D R A F T. The Death of Jesus in Hebrews: A Contribution to a Developing Tradition. Alan C. Mitchell Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057

Transcription

1 D R A F T The Death of Jesus in Hebrews: A Contribution to a Developing Tradition Alan C. Mitchell Georgetown University Washington, DC The working assumption of this paper is that Romans, The Gospel of Mark, and Hebrews were all written to the Christian communities of Rome. 1 On the basis of that location the paper's thesis is that, in his treatment of the death of Jesus, the author of Hebrews builds on traditions that were at home in the communities of Roman Christians. Moreover, the author of Hebrews expands on those traditions in ways that are peculiar to Hebrews, in order to develop more fully the aspects of Jesus death as an atoning sacrifice that effects redemption that may have been part of the received tradition in Rome, or at the least became part of that tradition after Romans and the Gospel of Mark were written. Although it may be difficult to prove, it is not unreasonable then to think that the author of Hebrews may have had some familiarity with Romans and the Gospel of Mark. 2 By describing Jesus death as a once for all sacrifice offered by a heavenly high priest, Hebrews offers a novel perspective on the redemptive work of Jesus that links it to the traditions of the Roman churches. Drawing on the ritual of the Day of Atonement the author of Hebrews develops a notion 1 The destination of Mark and Hebrews may be still open to debate, but many scholars of each of these NT books see Rome as a viable option. On Mark see Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (BI 65; Leiden: Brill, 2003). On Hebrews see William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47a; Dallas: Word Books, 1991) 1.lviii-lx. 2 In general, scholars have been reluctant to claim any relation between Hebrews and Paul s letters, attributing any similarity to common traditions shared by both (see Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989] 30). More recently, Clare K. Rothschild has been willing to pursue the possibility that the author of Hebrews may have known Romans and other of Paul s letters (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon [WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009]; Hebrews as a Guide to Reading Romans, in Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janssen and Clare K. Rothschild, eds. [WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009] ). Knut Backhaus has argued for a connection between Hebrews and a Pauline school ( Der Hebräerbrief und die Paulus-Schule, in Der sprechende Gott [WUNT 240; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009)

2 2 already found in Romans 3:21-26 and Mark 10:45 with significant differences and expansions. Hebrews 5:5-10 is an important text in this regard for the way it stresses, at the outset, Jesus appointment as High Priest by God (v. 5) and further qualifies his designation as an other worldly high priest by means of his death (v. 10). Additional similarities in the way Hebrews, Romans, and The Gospel of Mark interpret the death of Jesus deal with his obedience to God in death (Romans 5:19; Mark 14:36; Hebrews 5:8), the vicarious nature of his death (Romans 5:1-11; Mark 14:22-25; Hebrews 9:28) and the redemption it brought (Romans 3:24; Mark 14:24; Hebrews 9:12, 15). The Death of Jesus in Romans Paul s fullest statement on the death of Jesus in Romans is Rom 3:21-26, where the effects of Christ's death and resurrection are expressed as justification, redemption, and expiation (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). Notably, expiation is effected by means of the blood of Christ (3:25). Supplementing that text are other references or allusions to Jesus s death, where his death is described as vicarious either stating that he died for our trespasses (4:25) or for us (5:8; 8:32). Elsewhere Paul likens human death to the death endured by Christ, which he describes as a death "once for all" (6:10), that is, an atonement or a reconciliation with God (5:11). Rom 3:21-26 The discussion of this text often begins with how much of it is original to Paul. There is a consensus that the language of the text that is unusual in the corpus of Paul's letter points to the fact that Paul has introduced traditional pre-pauline material here. Some suggest that Paul drew upon early creedal tradition because of the use of the participal, diakaioumenoi, and the redundancies, "as a gift" or "freely," dorean, and "by his grace," tē aytou chariti, and the repetition of endeixin tēs dikaiosynēs, "for a manifestation of

3 3 his righteousness" (v. 26). 3 What would be interesting to know is whether the traditional material Paul includes in this text had already been known by the Roman Church. Leander Keck thinks that that may have been the case because, in Romans, Paul appears to assume a body of Jesus tradition, which he had not previously taught there. For our purposes whether the bulk of the text originates with Paul or not is immaterial. Either way, the tradition about Jesus' death in Rom 3:21-26 has become part of the shared tradition of the Roman churches. 4 The relevant verses of this text, for our purposes, are In them, Paul mentions redemption and expiation through blood. Important to note is that Paul employs the metaphor of redemption (apolutrosis). The image is one of slaves or prisoners being freed when someone pays a ransom for them. For Paul the idea is that through his death Christ freed humans from the slavery to sin, thus they are redeemed by him. A second metaphor, expiation (hilasterion), qualifies the first by describing how this redemption was effected. By means of the blood of Jesus Christ God put him forward as an hilasterion. God is the main actor in this text. Paul's interest here is in the work of God's justification as the effect of what God has accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is by the grace of God that believers have redemption through Jesus Christ, and it is God who put Jesus forward as an hilasterion. How God did that is not exactly clear in what Paul has written. What could Paul possibly mean by referring to Christ as an hilasterion? Ancient commentators like Origen have understood protithemi in its meaning of "having something" in mind, or "entertaining an idea." Many modern commentators have preferred the meaning of "putting something forth in a public way," or "to offer." 5 The sense of the latter meaning is that it was on the cross that Christ was presented by God as an hilasterion. 3 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993) ; Nils Dahl, "The Atonement An Adequate Reward for the Akedah?" in idem. The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974, Leander E. Keck, Jesus in Romans, JBL 108 (1989) See Brendan Byrne, S.J., Romans (SP6; Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1996) 127; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) ; F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 101.

4 4 Still, it is not clear how hilasterion should be understood. If one takes it as a masc. sg. adj., a usage attested in the LXX, then it is an object that expiates. In Exod 25:15 hilasterion epithema means the cover over the Ark of The Covenant, and so "an expiating cover." An example where the adjective is used to express vicarious death is in 4 Macc 17:22 where tou hilasteriou tou thanatou refers to the expiating death of the martyrs. 6 If Paul had the adjective in mind, then one has to supply a noun. The sense of the text seems to require something like "sacrifice." And so God would publicly display Christ as an expiating sacrifice on the cross. If one takes hilasterion as a neut. sing. noun, the sense would be a "means of expiation" or perhaps a "place of expiation." Some commentators then speak of God having made Christ a "mercy seat." 7 In either form its meaning should be seen in relation to the ritual of the Day of Atonement, in which the high priest sprinkled the "mercy seat" first with the blood of a bull and then with the blood of a goat in order to make atonement for the sins of Israel (Lev 16:14-16). 8 Making Christ the hilasterion is of course not without its problems. Some commentators raise a question about how Paul can associate the hilasterion with a public proclamation of reconciliation, since it was never viewed in public. They suggest, then, that hilasterion be taken in a figurative sense, translating it as a "means of expiation." 9 Paul qualifies hilasterion with a double prepositional phrase dia tēs pisteōs en tō aytou haimati, which the NRSV translates thus: "by his blood effective through faith." Fitzmyer believes that Paul inserted "through faith" into the traditional formulation "a means of expiation by his blood." 10 If Paul intended this insertion as a clarification, he did not achieve his goal. Whereas many commentators take "through faith" to refer to the faith of the believer, Luke Timothy Johnson effectively argued that it should refer to the faith of Christ. 11 The original formulation, then, invokes the 6 See Fitzmyer, Romans Frank J. Matera, Romans (Paideia Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic, 2010) 99; Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, See Byrne, Romans, Byrne, Romans, 127; Fitzmyer, Romans, 350; Hultgren, Paul's Letter, Fitzmyer, Romans, 348; see Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 314; Byrne, Romans, See Matera, Romans, 99; Fitzmyer, Romans, 350; Byrne, Romans, 127; Luke Timothy Johnson, "Romans 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus Christ," CBQ 44 (1982) 77-90; Keck, "'Jesus in Romans,'"

5 5 image of expiation through blood, associated with the ritual of the Day of Atonement. The overall effect of the use of the metaphor, hilasterion, is that God offered the blood of Christ, making him an hilasterion, a means of expiating sin, through his faithfulness to God. The Death of Jesus in Romans 5 The fifth chapter of Romans divides easily into two units 5:1-11 and 5: Each unit discusses the death of Jesus in a way that relates to our purpose. Taken as a whole, the chapter is seen as central to Paul's purpose in Romans. Fitzmyer, notes that Romans 3:21-26 and 5:12-21 are the two most important texts in the letter. 12 The first offers Paul's view of what God has accomplished on behalf of all humans in the death of Jesus Christ, i.e. the justification, redemption, and reconciliation (atonement) of all humans with God. The second demonstrates the role of Christ's fidelity to God expressed in his obedience that was manifested in his death. Romans 5:1-11 Paul begins this text by reminding his readers of the effect of the justification that they now enjoy, namely, that they are at peace with God because Christ's death has given them access to God (v. 1). The death of Christ is described as vicarious in this text. He says that Christ died for the ungodly in verse 6, and that he died "for us" in verse 8. Verse 9 alludes to Christ's death when Paul writes: "we have been justified by his blood." In verse 10 he speaks of reconciliation with God, which resulted from the death of Christ. 13 The stress on the vicarious nature of Christ s death in these verses (6, 8, 9), and its effect of bringing about reconciliation with God (10-11) suggests that Paul understands Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice, much like he does in 3:21-26, even if he leaves the idea somewhat underdeveloped in both texts. In verse 9, the prepositional phrase, "through his blood" is paralleled with the phrase "through his death" in verse 457; Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002) Fitzmyer, Romans, Fitzmyer, Romans, 394.

6 6 10. At the very least there may be an implicit reference to Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice in the way Paul links "blood" and "death" structurally in this text. Paul is rather explicit on what he sees as the most important byproduct of Christ's vicarious death, that it was the manifestation of God s love for us, "But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us" (v. 8). Earlier he referred to Christ's death for the "ungodly" (v. 6) now he refers to "sinners.' Previously these groups were the object of God's wrath (1:18), but now they are the beneficiaries of reconciliation with God, that has resulted from the atoning death of Christ. It is this atoning death that shows precisely the extent of God's love for humans. Romans 5:12-21 In the second unit of this chapter Paul continues his discussion justification and its effects by comparing the disobedience of Adam to the obedience of Christ. Whereas he begins the comparison in v. 12, he does not actually complete it until v. 18. For our purpose, we can advance to vv Despite the long history of interpretation regarding the sin of Adam and its effect on humanity, it is not the most important part of the comparison. Rather the effect that the atoning death of Christ had in reversing the results of Adam's sin is uppermost in Paul's mind. Adam's sin becomes the occasion for Paul to turn again to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, now manifest in his obedience to the point of death, a Pauline theme echoed in Phil 2:8. The point of the comparison is that as sin and death derive from one, Adam, so justification and life derive from another one, Christ. The protosis was actually introduced in verse 12, but the reader has to wait until verse 18 for the apodosis. Thus Paul places the heritage of Christ over against the heritage of Adam, showing the greater benefit for justification and life, which comes from Christ. Verse 19 provides the important Pauline interpretation of the previous verse. Adam's introduction of sin and death stemmed from his act of disobedience, and by way of contrast God's rectification of Adam's transgression stemmed from the obedience that characterized Christ s entire life, an obedience that culminated in the expression of his absolute fidelity to God in death. The negative condition, which Adam created has been overturned

7 7 by the positive response to God in Christ's obedience, the benefits of which far surpass the transgression of Adam. Leander Keck makes the connection between Jesus' obedience and his fidelity in Roman 5. As being "justified" in 3:26 is the equivalent of "being made righteous" in 5:19, "fidelity" in 3:26 matches "obedience in 5:19. In this way, Christ's "obedience" interprets his "faithfulness." 14 What we have been saying, then, is that, in Romans, Paul presents traditional material concerning the death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice that brings about justification, redemption, and reconciliation with God. 15 It seems that it was enough for Paul to allude to these traditions by invoking metaphors rather than to provide fuller and clearer explanations of them. As important as the texts we have looked at are for Paul's presentation of God's justification and its effects, they appear to contain accepted or agreed upon tradition that Paul did not think needed an expanded discussion. We may not be able to glean from Romans how much of Jesus tradition (Pauline or non-pauline) was known there, we can know from Romans what Paul assumed his readers knew about Jesus. From the allusions to that tradition that Paul makes in Romans, we see that it centered on the atoning death of Jesus, which resulted in justification, redemption, and reconciliation (atonement) thus overcoming the alienation from God that resulted from the transgression of Adam. For Paul, the faithfulness of Christ, interpreted as obedience, is the key to the salvific effects of Christ's death. 16 Jesus' Death in the Gospel of Mark Germane to our purpose of trying to discover the traditions related to death of Jesus associated with the churches of Rome we turn to the Gospel of Mark. As noted earlier, the debate of the provenance of Mark s Gospel may not be settled in a definitive way, but there are good reasons for locating its origin in Rome. Since we are trying to explore the understanding of the death of Jesus as a vicarious death, 14 Keck, "'Jesus' in Romans," Luke Timothy Johnson notes that the terms redemption, blood, and expiation in Romans are shared with Hebrews, as is the role of Jesus faith. He attributes the similarities to a tradition share by Paul and the author of Hebrews noting the change in context for the appropriation of these terms where Roman focuses on righteousness and Hebrews on the notion of inheritance (Hebrews: A Commentary [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster Jon Knox, 2006] 240). 16 See Keck, "'Jesus' in Romans,"

8 8 understood to be an atoning sacrifice, which he willingly accepted in obedience to God, the relevant Marcan texts are: 10:45; 14:22-24, 36. These texts are not entirely discontinuous with those themes relative to Jesus death in Romans and Hebrews, even if one cannot argue direct literary dependence of one upon another of these three texts, the common themes they share suggests that they comprise the shared tradition about Jesus death in Rome. 17 Mark 10:45 This saying about the Son of Man is an interpretation of the meaning of Jesus s death for the Marcan community. Whether it originates with Jesus cannot be decided. 18 The likelihood that it is a post resurrection saying attributed to Jesus is high, and to that extent it may have formed part of the received Jesus tradition in Rome. At the very least, it is a tradition that Mark had known, and which he believed would be relevant and instructive for the Roman churches, especially in light of what precedes it regarding greatness. The punch line in v. 45 legitimates the teaching in vv by invoking the example of Jesus himself in his death, which could have been intended to inform the model of leadership to be followed in the Marcan churches The question of the relation between Mark and Paul has been reopened in recent years. Joel Marcus has proposed that Mark was an interpreter of Paul and has called attention to several points of contact between the Gospel of Mark and the letters of Paul ("Mark Interpreter of Paul," NTS 48 (2000) Regarding Romans he notes the centrality of euangelion in both (Rom 1:16-17;Mark 1;1), the portrayal of Jesus as a new Adam (Rom 5:12-21; Mark 1:12-13), Jesus' dearth for the ungodly (Rom 4:15; 5:18-19; Mark 2:17), Jesus' atoning death (Rom 3:25; 5:8; Mark 10:45), that Jesus came for Jews first but also for Gentiles (Rom 1:16; Mark 7:27-9), and the declaration that all foods are clean (Rom 14:20; Mark 7:19; cf. Rom 14:14-15; Mark 7:14-15). John R. Donahue has argued that Mark may have adapted the teaching of Romans on ritual prohibitions (Rom 14:2-3) for his audience by "spiritualizing" them in the declaration that "all foods are clean" (Mark 7:19) ("The Quest for the Community of Mark's Gospel," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, eds. Frans Van Segbroeck, et. al. [BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) He and Daniel J. Harington have found "intriguing contacts" between Mark and Paul, especially in Romans (Mark, 39-40). Michael D. Goulder presented Mark as a Pauline Christian, but he located him in the Jerusalem church rather than in Rome ("A Pauline in a Jacobite Church," in The Four Gospels 1992, See Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTK; Frieburg: Herder, 1977) 2:162; P. Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblische Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) Collins, Mark, 500.

9 The description of Jesus death as a ransom for many links this text with the Pauline tradition that 9 we examined in Romans 3: The difference in form between lutron in Mark and apolutrosis in Romans is negligible since they are both terms are related to making a payment to redeem someone. 21 Moreover, as Adela Collins points out, Mark s lutron is a synonym for hilasterion making his understanding of Jesus death similar to Paul s, i.e., that it is was a sacrifice of expiation offered for the sins of others. 22 The inclusion of for many in this verse may be an allusion to Isa 53 also, linking the ransom with an offering for sin, since anti there can mean in exchange for indicating that Mark may have intended Jesus statement to indicate that his death was an expiating sacrifice. 23 Mark 14:22-25 This text placed, within the scene where Jesus is sharing a Passover meal with his disciples, anticipates his death in the next chapter. Adela Collins notes the discontinuity of this unit with what precedes it, and she concludes that it and 14:17-21 contains two independent units that Mark joined here, but which do not describe the same meal. 24 The saying over the cup, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," shows that Mark intends it to interpret the death of Jesus as atonement. The "pouring out" of blood is associated with the sacrifice of a bull on the occasion of the consecration of priests in Exodus 29:11-12 where, after putting some of the blood on the horns of the altar, the remaining blood is poured out at the base of the altar. Pouring out of blood of a sacrificial animal is also part of the ritual for expiation of unintentional sins in Leviticus 4: 7, 18, 25, 30 and 34. In her astute analysis of this text, Adela Collins draws upon the background of Isa 53:12 where it is said of the servant "poured out his soul to death." The sacrificial interpretation of this verse is supported by the reference to the servant's life being an offering for sin in verse 10. Also in verse 12 is the mention 20 Donahue and Harrington, Mark, Donahue and Harrington, Mark, Collins, Mark, 503; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, Donahue and Harrington, Mark, Collins, Mark,

10 10 that the servant "bore the sin of many," which is a reference to the scapegoat on Lev 16:22. Whereas the two images of the sin offering and the scapegoat are distinct in Isa 53, Mark combines them in relation to the death of Jesus in 14: The expression "for many" also adds the notion of a vicarious death to this interpretation. Collins notes that the only instances of a human being suffering vicariously for the sins of others in the Hebrew bible occur in Isa 53:4-6 ands 12. Outside the Hebrew bible the deaths of Eleazar, the seven sons and their mother are described as vicarious in 2 Macc 6 and 7. In a text from 4 Maccabees 17:20-22, the author interprets the death of the martyrs as a ransom and an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the nation. 26 Commentators also point out that the mention of the covenant in this text recalls Exodus 24:1-8 where Moses in ratifying the Covenant refers to the blood he has poured out on the base of the altar as "the blood of the covenant." It may be the case that Mark uses this same expression in 14:24 in order to show that Jesus' death ratifies the Covenant as well, thus making his death a covenant sacrifice. 27 The saying in Mark 14:22-25 expresses then the interpretation of Jesus' death as a sacrificial atonement on behalf of others. As such, it recalls Mark 10:45, "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." Even though both texts may not be directly dependent on Paul's interpretation of Jesus's death in Romans, they are not entirely discontinuous with Paul's understanding of Jesus' death as a redemption and an expiation in the form of a sin offering on behalf of others. Together, then, both Romans and the Gospel of Mark interpret the death of Jesus in remarkably similar terms, although adapted to the different purposes of each of those texts. Mark 14:36 Whereas Romans 5:12-21 explicitly compares the obedience of Jesus to Adam's disobedience, Mark prefers to allude to that tradition by portraying Jesus as being absolutely obedient to God's will as he 25 Adela Y. Collins, "Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus," JR 78 (1998) Collins, "Finding Meaning," Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 396, 399; Knut Backhaus, "'Lösepreis für viele' (Mk 10,45)" in Thomas Söding, Der Evangelist als Theologe: Studies zum Markusevangelium, (SBS 163; Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart, 1995) 110.

11 11 prays in Gethsemane. Adela Collins notes the similarity between this saying and what Jesus says to the father of a boy possessed by a demon in Mark 9:23. Both texts stress the need for faith in the face of impossible circumstances, although in 9:23 Jesus tells the father that "all things are possible for the one who believes," whereas here the more common formulation is used that all things are possible for God (see Mark 10:27). 28 Jesus goes on to say, "yet, not what I want, but what you want," showing the extent to which he trusted in God. Collins concludes that in an ancient Jewish context "this last statement may be seen as and expression of perfect obedience." 29 Thus Mark adds an heroic dimension to the exemplary Jesus presented in Romans. The Death of Jesus in Hebrews The understanding of Jesus' death as an offering for sin is introduced at the very beginning of the sermon in 1:3, "When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." As the sermon progresses, this important theme takes on greater significance, and the author continues to clarify its meaning. In 10:12 we read, "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God.'" In 12:2 the author writes, "looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God." Shame in this last example is a metaphor for suffering and death. 30 Taken together, the three examples affirm that the author of Hebrews understood Jesus' death as a once for all atoning sacrifice for sin. 31 This interpretation 28 Collins, Mark, Collins, Mark, 679. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, Volume 2. (Doubleday: New York, 1994) ; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, On shame associated with crucifixion see Jerome Neyrey, "'Despising the Shame of the Cross,'" Semeia 68 (1974) Peter T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 58.

12 12 of Jesus' death in Hebrews shows similarity with the presentation of his death in Romans and in The Gospel of Mark apart from joining Christ's exaltation directly with his death, as Hebrews does. 32 For the author of Hebrews, the exaltation signifies the completion of Christ's priestly work on earth. Since Hebrews understands his sacrifice to have been "once or all," when he is seated at the right hand of God in exaltation he ceases to offer sacrifice. 33 The important work he did as a priest, however, was done in his sacrificial death, which constitutes the heart of his priestly work. It is this sacrificial death that is essential to the author's Christology, and it is the interpretation of his death that shows both continuity and discontinuity with the interpretations of his death that we examined in Romans and in the Gospel of Mark. The texts of Heb 5:5-10, and 9:11-28 illustrate this point. Hebrews 5:5-10 The verses of Hebrews 5:5-10 are arranged chiastically to show that Christ's "appointment" and "designation" as a high priest was constituted by the fact that as a priest he offered prayers, supplications and sacrifice. A. Christ was appointed as high priest (vv.5-6) B. He offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears (v. 7); B'. He learned obedience through what he suffered (v. 8); A'. Christ was designated by God a high priest (vv. 9-10). 34 The structure of this text links the suffering of Jesus with his being appointed and designated a priest leading the reader to the conclusion that suffering is constitutive of Jesus' priesthood. The mention that Jesus had been made perfect in verse 9 recalls the perfection of the Son in 2:10. The inclusion of Ps. 2:7 here and the vivid description of Jesus' suffering links both texts. Both texts also mention the solidarity in 32 James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) Craig Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; Doubleday: New York, 2001) See Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de L'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963)

13 13 suffering that Jesus shared with humans. In Hebrews, that solidarity is a mark of his priesthood (Heb 2:14-18; 5:1-4). Thus suffering is not incidental to Jesus' priesthood. 35 The mention of obedience in this text links it with Romans 5:12-21 and Mark 14:36. There is continuity with the tradition of Jesus as obedient in death, but there is discontinuity also. Paul assets Jesus' obedience as an antithesis the Adam's disobedience, and it is that obedience that leads to justification. Without a narrative framework the comparison seems propositional and obedience appears to be an abstract concept. In Mark, obedience is shaped by the condition of weakness Jesus endures in Gethsemane. After initial misgivings in Mark 14:34, Jesus throws himself on the ground in prayer, in a move that appears to be desperate. Mysteriously, he is able to muster the obedience to acquiesce in the will of God. And so, in both Romans and Mark, obedience seems to be a quality he possesses before suffering. Hebrews on the other hand portrays Jesus with loud cries and tears praying to the one who could save him from death, but his obedience is learned only by means of his suffering. In the immediate context the mention of loud cries and tears may refer to his death on the cross. None of the gospel passion narratives portray Jesus in tears, but Mark 15:34 and 37 mention a loud cry twice. The observation that he prayed to the one who could save him from death could have Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane in view. The process of learning obedience may also refer back to 2:14-18, which highlights Jesus' solidarity with the human condition, noting especially that because he was tested by what he suffered he is able to help others who are being tested. Finally, Hebrews' understanding of Jesus' obedience in death is revisited in 10:1-8 where twice it is asserted of the Son that he said, "See, I have come to do your will" (10:7 and 9). Hebrews 9:11-28 This long text is comprised of three units: 1) 9:11-14; 2) 9:15-22; 3) 9: Each refers to the ritual for the Day of Atonement, and each refers to the role that blood plays in atonement for sin and the ratification of the covenant. As such, these texts recall those we examined in Romans where the ritual of 35 Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP 13; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007) 114.

14 14 the Day of Atonement provided Paul with the metaphors of "redemption" and "expiation" as well as the references to the role that the blood of Christ played in bringing about justification, redemption and atonement. Likewise was the ritual of the Day of Atonement in the background of Mark's presentation of the meaning of Jesus's death in 10:45 and 14: Hebrews, however, offers a much fuller presentation of that ritual as it forms a critical understanding of Jesus' death in which constitutes his functions as priest and sacrificial victim. And so, while there is continuity in the broad lines of the tradition in Rome regarding Jesus' death and its meaning there is considerable discontinuity in the ways Hebrews expands those traditions. Hebrews 9:11-14 In this scene describing the entrance of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary, he functions in a way similar to the High Priest, who would enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement with the blood of a goat and a bull, in order to sprinkle it on the hilasterion effecting atonement for sin. The striking difference is that Christ metaphorically brings his own blood and not that of a goat or a bull. The expression dia de tou idiou haimatos in verse 12 qualifies both how he entered the sanctuary and how he made atonement. 36 He could not enter the sanctuary until he had shed his blood on the cross, where the atonement took place. 37 Since the expression should be taken in the instrumental rather than the spatial sense, it parallels what Paul wrote in Romans 3:25, that God put Jesus forward as an atonement by his blood (en tō aytou haimati), and in Romans 5:9, now that we have been justified by his blood (en tō haimati aytou). The instrumental sense of dia de tou idiou haimatos is found in Heb 13:11-12, For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood (dia de tou idiou haimatos). In 10:19, Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus (en tō haimati aytou) we find the dative expression as it is in Romans 5:9. 36 Koester, Hebrews, Thompson, Hebrews, 186.

15 15 Hebrews 9:15-22 In 9:15-22 two motifs are present. The first describes Jesus death as a ransom or a redemption (apolutrōsis) that effects the forgiveness of sin, and the second alludes to the function of blood in a covenant ratification ritual. The first motif assures the readers that they can now receive the eternal inheritance that was promised them, because as with any testament it can only go into effect on the occasion of the death of the testator (vv ). The second motif speaks to the way that Jesus death authenticates the Covenant, on the analogy of how it had been authenticated by Moses. Both motifs are continuous with traditions of the Roman churches, and yet discontinuous by means of the context given those traditions in Hebrews, a context determined by the sermon s purpose. The inclusion of a form of the citation from Exod 24:8 links the redemption that resulted from the death of Christ to the ratification of the covenant. The change from idou to haima tēs diathēkēs of Exod 24:8 to touto to haima tēs diathēkēs brings the expression closer to the traditional formulation in Mark 14:24, touto estin to haima mou tēs diathēkēs. 38 As noted above (p. 9) some commentators believe Mark alluded to the ratification of a covenant in relation to Jesus death in Mark 14:24. Luke Timothy Johnson notes this change and the others that Hebrews makes to Exod 24:3-8 and suggests that on the basis of the similarity of the wording in Hebrews with that found in the Last Supper narratives, suggests that the author m ay have consciously or unconsciously accommodates the words of Moses to the words of Jesus. 39 Hebrews 9:23-28 In 9:23-28 the author of Hebrews continues his discussion of Jesus entrance into heaven, now with a focus on is intercessory role (v. 24). He also restates his understanding of Jesus death as a vicarious sin offering (vv ). These last verses are relevant to our examination of how Hebrews has appropriated from the local churches of Rome traditions about Jesus death. Notably Hebrews reiterates that Jesus 38 Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament (Petersham, MA: St. Bede s, 1986) 202; Mitchell, Hebrews, Hebrews, 241.

16 16 death was on behalf of others in verse 28 as it recalls that he was offered to bear the sins of many. The passive here suggests that God made the offer and echoes 2:10,where God perfected the Son through suffering. Earlier it was stated that Christ offered himself (7:27), and one can reasonably infer this from nor was it to offer himself again and again in 9:25. The mention of the offering of Christ s body in 10:10 is ambiguous, and so God could be the one making the offering in that verse too. Reintroducing God s roles in offering Christ is striking in this regard. In Romans 3:25, God acts similarly in putting Christ forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood. Admittedly, the verbs are different in both texts, but the idea of God as the agent of Christ s sacrificial death is the same. The comparison is at least suggestive of a continuation in some from of the tradition already found in Romans. The fact that the formulation in Hebrews, which normally understands Christ to have offered himself may support the appeal of the author to a tradition known in the Roman churches. The mention of God offering Christ to bear the sins of many echoes the notion of his suffering vicariously in Romans 5:6, 8, and 9. There his suffering was not linked to the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:12 as it is here, but that allusion may be a further determination of what Christ s vicarious death might mean theologically. As such it shows continuity and discontinuity with the tradition of his vicarious death among the Roman churches. Along the same lines that tradition is found in Mark 10:45 and 14:24, where commentators have linked those texts to the notion of the Suffering Servant. It may be possible that by the time Mark was written Isa 53 had become an important text for the Roman churches for interpreting Jesus death as vicarious, for the many. Conclusion The purpose of this paper has been to examine the traditions about Jesus's death in three texts located within Roman Christianity, Romans, The Gospel of Mark, and Hebrews in order to show that Hebrews contributed to those traditions its own interpretation of Jesus' death. The particular contribution of

17 17 Hebrews takes the form of the centrality of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for others in his role as high priest. We tried to show that suffering and death are constitutive elements of Jesus' priesthood in Hebrews, based on the structure and content of Hebrews 5:5-10. We then compared several units of text texts from Hebrews 9:11-28 with texts from Romans (3:21-26; 5:1-11; and 5:12-21) and the Gospel of Mark (10:45; 14:22-25; 14:36) in an effort to show the continuity and discontinuity of the interpretation of Jesus' death in Hebrews with the interpretation in those other texts of the Roman churches. The points of comparison focused on the issues of atonement, expiation, Jesus' obedience in death, and the vicarious nature of his death that brought about redemption. The context that the ritual of the Day of Atonement provide for the interpretation of Jesus' death in Romans and the Gospel of Mark certainly seems suggestive for the development of the application of that ritual to elucidate the meaning of Jesus' death in Hebrews. Whereas Paul appeals to the metaphors of redemption (Romans 3:24) and expiation/atonement (Romans 3:25) and Mark alludes to redemption (Marks 10:45), Hebrews engages those aspects of the ritual for the Day of Atonement in a fuller and more detailed way. Whereas Romans (5:12-21) and the Gospel of Mark (14:36) portray Jesus' death as a witness to his fidelity to God, Hebrews explains it in relation to the important themes of the fidelity of the Son over God's house (Heb 3:6) as the one who proclaims "I have come to do your will" (Heb 10:7, 9). Whereas Romans (5:6, 8, 9) and Mark (14:24) show the effects of Jesus' death as a vicarious death for others Hebrews explicitly links that fidelity to the experience of his suffering as the way he learned obedience (Heb 5:8). Thus Hebrews seems to build on the previous traditions on these matters related to the death of Jesus and to elucidate them in newer more particular ways. These expansions, developments, and enrichments constitute the distinct contribution to Hebrews to the interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death among the Roman churches.