A lengthy note on Hebrews 12.2 (cross and right hand).

[Ben C. Smith]

This post is an exercise in distinguishing what an author has inherited from other sources and what an author may have created or innovated on his or her own.

In my note on Hebrews 8.3 I pointed out that our author does not envision Jesus as having offered himself as a literal animal sacrifice on a literal altar, that all such sacrificial language in the epistle to the Hebrews, when it is applied to Jesus, is the result of the author treating his death as the fulfillment of, or antitype for, the Levitical sacrifices, which serve as the prediction or type. In other words, his death does not necessarily look or feel like a sacrifice until it is considered in context with those sacrifices from the old covenant. I also pointed out that the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle with his blood is cut of the same cloth, that it represents, in language drawn from the Day of Atonement (or from the daily sacrifices, on the assumption that they are also viewed as atoning in some way), the entrance of Jesus into heaven (Hebrews 9.24), which I will treat as basically synonymous with his exaltation (Hebrews 7.26). In other words, his exaltation does not necessarily look or feel like an atonement ritual until it is considered in context with the Day of Atonement (or the daily sacrifices).

I submit that the author of this epistle describes both the death and the exaltation of Jesus in very different terms when the types and antitypes are not in view, and I further submit that both are represented in just such a manner in Hebrews 12.2:

...looking upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy laid out before him endured a cross [ὑπέμεινεν σταυρὸν], having despised the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God [ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ κεκάθικεν].

The cross represents crucifixion, which our author explicitly mentions one other time, as well as simply referring to suffering and death a couple of times:

[Hebrews 6.4-6:] For it is impossible to renew again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made sharers of the holy spirit, and who have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and who have fallen away, since they recrucify [ἀνασταυροῦντας] for themselves the son of God and make an example of him.

[Hebrews 2.9-10:] But we do see him who was made a little lower than the angels: namely, Jesus, crowned with glory and honor on account of the suffering of death [τοῦ θανάτου], so as by the grace of God to taste death [γεύσηται θανάτου] on behalf of everyone. For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory to perfect the beginner of their salvation through sufferings [διὰ παθημάτων].

[Hebrews 2.14:] Since, therefore, the children have partaken of blood and flesh, he himself also likewise shared of the same, so that through death [διὰ τοῦ θανάτου] he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

[Hebrews 2.18:] For he himself, having been tested in that which he has suffered [πέπονθεν], is able to help those who are tested.

To return to Hebrews 12.2, Jesus taking his seat at the right hand of God is how the author most commonly describes the exaltation of Jesus, though there are also other ways to refer to it:

[Hebrews 1.3b:] Having made a cleansing of sins, he sat down at the right hand [ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ] of the majesty in the heights....

[Hebrews 1.13:] But toward which of the angels has he ever said: Sit on my right [κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου] until I should make your enemies a footstool for your feet?

[Hebrews 8.1:] Now the main point in the things that have been said (is this): we have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand [ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ] of the throne of the majesty in the heavens [ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς]....

[Hebrews 10.12-13:] ...but he himself, having offered forth one sacrifice on behalf of sins in perpetuity, sat down at the right hand of God [ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ], waiting for the remainder until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

[Hebrews 4.14:] Having, therefore, a great high priest who has gone through the heavens [διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς], Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

[Hebrews 7.26:] For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, having been separated from sinners and become higher than the heavens [ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν]....

[Hebrews 9.24:] For Christ did not go into holies made with hands, antitypes of the true ones, but into heaven itself [εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν], now to appear [νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι] in the presence of God on our behalf,

According to our author, then, Jesus died by execution (crucifixion) and was then exalted (by entering heaven and sitting at the right hand); the sacrificial language is but a typological veneer laid over these essential events.

I believe that our author has inherited the death and the exaltation, and has innovated, or at least helped to further develop, the sacrificial interpretations of those events. This is not a claim that nobody before our author had ever thought of these events in sacrificial terms before (though of course that is possible); rather, the claim is that, in the logic of the epistle itself, both the crucifixion and the sitting down at the right hand are treated as shared assumptions, while the sacrificial connections are presented as interpretations of those assumptions. The author invented neither event; to the contrary, he or she has creatively shaped the Levitical sacrifices around those events in order to demonstrate how the former presage the latter.

If our author did not invent the crucifixion or the sitting at the right hand of God, whence did he or she derive those ideas? The most obvious candidate for the latter is Psalm 110.1 (109.1 LXX); as with so much else in this epistle, here we have an event that, for all we can tell from this epistle alone, may well have been deduced from the scriptures. If our author knew of some tradition like in kind to the ascension narrative of Acts 1.9-11, the epistle does not betray that knowledge. But can scripture explain the former, the crucifixion? Certainly not as directly. The epistle never quotes from or alludes to any scriptural passage in specific support of a crucifixion. If such scriptural support is part of the common knowledge shared by author and readers (5.12; 6.1-2), we cannot recover it from the epistle itself.

It appears to me, then, that our author received the crucifixion, at least, from those who confirmed the salvation message mentioned in Hebrews 2.3b-4, and also received the subsequent entrance into heaven either from the Psalm itself or from those same confirming individuals, who (probably) also got it from the Psalm in their turn. Whatever (if any) specific sacrificial interpretations our author may have received from them, however, he or she has not treated them as part of the received message; rather, those interpretations are presented throughout the epistle as if freshly derived from the scriptures themselves.

	Death.	Exaltation.
Sacrificial layer.	Offering forth/up.	Cleansing the heavenly tabernacle.
Traditional layer.	Being crucified.	Sitting at the right hand.
Salvation message.	Being crucified.	Sitting at the right hand???

In the table above, the original preaching or teaching is represented on the bottom row as the salvation message. The tradition then accumulates on top of this bedrock like layers in an archaeological dig. The traditional layer is what the author has received from the original confirmers of the message. The sacrificial layer is how the author has (re)interpreted what was received. The question marks after sitting at the right hand in the salvation message row indicate that we cannot be completely certain from the epistle alone that the exaltation in its current form was part of the original message, since the author may have come by it from scripture directly. (I suggest that some kind of exaltation probably did play an important part of that initial message, for why else speak of the execution if the message is one about salvation? But that does not mean that we can be certain what form the exaltation initially took.)

Also, to be clear, the table is not meant to imply that the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle is identical to the sitting at the right hand; I think it is pretty clear that the author envisions the former taking place before the latter. The point is that, once one has imagined or been informed of a post-mortem entrance into heaven (necessary in order to take a seat next to God himself), a sacrificial interpretation based on corresponding tabernacles, above and below, might easily be grafted into that journey.

Ben.

[RParvus]

If our author did not invent the crucifixion or the sitting at the right hand of God, whence did he or she derive those ideas? The most obvious candidate for the latter is Psalm 110.1 (109.1 LXX); as with so much else in this epistle, here we have an event that, for all we can tell from this epistle alone, may well have been deduced from the scriptures. If our author knew of some tradition like in kind to the ascension narrative of Acts 1.9-11, the epistle does not betray that knowledge. But can scripture explain the former, the crucifixion? Certainly not as directly. The epistle never quotes from or alludes to any scriptural passage in specific support of a crucifixion. If such scriptural support is part of the common knowledge shared by author and readers (5.12; 6.1-2), we cannot recover it from the epistle itself.

It appears to me, then, that our author received the crucifixion, at least, from those who confirmed the salvation message mentioned in Hebrews 2.3b-4, and also received the subsequent entrance into heaven either from the Psalm itself or from those same confirming individuals, who (probably) also got it from the Psalm in their turn. Whatever (if any) specific sacrificial interpretations our author may have received from them, however, he or she has not treated them as part of the received message; rather, those interpretations are presented throughout the epistle as if freshly derived from the scriptures themselves.

Ben.

Ben,

It seems to me that the Vision of Isaiah (chapters 6-11 of the Ascension of Isaiah) should also be considered a viable candidate for the scripture in question. It contains both the crucifixion and the sitting at the right hand of God, but gives neither event a sacrificial interpretation. And, as I’m sure you know, it contains practically nothing about a public ministry for its Jesus, but plenty about his passing through the heavens.

I realize that many think the Vision was written in the early second century and so would be too late to be an influence on Hebrews. I continue to suspect, however, that the Vision was already in existence in the first half of the first century and that Paul had it in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 2: 6-9. The overall wisdom context of the two match: Isaiah has “the wisdom of this world” (AoI 6:17) taken from him as he starts his ascent; In 1 Cor. 2:6 Paul steers his readers away from the wisdom of this world for a higher wisdom. And in both writings the ignorance of the rulers who crucified Jesus is underlined. Moreover, there is the expression “Lord of Glory” that in the Pauline writings is used only at 1 Cor. 2:8. In the Vision of Isaiah the angel who accompanies Isaiah introduces him to the Son with the words: “This is the Lord of all the glory you have seen” (AoI 9:32). And finally there is the verse that Paul quotes as scripture at 1 Cor. 2:9. That verse is present in the L2/S versions of the Vision at the conclusion of Isaiah’s trip (AoI 11:34).

So I think the Vision remains a viable candidate for the original scriptural source of a crucified and exalted Jesus.

Roger

[Ben C. Smith]

That is very interesting, Roger. Thanks.

Ben.