there be referring to the goodwill shown Jesus in response to his prayers (5:7–10; i.e., he was resurrected and enthroned so that his death could be the atonement it is) and/or the fitting way in which God perfected Jesus through those sufferings as the leader of the salvation of his brothers and sisters (2:10–18). In 4:16 it is a general descriptor of the divine throne on which our high priest sits and it is coupled with the closely related term mercy as what is to be expected from God; together mercy and grace encapsulate the character of the empathetic help supplied through our high priest.
Barclay argues that “grace” can be “perfected” (perfected = draw an idea out to its extreme in some way; this use of the word “perfect” has nothing to do with Hebrews’ use of that word) in at least six ways: superabundance, singularity, priority, incongruity, efficacy, and non-circularity. Any given writer may “perfect” the idea in one or more of these ways. At the level of everyday language use, no one way of “perfecting” the idea could make a privileged claim on the word; these were not better or worse ideas but merely different, and the different ideas could make use of the same vocabulary. Obviously things are altered when the idea is developed in a particular way within a coherent and particular version of the gospel, such as in Paul’s usage. Paul’s definition of terminology may not be determinative for Hebrews at the level of word usage, but there are canonical-theological dynamics that must be accounted for as these witnesses are taken together.
For Hebrews, thinking both of word use and wider context, the gift partakes of:
Superabundance: The gift is once-for-all. The wide range of Christ’s benefits as priest and offering are sufficient, eternal, complete, perpetual. Nothing good exists outside of the promised inheritance.
Efficacy: The gift qualifies worshippers for the approach to the presence of God in contrast with the Mosaic system, though it can be insulted and fallen short of. The efficacy of grace is objectively total and accomplished but awaiting and dependent on faith’s appropriation in the present; we have a cleansed conscience, but must take that to heart in faith.
Incongruity: According to this “perfection,” a gift is distributed without regard to merit.38 Firstly, incongruity is implied in Hebrews in that this gift in all its facets is “for all,” the “many,” or “the people” (beyond the priestly class); some of the names of 11:1–40 highlight this.39 Again, see Heb 9:15. There is no indication of a gradation of need, even if someone happened to be Judaism’s current high priest; all seem to stand equally in need of Christ’s benefits, equally without merit, indeed, equally meriting death. Secondly, beyond this general statement it is necessary to make some distinctions: Insofar as the faith of the Son is the faith of our human brother,40 the gift of salvation granted to him and his being crowned with glory and honor are entirely congruous with his merits (2:5–9; 4:15; 5:7–10; 7:27; 12:1–3). As for his brothers and sisters, salvation is incongruous now, but it anticipates a removal of all that can be shaken and of spirits made perfect so that in the unshakable kingdom there will be congruity between the gift of participation and the state of its recipients—and yet it remains eternally the effect of incongruous grace, and eternally depends on the faithfulness of the one who intercedes (7:25), so in some senses incongruity is eternal. Between baptism and Christ’s second appearance the situation is complex, leaving much unspecified: a once-for-all cleansing and forgiveness that is applied unilaterally; an ongoing intercessory and atoning representation; a disciplinary process leading to incremental progress in lived-righteousness, roughly coordinated with the language of perfection and sanctification; a final state of having-been-perfected. Rather than thinking of the life of faith as a preamble that leads organically to the state of complete perfection following resurrection, we probably do better to think of the future resurrection as the true beginning point that is partially, falteringly expressed already now from baptism to either death or Christ’s second appearance; we do not build toward it but rather live from it. Thirdly, did God choose Abraham and Israel because of some merit in them, or, again, due to a hidden scheme built into the very fabric of creation that distinguished between human creatures? Nothing indicates as much. Presumably their reception of the promise was for the sake of the seed, whose merit alone is highlighted. The promise and its gift came to the Fathers incongruously; the gift came because God willed it (10:1–10).
Priority: The initiative falls entirely on God’s side with faith as the response. There is, however, no hint of a special, individualized call or hidden election, much less a reprobation (see on 9:15).
Both singularity and non-circularity do not describe Hebrews’ idea of grace, since with God’s approaching holy presence the threat of punishment is strong for those who are “enemies” (against singularity, which would insist that God is only loving, merciful, and so forth, tending toward universal salvation) and a return both of faith/obedience and gratitude/praise is expected from those to whom the gift is granted (against non-circularity, which would insist that nothing is expected in return for a gift). Further, God “rewards” the faith that is itself the response to the initial gift (6:9–10; 10:35; 11:6, 26), which is a natural reflection of gift giving as a social bond.
Does faith then cooperate with grace in the sense that an infusion of initial grace enables a human work of obedience upon which further grace is conditioned, and so on? In 10:35; 11:6, 26; and related texts the “reward” is clearly the final reception of the promised inheritance; an ongoing, cyclical pattern of reciprocity is not operative in those contexts.41 A cooperative idea might be implied in 6:9–10, however, though we finally doubt that such a logic is at work. The vantage point of God’s remembrance or forgetfulness in that context is the final judgment (relating to the things that belong to ultimate salvation in 6:9). The threat for the readers is that of forfeiting what is already “there” in their record of obedience, what is already sharing in the atonement and its benefits—the existing track record of faith, which is the “substance” of things hoped for (11:1) and a share in Christ (3:14)—and so what is potentially approved by God (compare 10:35). The need is of perseverance to the end (6:11) so that the promise will actually be inherited (6:12).
Salvation in this context is cast as a reward but only as the reward of faith’s reception of the absolutely prior, unprompted, unearned, love-motivated (6:9; 12:6) heavenly gift, a reception that is entirely active in conforming its life to the promise in ways that are for the time being costly. This idea of a reciprocal exchange utilizing the idea of a reward thus partakes of more than one idea:
1. In everyday practice of the Greco-Roman world, gift giving played a cultural role in establishing, deepening, and maintaining social bonds. By conceptualizing the divine gift as expecting a return of faith-obedience and praise, which is, in turn, rewarded, Hebrews is not violating a Lutheran-styled rule of “pure grace,” but merely utilizing the cultural idea of reciprocal gift giving as a function of friendship. The parallel is limited to the positive point about healthy reciprocity in a loving relationship. In the end, for Hebrews the future divine “reward” is the gift already given, which is eternal and once-for-all, already perfected, in which the believer already participates (6:4–6)—indeed, it is that which makes possible the proper response of the human creature (8:7–13). It is not made, achieved, or won by the believer, but entered.
2. The baptized enjoy real participation in the benefits of salvation, whether or not they persevere or forfeit all. The baptized (= the people of God in a local gathering) are said to have been enlightened, to have tasted the heavenly gift, etc. (6:4–6). Their participation in salvation was real, not merely theoretical and imagined. It is of a piece with this that their past of obedience is thought of as belonging to the fabric of that gift; this past life belongs to salvation; it is the future salvation “falteringly” expressed already, and so a fruit of the gift (see above). Yet, just as the gifts of 6:4–5 could be forfeited, so also the past life of obedience.
