The book of Hebrews in the Christian Scriptures is probably more challenging and controversial than even Revelation, or it was when it was first written. There are a lot of "only in Hebrews" sorts of assertions and arguments. For instance, Jesus is called our High Priest only in Hebrews. Yet, we think of the three roles of Jesus as Prophet, Priest, and King. King makes sense as He is the descendant of David. Prophet was what everyone figured He was, and He spoke for the Father, so he was the Prophet. But priests were descendant from Aaron, they were from the tribe of Levi, not Judah. So, that role is only defined in Hebrews. And that is only one of many elements we know of Jesus only found in Hebrews.
One of the unique perspectives in Hebrews can be found in chapter 9. In English, it's very strange, and probably causes more questions than it answers. It's found in the three verses below:
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. (Hebrews 9:15-17 ESV)
You may have missed the author's switch between "covenant" and "will" (as in "last will and testament"). Read that again. Now, who died? The obvious answer is Jesus. But look at the first sentence, especially the final phrase. Now, in the first covenant, who died? Do you sort of feel peculiar, even asking the question? That's not my point, to make you feel peculiar. It may help to notice in your own version that most of the time, this change from "covenant" to "will" has a footnote, where the translators explain something. Those are good things to read.
In this instance, the Greek word behind "covenant" in verse 15, and "will" in verses 16 and 17 are the same. The writer has used some "elasticity" in the meaning of the Greek word to highlight something, or rather Someone. All along through this book, the writer has been building an argument brick by brick. It's all led to this point. Jesus is superior to everything, angels, Moses, the law, the priesthood, and because of all that, He has a superior ministry. Everything done under the law of Moses was a shadow of the real ministry in heaven, the tabernacle, the furniture, the process, all to get to the Throne of our Creator.
But now, Jesus has done something huge. In fact it is so massive, it boggles the imagination. He has offered the perfect sacrifice, so perfect that no more sacrifices need be made, and in fact, it is effective for all time, present, future and past. The thing is, He's not "Levitical". There were exceptions to the Levites conducting the sacrifices, Samuel did it, and David. David even had some of his sons function as priests, although it's not necessarily clear in what way. But the law that God gave to Moses said that only Levites were to offer the sin offering. Only the High Priest, a descendant of Aaron, was to go into the Holy of Holies once a year to sprinkle blood on the ark of the covenant, atoning for the sins of all Israel for the year. But Jesus does this amazing thing, this new covenant mentioned by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31.
At this point in his argument, the writer of Hebrews takes the Greek word used throughout the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to a covenant, and suddenly uses it like most of the common Greek-speaking world used it, to refer to a will. That was unexpected. But he does it to pull his audience into his main point. Referring to the New Covenant as a "will" highlights the amazing role that Jesus has within this New Covenant. In this will, Jesus dies to bring it into effect (verses 16 and 17), but then rises from the dead to be the executor as well (verse 15). The boomerang effect in the brains of his audience caused by using the "flexibility" in the word they were already used to hearing used both ways jolts them into the startling realization that Jesus' ministry of intercession was truly unique. And nothing can replace Jesus' role, not even adhering to the sacrifices of the temple and tabernacle. That doesn't rattle us today, but it was absolutely shocking when written.
Where Paul envisions a court room, lopsided in our favor (Romans 8), the writer of Hebrews envisions the temple/throne room of heaven with Jesus interceding on our behalf, but from the right-hand of the Father. Both roles of Jesus are intercession, one as our Defense Attorney, the other as our High Priest. Both are made possible because Jesus paid the price of our sin Himself. Both place our ability to approach our Creator entirely in our Savior. But one is an educational appropriation of common life, and the other is the reality underlying the mere shadows of this world. Yet both display the compassion and mercy of our Creator for His wayward creatures. Such compassion from a deity is shocking in the ancient world. And in our day, such mercy is still unexpected, and hopefully redemptive. What holds us back from experiencing it today? What holds us back from sharing it?
