matt 22:42–45 [par. Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44]; Matthew 26:64 [par. Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69]; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34–35; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1).
Ancient Jewish interpretation of the Psalm is varied, however. Some scholars have detected allusions to Psalm 110 in the description of the enthronement of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch (45:1, 3; 51:3; 52:1–7; 55:4; 61:8; this section has been dated to 105–64 BC). T. Job 33:3 (first century BC or AD) applied Psalm 110 to Job, who is described as king of a heavenly kingdom. 11QMelchizedek (second half of the first century BC or the first half of the first century AD) does not refer clearly to Psalm 110. It describes, however, Melchizedek as a heavenly eschatological warrior and savior. It is difficult to think that any Jew acquainted with both passages would fail to make the connection. It is probable that 1 Maccabees 14:41 alludes to Psalm 110:4 and applies it to Hasmonean rulers.
A messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 appears frequently in rabbinic writings after ca. AD 250. See David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1973), 19–33. For the use of other Davidic (Zion) traditions in the catena, see Son, 111–24.
23 Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 203.
24 This is confirmed by the fact that sonship plays an important role in the “perfecting” of Jesus as High Priest in 5:8–10. In 7:28 the author connects the appointment of Jesus as High Priest with His being perfected as Son.
25 According to Hebrews, the law of the priesthood through Levi had been abolished because it was weak and ineffective (7:18). It was ineffective because it did not perfect the people; it did not provide true cleansing and access to God (7:18–19). Even the high priests were subject to weaknesses and needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins (v. 27). The law was weak because its high priests were mortal and therefore many in number (7:23–25). The new covenant appoints a Son who lives forever and is sinless. Therefore, it is effective because it provides access to God. The Son “is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).
26 The books of Chronicles refer only to Hezekiah and Josiah in these terms (2 Chron. 29:2; 34:2). Other Davidic kings received qualified praise. First Kings 22:43 and 2 Kings 15:34 consider that Jehoshaphat and Jotham (respectively) did “what was right in the sight of the LORD,” but there is no mention that they followed the example of their “father David.” Also Solomon (1 Kings 3:3 [though, see 11:4]) and Joash (2 Kings 12:2; cf. 14:3) receive qualified praise.
27 This includes the five righteous sons: Solomon (1 Kings 8:14–26, 56–58, 61; 2 Chron. 5:7–10); Asa (15:10–14); Joash (2 Kings 11:17; 2 Chron. 23:16); Hezekiah (29:10); and Josiah (2 Kings 23:1–3; 2 Chron. 34:29–33).
28 Again, this includes four righteous sons: Asa (1 Kings 15:12–13; 2 Chron. 14:3, 5; 15:8); Joash (2 Kings 11:18; 2 Chron. 23:17); Hezekiah (31:1); and Josiah (2 Kings 23:4–20; 2 Chron. 34:3–7). Similarly, Solomon cleanses the land from blood guilt (1 Kings 2).
29 This includes five sons. Solomon built the temple and consecrated it (1 Kings 5–8; 2 Chron. 2–7). Asa repaired the altar and brought votive offerings to the temple (2 Chron. 15:8; cf. 1 Kings 15:15; 2 Chron. 15:18), and Joash repaired the temple (2 Kings 12:1–16; 2 Chron. 24:4–14). Hezekiah and Josiah both repaired the temple and cleansed the temple to reconsecrate it (2 Kings 22:3–7; 2 Chron. 29; 2; 34:8–13).
30 This includes four sons. The changes ordained by David to the organization of priests and Levites were implemented by Solomon (2 Chron. 8:14–15) and reinstated by Joash (23:17–19), Hezekiah (31:2), and Josiah (35:1–16).
31 This includes four kings. Solomon reigned over “all Israel” (1 Kings 4:1; 2 Chron. 1:2–3). Joash (15:9), Hezekiah (30:5–18), and Josiah (34:5–7) promoted the reunification of Israel through the cult.
32 This is mentioned in the rule of three sons: Solomon, as a result of the victories of David (1 Kings 5:4; 8:56; cf. 2 Sam. 8:1–14); Asa, who defeats Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chron. 14:1, 6, 7; 15:15, 19); and Hezekiah, who defeats Sennacherib (32:22).
33 This happens in the rule of three kings: Solomon is anointed with Zadok (1 Chron. 29:22; cf. 1 Kings 2:26–27); Joash and Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2; 2 Chron. 24:2, 14, 16); Josiah and Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:4–7; 2 Chron. 34:9–14).
34 Some, like Josephus, renounced a Davidic hope. For others, the Davidic covenant is part of a glorious past that continues to live on in the heroics of contemporary rulers (1 Macc. 2:57) or they consider its functions taken over by the current priesthood (Sirach). A third group still clings to the Davidic covenant as a source of eschatological hope promising a holy and righteous ruler to restore Israel (Pss. Sol. 17) or a military figure to lead in the war against eschatological enemies (Qumran), or a figure to pronounce judgment but whose function is only temporary (4 Ezra). This reflects the fragmentary nature of early Judaism.
35 Expectations regarding the priests and the temple are notoriously absent, however.