martial, and other imagery is laced through. Likewise, if we concentrate on the sacrificial language we will observe that though the Day of Atonement looms large it is not allowed to be systematically controlling. That prerogative belongs to the event of the Son’s offering itself, to which the entire, integrated Mosaic cultus witnessed.31 The Day of Atonement merely signifies the goal of the entire journey of the promise: entrance, once and for all, into the immediate presence of God.
For the moment it is necessary to bring together just some of the more common cultic ideas, leaving further touches to the exposition to come. This will be a little dense, but for those of us not raised in the Jewish ritualistic heritage of the first century a piecemeal discussion of these things as they arise in the text would leave something to be desired. At the least we can provide a reference point from which to take bearings as we wade into the exposition.
Koester nicely summarizes some of it, as a place to start:
Purification [= cleansing] means purging away uncleanness, sanctification [= consecration, making holy] means making something fit to be brought into the presence of God, and atonement [= 2:17] involves reconciling God and human beings. Completion [= perfection] is a complex idea that deals with the accomplishment of God’s designs for people, culminating with everlasting life in God’s presence. The human response is found in faith.32
On blood, see 9:1–10. The word atonement, when it translates hilaskomai (2:17) and its cognates, characterizes Christ’s offering as propitiatory (appeasing a wrathful god), expiatory (removing or making amends for what offends), or both. In broader theological usage it can encompass the whole of at-one-ment, reconciliation, with respect either to the means of accomplishing this or the results or both.
Within the shadows and copies of the Mosaic tabernacle and its system there were gradations of holiness from the Most Holy Place, to the Holy Place, and so forth out to the whole camp/land of Israel. The people could be cleansed of ritual and moral impurity but were not consecrated as were the priests and the high priest. These categories collapse in Hebrews, however, since this great salvation brings the whole people (cf. 13:12) directly to the Most Holy Place of God’s presence, first (now) in the person of their brother and high priest, and ultimately in their collective entrance—all in an achievement of a total/actual/eternal salvation that is at once “already” and “not yet.” When the Greek words for salvation itself are used (1:14; 2:3, 10; 5:7, 9; 6:9; 7:25; 9:28; 11:7), the salvation is characteristically future (e.g., 1:14, 6:9; 9:28) but it can describe the entirety of present and future (e.g., 2:3, 10) or refer to the ongoing event (7:25). Though in 5:7 the word save seems to refer to the resurrection and some other texts could be read with that focus (= “salvation from death in bodily resurrection”) it does not seem so limited in every occurrence. Without making the words for perfection, sanctification, cleansing, forgiveness, redemption, and salvation synonymous they can used in overlapping ways, as they are in 9:1–28. They are heaped up as if radiating the glory of the singular masterstroke of the Son’s person and work.
Along with “cleansing,” “perfection” is one of Hebrews’ favorite categories. Perfection “signifies fullness and completeness for whatever a person or thing is meant to be and do, often as a result of training and practice.”33 The terminology has strong associations with consecration of the priests in the OT, though Hebrews fashions its own usage. Christ is “perfected” (2:10; 5:9; 7:28) and is the “perfector” of faith (12:2) and of believers (10:14). The beneficiaries of a covenantal arrangement can also be said to have been or not been “perfected” (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23). Some texts bring it into close relationship with the language of sanctification and cleansing (2:10–11; 9:9–10 followed by vv. 11–14; 10:1–2; 12:23–24), though there is a clear distinction in that Christ is not himself in need of sanctification34 (2:11; 7:26–27; 10:10, 14) though he is “perfected.” Ultimately perfection is everything involved in effecting arrival at the goal of creation’s and salvation’s history. It is the vocational qualifying of the Son as high priest who shares fully in the humanity of his siblings, obeys perfectly, offers himself, is raised,35 is enthroned, and intercedes for his people. It is the application of his priestly work to his brothers and sisters who are bound to him and each other in the new covenant he inaugurated. It is a matter of qualifying them to approach the holy God’s throne and eventually enter where Jesus has gone ahead of them. It is the promised approach through Christ to God. Rather than speaking of the “fulfillment” of the OT Hebrews prefers to show how the imperfect anticipated that which alone brings us to the goal, the perfect (cf. 1:1–4).36
As savior (a descriptor not actually used in Hebrews, so that it might serve here as a generic term), the Son works with us and for us. He is example and provision, and these roles overlap. With us and for us he is “perfected” and “saved,” but in Hebrews’ cultic logic he could not be the cause of our salvation if he were in need of cleansing, sanctifying, and forgiveness (7:26–28; cf. 4:15; 9:14). These latter are what he does for us, so that when the words “perfecting/perfection” and “saving/salvation” are then applied to us they cover both what he did with us and for us, including the cleansing, etc.
To look at it through the lens of Hebrews’ text, Heb 2:5–18 breathes enough of the above terminology through the church’s existing confession to tell the whole story in brief, hinting at what is to come in the exposition. In the discussion of Christ as priest (5:1–10; 7:1–28) the imagery contracts to perfection and salvation, focusing the basic question of whether the goal of the promise is attained or not. We need a priest who will bring us there, and with that comes a change of law, a new covenant. In 8:1—10:18, then, the exposition plunges fully into the sacrificial realm; in 9:1–28, in particular, most of the key terminology clusters (cleansing/purification, sanctification/consecration, perfecting/completing, forgiveness/liberation, salvation, redemption).
The result for the beneficiaries of this work is that they are qualified to do what only the Aaronic priests could do, approach the divine throne through Jesus and ultimately to enter where he has gone. This is indeed a priestly prerogative, but Hebrews nowhere calls us priests, reserving that role for our brother and high priest. We are the holy ones (3:1; 6:10; 13:24), the entire people of God dwelling forever in the house of the Lord.
Salvation as Gift
John Barclay has recently subjected the idea of “the gift”—broadly in anthropological, biblical, and theological contexts—to fresh investigation and clarification.37 His work provides a valuable filter through which to clarify important aspects of Hebrews as we continue to contemplate its vision of salvation.
The word grace (charis) is not alone in touching this idea of “the gift” but it is a potent term in this connection, both in the wider Greek speaking world and the NT. This word itself is not given thematic attention in Hebrews (God’s grace: 2:9; 4:16 [2x]; 10:29; 12:15; 13:9, 25; cf. 6:4 and the “heavenly gift”; our responsive “grace”/thanks: 12:28), though its use favors the inference that the preacher’s idea of grace is christologically conditioned in ways that are indebted to other NT traditions.
In Hebrews, so far as word use, grace is singularly characteristic of the gospel such that being excluded from grace (12:15) or insulting the Spirit of grace (10:29) is equivalent to loss of salvation. In 13:9 it is again a token for the whole gospel as a source of strengthening/confirmation that contrasts with “foods.” In the latter there is an echo of Esau’s fall from grace for the sake of food (12:15), hinting at the larger linkage of grace and the preached word that promised the inheritance. The first use
