Priesthood and the Sequence of Atonement: A Response to David Moffitt

Transcription

1 Wheaton College, Wheaton Illinois From the SelectedWorks of Michael Kibbe 2012 Priesthood and the Sequence of Atonement: A Response to David Moffitt Michael Kibbe Available at:

2 Priesthood and the Sequence of Atonement: A Biblical-Theological Analysis of David Moffitt s Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews Introduction The fundamental argument of Moffitt s book is very simple: Hebrews envisions the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a distinct moment in the sequence of events beginning with the incarnation and culminating with his session at the right hand of God, and as the necessary precursor to his atoning self-offering in the heavenly sanctuary. My task this afternoon is to do a biblical-theological analysis of that argument. My response will include exegetical, methodological, and theological points but all of these points are prompted by this question: does Moffitt s interpretation of Hebrews cohere with the rest of the NT? So even in cases where I claim that Moffitt has missed something in Hebrews, I arrive at that claim at least in part by comparing Moffitt s interpretation of Hebrews to the witness of the whole NT. So to begin: how does Moffitt construct his argument, and what does he see as its implications? The consensus view, according to Moffitt, is that Yom Kippur functions as a theological prism through which Hebrews can identify Jesus death as a sacrifice on earth and view Jesus exaltation as corresponding to the high priest s entrance into the holy of holies (216). To put it another way, the two critical moments of Yom Kippur the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood in the sanctuary are enacted simultaneously by Jesus in the single moment of his crucifixion/exaltation. In order to maintain the simultaneity of these two events, Hebrews chose not to place any particular emphasis on the resurrection. Moffitt suggests that there are three problems with this view. One: Hebrews 1 2 sees Jesus as an embodied human being in heaven; in fact, he must have a physical body in order to rule over the angels and intercede on behalf of his brothers and sisters. Jesus is physically present in heaven, and so must have physically ascended. Two: Hebrews 5 and 7 argue that Jesus right to enter the heavenly sanctuary as a priest to make atonement is contingent on his possession of resurrected life. Hebrews 5 is clear that Jesus died and was saved out of death by being raised from the dead. Hebrews 7:16 requires Jesus to have indestructible life in order to be a priest and therefore to make atonement, and if he was capable of dying and did in fact die, he could not, prior to the resurrection, have possessed that indestructible life. So not only must Jesus be bodily present in heaven in order to make atonement, the body he possesses in heaven must be a resurrected one. Three: recent scholarship on atonement in Leviticus suggests that the 1

3 application of the blood within the sanctuary, not the slaughter of the victim, is the moment at which atonement truly takes place. If Hebrews has this Levitical distinction in mind, given that Hebrews does locate Jesus priestly offering in heaven, Hebrews is far more likely to place the weight of atonement on Jesus self-offering in the heavenly sanctuary than on his death on the cross. Therefore... Jesus death and his offering in the heavenly sanctuary are not a single moment because the resurrection stands between them. And his death does not accomplish atonement, because it is the presentation of blood in the sanctuary, not the slaughter of the victim, whereby purification and atonement are accomplished. Rather: Jesus death is preparatory, his resurrection is essential, and his self-presentation in heaven is atoning. Again: that post-resurrection moment is the moment at which atonement takes place. What then of the cross? The death of Jesus on the cross has several functions. It is exemplary Jesus is the paradigmatic righteous sufferer. It inaugurates the new covenant. And most importantly, it is the preparatory first step in the atoning process, for without death there can be no presentation of blood. In Moffitt s own words: His death sets the sequence into motion. His appearance before God in heaven effects atonement. The bridge between the two is the resurrection (294). Analysis Part 1: Hebrews I won t take the time to restate every point at which I agree with Moffitt, but I think he has made a strong case that Hebrews envisions the priestly offering of Christ as including a postresurrection presentation of blood in the heavenly sanctuary. However: the logical simplicity of Moffitt s argument does not, in some cases, do justice to the complexity of Hebrews understanding of the atonement. So in what follows I will address two points at which I think Moffitt s analysis of Hebrews falls short before moving to the particular question of his contribution to a biblical theology of the atonement. 1. The deity of Christ in Hebrews I begin with a quote from Moffitt: Whatever one takes to be the relative merits or demerits of Socinus anti-trinitarian agenda, his emphasis on the humanity of Jesus appears to have enabled him to trace the logic of the argument in Heb 7 with particular clarity (199 n. 130). Of course, leave it up to a critical reviewer to focus an entire section of his response on an 2

4 obscure footnote! But this is a crucial point, because Moffitt insists throughout his book that Jesus humanity is the key. As human, he can be exalted above the angels. As human, he can sympathetically intercede as a high priest. As human, he can die and be resurrected, which is to say, he can at one point not possess indestructible life and then at a later point possess that indestructible life. Let me be very clear that this is not a witch hunt I am not trying to paint Moffitt as an anti-trinitarian. He affirms the deity of Christ in this book. But the deity of Christ plays no role, and as far as I can tell it would be problematic for Moffitt s thesis if it did play a role, in priesthood and atonement according to Hebrews. On the one hand, discussions of Christ s priesthood, especially within the broader contours of his threefold office, have always linked Christ as priest to Christ as human: you can find this in Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and even in the great anti-socinian theologians of the 17 th century: Turretin, Owen, Grotius, and so on to the present day. On the other hand, such disregard for the deity of Christ in Hebrews becomes problematic at a couple of points in Moffitt s argument. Moffitt takes the emphasis of Hebrews 1 to be on the physicality of the Son over and against the purely spiritual existence of angels, but he stresses this claim so far that the Son s identification as the exact representation of [God s] being (1:3; Moffitt s translation) refers to his exalted human state. He says nothing at all about the references to the Son s pre-incarnate instrumentality in creation, and nothing at all about the reference to the Son as God in Hebrews 1:8. This last point is especially important insofar as it links the Son s enthronement with his deity to the Son he says your throne, God, is forever and ever, whereas Moffitt only discuses Christ s exaltation as related to his eschatological exaltation as human. Jesus deity in Hebrews is particularly linked to his eternality. He is the agent through whom God created the world, His throne is forever and ever, the epistle ends with the claim that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (13:8), and so on. Now we need to be careful here. Hebrews has a great deal to say about Jesus becoming things. He became like his brothers, he became high priest, he became greater than the angels, he learned obedience from the things that he suffered. So it certainly will not do to say that Hebrews simply sees Jesus as the eternal Son of God, and dismiss Moffitt s argument solely on that basis. 3

5 Furthermore, some of the references to forever in Hebrews speak not of Jesus eternality, but to his becoming something and then staying that way forever he has become a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. The tension between Jesus becoming things as man and simply being things as God comes to a head in one particular argument Moffitt makes regarding when, and on what basis, Jesus became high priest. Hebrews 7:16 claims that Jesus only became priest in the order of Melchizedek on the basis of his indestructible life. The question, therefore, is when Jesus came into possession of that life. Moffitt points out that Jesus, as human, died, and needed to be saved by God out of that death (Heb 5:7) by means of resurrection. He also points out that Jesus resurrection was a once-for-all event once Jesus has been raised, he will neither suffer nor die again. It makes a lot of sense, therefore, to say that Jesus obtained indestructible life at his resurrection. We might also note Hebrews 7:23 24, in which the levitical priests are prevented by death from continuing their priestly duties, but Christ, because he lives forever, can be a priest forever as well. This is a strong argument. But is it possible that Hebrews views Jesus as having always possessed indestructible life on account of his eternality? Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek has neither beginning of days nor end of life, and in these respects has been made like the Son of God. So not only is there continuity between Christ and Melchizedek insofar as they have no beginning of days, it is Melchizedek who is made in the image of Christ, we might say, rather than the other way around. At the same time, the whole point of bringing Melchizedek into the discussion is to identify a way in which a human descendant of Judah, rather than of Levi, can serve as priest. How to bring these together with respect to Jesus possession of indestructible life? I don t honestly know! The most I can say at this point is that Moffitt has not given us the whole picture, even if further engagement with this particular issue does not ultimately undermine his argument. What I have tried to point out is that such emphasis on the humanity of Jesus as we find in Moffitt does not do full justice to Hebrews vision of the person and work of Christ. Hebrews presents a Jesus who is capable of becoming but who is also eternal and unchanging. G. B. Caird once said that for the author of Hebrews the earthly life of Jesus was paramount and provided the indispensable foundation for any other claims that might be made on his behalf. But given the prominence of Hebrews references to the deity of Christ especially at 4

6 the beginning and the end of the epistle, Caird may have it backwards Jesus as unchanging God is the indispensable foundation, and Jesus as a learning, experiencing, becoming human is built upon that foundation. 2. What does Moffit mean by atonement? Despite the fact that Moffitt has made some significant theological claims in his book, he shows no awareness of the theological side of the discussion his conversation partners are 20 th and 21 st century biblical scholars, period. This comes into play in his discussion of the humanity and deity of Christ, as just mentioned, as well as the timing of Christ s appointment as priest. Some months ago I wrote a blog post on Moffitt s book, and of course Brian Small down at Baylor University picked up on that post and in describing it, said something like Mike Kibbe thinks Moffitt has solved the long-standing problem of when Jesus became a priest. My first thought when I read that was well, yes, I suppose I do! My second thought was long-standing problem? Is there prior discussion about this? And I asked that question because you get no sense from Moffitt that there are, in fact, seventeen centuries of debate over when Jesus became priest, and at least five centuries of debate over the relationship between the timing of Christ s priesthood and the timing of the atonement, centered around the very texts on which Moffitt bases his claims. He simply fails to mention any of the previous discussion, most of which takes place either in pre-modern literature, or, in the last couple of centuries, among theologians rather than exegetes. You might argue that a biblical studies dissertation, published in a biblical studies supplement series, is simply not accountable for engaging that literature. But if you are going to make theological claims that concern an ongoing theological discussion, you ought to present your position in light of that discussion rather than ignoring it altogether. Perhaps the most important point at which this whole issue arises is Moffitt s argument about the sequence of atonement. Jeremy Treat, in his recent dissertation, points out that scholars use the word atonement with reference to one of two things. Either it refers to the whole scope of God s reconciling work in Christ, or, more specifically, to the sacrificial element of that reconciling work, which most assume to refer to the cross. Why is this so important? Because what Moffitt means by atonement doesn t fit either of these options, even though what he is arguing has implications for both. What he actually claims is that Hebrews, by looking at Christ s work through the lens of the Day of Atonement 5

7 and recognizing the Levitical emphasis on a particular moment in that ritual, sees the critical moment of atonement as taking place post-death, post-resurrection, in the heavenly sanctuary. So in effect he has proposed a third, even narrower, definition of atonement : Christ s sacrificial work as viewed through the lens of Yom Kippur. I have two problems with this. First, it is confusing, because it too easily leads readers to think he is saying something that he is not about atonement in a broader sense. Moffitt is not downplaying the importance of the cross with respect to the broad definition. He is not saying that the cross is not central to God s reconciling work in Christ. The cross inaugurates the new covenant, it is exemplary, and so on. He is expanding the broad definition by including in it an atoning event that takes place post-resurrection; in this respect his argument is not altogether different from that of Douglas Farrow, with whom you may be familiar, or David McIlroy, who writes that what was new at the ascension was not the return of God the Son to the Father, but the ascension of humanity to God the Father. The God-man ascended was the first to stand in the presence of God,... and it was the purpose of God that he should be the first of many human beings to do so (25 26). This is almost exactly what Moffitt is saying! My second problem with Moffitt s definition of atonement is that it does not do justice to the myriad of prisms, to use Moffitt s term, through which Hebrews views the atonement. For example: Hebrews 9 suggests that because Jesus secured redemption (λύτρωσις) by taking his blood into the heavenly sanctuary (verse 12 14), he is the mediator of a new covenant (verse 15). But then verse 15 says the reason this new covenant is in place is that a death has taken place that resulted in redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) from sins. So we have two means by which redemption takes place: viewed through the lens of Yom Kippur, Jesus had to present his blood in the heavenly sanctuary; viewed through the lens of the covenant inauguration ceremony in Exodus 24, Jesus had to die. And both presentation of blood and death have the same function with respect to redemption note that in Heb 9:12 and 9:15, blood in the one case and death in the other are εἀς redemption. So if you ask Hebrews 9 whether it was Jesus death on the cross or the presentation of his blood that affected redemption, the answer is either yes or it depends on which OT ritual you use as the basis for the discussion. Analysis Part 2: Biblical-Theology 6

8 In the time that remains I would like to address more explicitly the biblical-theological question: how does Moffitt s reading of Hebrews line up with the rest of the NT? And rather than tackle an arbitrary list of particular texts that seem to contradict his view, such as priestly portrayals of Jesus in the gospels, or Paul s appropriation of Yom Kippur imagery in Romans 3 I think our next presenter is going to address that point, I want to address the larger question of unity and diversity in the NT, and where atonement fits into that conversation. And to address unity and diversity particularly with respect to the sequence or the chronology of the atonement, we need to pay special attention to the gospel of John. John offers an interesting perspective on these questions precisely because he is so hard to nail down. When did Jesus complete his (atoning) work? Was it when he said, in his so-called high-priestly prayer, I have glorified you on the earth by finishing (τελειόω) the work you gave me to do (17:4)? Or when he hung on the cross, and moments before his death proclaimed It is finished (τελέω)! (19:30)? Another example: when did Jesus ascend to the Father? John is enticingly vague on this; not only does he lack an ascension account, but during his prayer, once again, we find Jesus saying I am no longer in the world (17:11), but two verses later I say these things while I am still in the world (17:13). Raymond Brown sums up the issue nicely:... the Jesus of the Last Discourse transcends time and space, for from heaven and beyond the grave he is already speaking to the disciples... nowhere is this more evident than in [chapter] xvii where Jesus already assumes the role of heavenly intercessor that 1 John ii ascribes to him after the resurrection (747). Why do I think the Johannine perspective is helpful? Moffitt might want me to point out that Brown s analysis of the heavenly nature of Jesus high priestly intercession is quite compatible with his reading of Hebrews. But more importantly, the very fact that John does not allow us to establish a simple, linear chronology of Christ s work from Supper to Session suggests that we should not over-systematize the sequence of atonement. Is the cross Christ s humiliation or exaltation? Does Christ pray for his disciples as pre-crucified Messiah or ascended Lord? For John, monolithic answers to these questions simply will not suffice. I am not saying that anything goes! But I am saying that if the sequence of atonement is sufficiently multi-faceted so as to escape univocal analysis within the gospel of John, how much more so in the NT more broadly! Paul often focuses on the cross either in isolation or as the representative moment for the whole. In Acts, the cross is frequently assumed and the resurrection is the key 7

9 moment. For John, from an earthly perspective cross and resurrection are moments in sequence, and from a heavenly post-ascension perspective they are a single indivisible whole. And if we were to add to this list the notion that one of the angles from which Hebrews views Christ s atoning work builds from cross to grave to resurrection and finally culminating with his postascension offering, I do not think we would have done any great damage to the doctrine of the atonement in general or the cruciality of the cross in particular. Conclusion In conclusion: the best thing about this book is that it touches, whether explicitly or implicitly, so many issues so many different kinds of issues. When was atonement complete? When did Jesus become priest? What is the primary basis for Jesus superiority over the angels? What is the relationship between the heavenly and earthly realms in Hebrews? Is sacrifice a process with distinguishable phases or a unified whole? How do we articulate the respective functions of Jesus humanity and deity in the atonement? How much attention to the whole NT witness must we pay when articulating the theological perspective of a single epistle? To what degree should we be aware of the pre-modern history of a discussion? We ought to appreciate the way Moffitt s work raises these questions, whether or not we are convinced by his answers. Now I am convinced that Hebrews points beyond the cross, through the resurrection, to a priestly act of the ascended Christ whereby he presents himself in the heavenly sanctuary and in doing so accomplishes atonement. But I am not convinced that this is all Hebrews has to say about atonement, nor even that this is the main thing. I do not think Moffitt has given sufficient attention to the deity of Christ or to the atoning efficacy of his death in Hebrews, and do think that his lack of engagement with theological literature, both old and new, has led to insufficient clarity on what he means by atonement in the first place. And finally, regarding the compatibility of Moffitt s sequence of atonement with the rest of the NT teaching on that topic, I only go so far as to say that the Gospel of John reminds us that the atoning work of Christ is more complex, and therefore more glorious, than any single model could show. 8