Scripture Text (NRSV)
7:23 Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they
were prevented by death from continuing in office;
7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues
forever.
7:25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach
God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy,
blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the
heavens.
7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices
day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the
people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.
7:28 For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to
weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law,
appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Comments:
Jesus is our great high priest, who not only offers us salvation
through his sacrificial death, but lives to make intercession on our
behalf.
The author of Hebrews expresses in theology what Bartimaeus
experienced: Christ's ability to save those who approach God through
him. The function of the high priest in the former sacrificial system
of Judaism provided the means for such access. We raise our prayers
"in Jesus' name" precisely because of Hebrews' affirmation here that
Christ now lives to intercede for us. The one who invited Bartimaeus
to follow on the way calls us to new life as well.
One of the problems with the Substitutionary views of the atonement is
that they get along just fine without the Resurrection. We are atoned
because Jesus died, period. But I see in this passage Hebrews leaning
toward the Classic ("Christus Victor") view of the Atonement: We are
atoned because Jesus rose from the grave defeating sin and death. In
other words, it is the resurrection, not the death of Jesus, that
reconciles us to God.
I like Vs. 25 especially: "Consequently he is able for all time to
save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them."
Jesus is able to save, not because his death satisfies some divine
blood lust, but because he rose from the grave and "always lives to
make intercession" for us.
If he stayed dead, his death wouldn't have counted for much of
anything.
DR
I cannot separate Jesus' death and resurrection in my mind. They are
two indespensible parts of the whole. The only time I ever discuss his
death with no hint of the Resurrection is on Good Friday. Even on
Easter I speak of his death.
DR wrote: "Jesus is able to save, not because his death satisfies some
divine blood lust"
On the one hand I agree with you in that there is definitely more to
the salvation event than simple blood lust. But I can't help but
wonder if there isn't something of significance in it though. The
whole sacrificial system was based on blood sacrifice atoning for
people's sins. If there really wasn't anything to that, then why would
God even bother with the old covenant in the first place. Moreover,
why would God send Jesus to participate in this system (because though
he was the last sacrifice, he still was a sacrifice in the traditional
sense).
Chapters 7 & 8 go on and on talking about how the new covenant is
better than the old, but the new covenant still seems to be based on
the assumption that, in some sense, blood was still required.
So how do you work through a passage (I'm including 6:13-8:13) like
this in a contemporary situation where blood sacrifice is seen as
something that is completely obsolete and unnecessary? And how do you
bring across the ways in which the new covenant is better when the
comparisons in scripture are all based on a Jewish understanding?
As I was thinking about these questions I started to wonder if we had
really given up the sacrificial system to follow Christ or whether in
some sense our society is still based on the "old" sacrificial system.
I did a search in google for blood sacrifice and came across a very
interesting article which made me do a double take at this passage.
Here's the link (but prepare to be offended): http://www.asc.upenn.edu/USR/fcm/jaar.htm
Amittai Dominic
I suspect that many of our theories of the atonement are off base
because our understanding of the Jewish Sacrificial system is off
base. The idea that any single sin makes us worthy of death and an
animal must therefore die in our place is rather out of place in Old
Testament thought, where those sins worthy of death are meticulously
listed (adultery, murder, etc.). I believe that the Old Testament is
also clear that no sacrifice can atone for sins worthy of death.
It wasn’t that the animal’s life took our place, but that the blood of
the animal cleansed us. Blood was liquid life, life was holy, and just
as contact with something unclean makes us unclean, contact with the
holy makes us holy. Things were made holy by sprinkling blood on them.
In the Hebrew world of collective sin and collective punishment, my
individual sin dirtied the temple for everyone. The danger was that
the temple might become so dirty that God would move out. Blood, a
divine disinfectant, cleansed the altar and the people.
In other words, the blood of the sacrifice didn’t satisfy some divine
blood lust as much as make unclean things holy. When Jesus’ death is
seen in this kind of context, I think it makes much better sense than
the “God wanted to kill me, but decided to kill Jesus instead”
approach.
On an important, but less noticed, note - the sacrificial system was
also how the priests got their pay check, since they were allowed to
keep part of every sacrifice. We all like to get paid. The book of
Hebrews may have been written after the temple was destroyed, but if
it wasn't, then substituting Jesus for the temple High Priest, and his
death for the Temple Sacrifice, would have been very bad news for the
Jewish religious economy. The book of Hebrews puts the temple out of
business.
DR
