Ascension and Atonement: The Significance of Post-Reformation, Reformed Responses to Socinians for Contemporary Atonement Debates in Hebrews

By Benjamin J. Ribbens

[Benjamin J. Ribbens is Associate Professor of Theology at Trinity Christian College in Chicago, IL.]

ABSTRACT

Recent scholarship on Hebrews has highlighted the role of the ascension in the atonement so that Christ’s offering includes his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. For scholars who affirm this position, the entire sequence of events is necessary for and part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. However, these sequence approaches to atonement have been met with resistance and questions. In particular, some scholars have noted that Socinus and his followers also emphasized Christ’s ascension and affirmed a sequence approach as part of their larger scheme of denying Christ’s divine pre-existence and refuting that Christ’s death was a satisfaction. This article appeals to two seventeenth-century Reformed exegetes, Johannes Cocceius and John Owen, who were contemporaries of Socinian thinkers and authors and who both wrote commentaries on Hebrews, in which they went to great lengths to differentiate their views from their Socinian counterparts. Cocceius and Owen therefore become interesting case studies that reframe the modern debate and help disentangle Socinus from sequence approaches, because their detailed exegesis of Hebrews responds and reacts to Socinian claims throughout, elaborating what they consider valid readings of Scripture and what leads into Socinian error. The article concludes with a handful of implications for modern Hebrews studies.

-------------

I. Introduction

A fracas has broken out in Hebrews studies over the where and the when of atonement. Does Christ achieve atonement exclusively on the cross, or does Christ’s atoning sacrifice include his post-resurrection ascension into the heavenly sanctuary? In Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, David Moffitt highlights the importance of the resurrection in Hebrews’s argument, and he emphasizes that the author of Hebrews places Christ’s offering (or presentation) of his sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. Just as the Levitical sacrifice began with the slaughter of the victim and ended with the presentation of the blood by the priest in the earthly tabernacle, so Christ’s offering begins with his slaughter on the cross and ends with his presentation of the offering in the heavenly tabernacle.[1] As a result, Moffitt contends that one must understand “Jesus’ atoning offering” in the context of “a proto-creedal sequence”: “For the author of this homily, the heavenly Son came into the world, suffered and died, rose again, ascended into heaven, made his offering for eternal atonement, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.”[2] Moffitt, therefore, represents one kind of sequence approach to reading Hebrews. Sequence approaches maintain that each part of the sequence of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension is essential to Christ’s atoning work.

Although Moffitt was neither the first nor the last person to affirm such a position,[3] his articulation of a sequence approach was met with scholarly opposition.[4] Moffitt has been challenged on this point in book reviews, journal articles, monographs, and commentaries.[5] Michael Kibbe’s article “Is It Finished?” (2012) in particular raised a number of exegetical and theological questions about Moffitt’s sequence approach.[6] In that paper, Kibbe identified a number of similarities between Moffitt’s sequence understanding of atonement and the views of Faustus Socinus (1539–1604), leading Kibbe to label the sequence approach “the Socinian view,”[7] and others have followed Kibbe in associating Moffitt’s views with Socinian understandings.[8]

Unsurprisingly, David Moffitt took umbrage with the label “Socinian,” and he replied to Kibbe in a 2014 paper presentation calling the “Socinian” label “an unfortunate and unhelpful moniker.… The epithet obscures more than it reveals, particularly given the unavoidable Christological and systematic connotations inherent in the term.”[9] In that paper, Moffitt distanced himself from Socinus’s Christology, noting his own affirmation of the divine Son’s heavenly preexistence. He then focused his attention on the history of the sequential approach, surveying early church authors to prove that “already in the late-second to early-third centuries CE, passages from Hebrews were being interpreted as presenting a post-crucifixion and post-resurrection account of Jesus’ sacrificial work.”[10] A few days after Moffitt’s remarks, Kibbe presented a paper where he also acknowledged the early church fathers who adopt—at least to some extent—a sequence approach. In that paper, Kibbe noted that sequence approaches are not “Socinian” in origin; still, his paper upheld Socinus as the central figure in sequence approaches, which was exemplified in Kibbe’s organization of the history of the debate into three categories: “Pre-Socinus,” “Socinus,” and “Post-Socinus.”[11]

Moffitt and Kibbe have done Hebrews studies a service by finding and highlighting the ancient readings of Hebrews that identify Christ’s sacrifice as a sequence of events.[12] Sequence readings prefigure Socinus. Yet, the presence of Socinus in the center of the debate does raise significant questions about atonement as it relates to a sequence approach. Does the sequence approach lead to a diminishment of Christ, the cross, or Christ’s death as a satisfaction or redemption? A key to answering these questions will be to disentangle Socinus from the sequence approach so that one can determine what aspects of the sequence approach are distinctively “Socinian” and therefore potentially problematic, and what aspects are part of the general Christian tradition.

I propose that two seventeenth-century Reformed exegetes can help us disentangle Socinus from the sequence approach: (1) Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and (2) John Owen (1616–1683). These two scholars were contemporaries of Socinian thinkers and authors, and they both wrote commentaries on Hebrews, in which they went to great lengths to differentiate their views from the contemporary Socinian views. The Dutch-Reformed Johannes Cocceius repeatedly found himself in debates with the followers of another Dutch-Reformed scholar named Gisbert Voetius (1587–1676). While these debates concerned a number of matters, they all related to one common theme: the relationship of the Old to the New Testament.[13] In the course of these debates, the followers of Voetius labeled Cocceius a Socinian, and this label haunted Cocceius.[14] In response to these charges, Cocceius wrote a Hebrews commentary[15] to clarify his “orthodoxy for the sake of his Reformed brethren by distancing his understanding of the two testaments from that of the Socinians.”[16] Thus, Cocceius becomes a particularly interesting case study because his detailed exegesis of Hebrews responds and reacts to Socinian claims throughout. Following shortly after Socinus himself and interacting with contemporary Socinians, Cocceius makes clear what he considers to be valid readings of Scripture and what leads recklessly into Socinian error. Like Cocceius, the Englishman John Owen was a contemporary of numerous Socinian authors and was concerned with preserving Reformed Orthodoxy. Owen produced seven volumes on Hebrews,[17] a large portion of which is dedicated to enumerating Socinian errors.[18] In addition to these two primary voices, I will occasionally note and cite Reformed voices that followed after them, including the Englishman William Gouge (1575–1653) and Dutchmen Herman Witsius (1636–1708) and Herman Bavinck (1854–1921).[19]

II. The Socinian Position

In order to understand the reaction to Socinian interpretations of Hebrews, one must begin by rightly outlining the Socinian position. We will consider three sources for the Socinian position: Socinus himself,[20] the Racovian Catechism that summarizes Socinian doctrine,[21] and Jonas Schlichtingius’s commentary on Hebrews.[22] Schlichtingius becomes a significant voice in the conversation, because he offers an extensive interpretation of Hebrews from a Socinian perspective. As a result, Schlichtingius is Cocceius’s primary opponent, and one of Owen’s many Socinian adversaries.[23]

Socinian doctrines of Christology and soteriology lead to an emphasis on Christ’s ascension. (1) Christology: For Socinians, Christ is not the pre-existent, divine Son of God.[24] Rather, while a mortal on earth, he was primarily a prophet, who confirmed his teachings through a sinless life and miracles.[25] After Jesus died, God restored him to life through the resurrection, and at the ascension God invested Christ’s glorified body with immortality and gave him the power to rule and to save.[26] Christ’s appearance in heaven, therefore, is essential to his atoning sacrifice and the key to his powers as king and priest.[27] 

(2) Soteriology: Socinus and his followers adamantly rejected the idea that Christ’s death satisfied divine justice. God is merciful and loving. He does not need justice to be met to grant forgiveness.28 Christ did not need to die to pay the penalty for sins and to appease God’s wrath.29 Rather than a satisfaction, Christ’s death was an expiation or remission.30 Under the Mosaic law, God accepted Levitical sacrifices as acts of obedience and, as a result, forgave believers their sins.[31] Similarly, God accepted Christ’s offering of himself as a supreme act of obedience,[32] and God responded to this sacrifice by extending to Christ the power to save those who believe in him.[33] Thus, following the model of Levitical sacrifice, Christ’s death makes expiation.[34]

Both Socinian Christology and soteriology emphasize the ascension (sometimes over and against Christ’s death), and Socinian authors relied on a particular reading of Hebrews to locate Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice in heaven. Socinus and his followers note how Hebrews parallels Jesus’ sacrifice to the offering on the Day of Atonement, which began with the slaughter of the victim outside the tabernacle and continued with the high priest bringing the blood into the Holy of Holies to present before God.[35] Following this model, Christ’s earthly death is identified with the slaughter of the victim. After his resurrection, Christ ascends to the heavenly sanctuary as a priest, where he presents himself as the offering before God.[36]

In this sequence of events (death, resurrection, and ascension), Socinian authors consider Christ’s death “necessary,”[37] but it is also described as a “commencement,” “antecedent,” or “preparation.”[38] The emphasis is placed on Christ’s presentation of himself in heaven post-resurrection and post-ascension, resulting in strong statements diminishing Christ’s earthly death in favor of his heavenly presentation. Socinus states that Christ “completed the offering of himself in heaven.”[39] The Racovian Catechism explains further: “the sufferings and death of Christ were not themselves that full and perfect expiatory sacrifice”; rather, “expiatory sacrifice … was not actually completed and perfected, until, after being raised from the dead, he had entered into heaven.”[40] Schlichtingius states more emphatically: “Hence it is manifest that the offering and sacrifice of Christ our high Priest was not made upon the Crosse, but was performed in heaven, and is yet in the performing.”[41] Socinus’s adversaries identified Christ’s death as the key to his sacrifice, because his death was the payment or satisfaction of divine justice. Socinus and his followers, in contrast, emphasized that, just as the offering of the blood in the sanctuary was the key moment in Levitical sacrifice, so Christ’s sacrifice was not complete or perfect until he presented himself before God in the heavenly sanctuary.[42] Socinus emphasized the post-ascension offering or presentation in the heavenly sanctuary because he associated this act with expiation, whereas his opponents emphasized Christ’s pre-ascension death or slaughter because they associated this act with satisfaction. Still, Socinians do not outright deny the earthly aspects of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice as their opponents allege;[43] rather, Christ’s death is considered an essential part of the sacrificial process that includes Christ’s death on the cross, resurrection, and ascension into heaven where he presents himself before God.[44] Christ’s blood has power, and his offering in heaven would not have been possible apart from his earthly death.[45]

When discussing Christ’s priesthood, Socinians place a similar emphasis on Christ’s post-resurrection and post-ascension activity. This does not mean that Socinians view Christ’s priesthood as an entirely post-ascension, heavenly reality, as their opponents often claim. Instead, they maintain that Christ was a priest on earth to the extent that is possible. The Racovian Catechism aptly summarizes what priestly functions Christ performed on earth and what functions he performed in heaven:

Christ was indeed a priest, even while he lived on earth, and when he hung upon the cross. For … he presented prayers and supplications to God for himself and for us, sanctified himself as an offering to God, and had the right of entering the holy place in heaven.… As however the priestly office of Christ consisted chiefly in the offering of his body, and his appearance in the presence of God, it was necessary that both these should be done in heaven as a suitable sanctuary;—and on this account his body was endued with immortality, that living for ever he might make intercession for us.[46]

Although Christ was a priest on earth, the chief functions of his priesthood are performed in heaven post-ascension. In particular, the presentation of the offering before God is part of Christ’s heavenly priesthood.

In sum, while Socinus and his followers affirm the importance of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, they clearly diminish Christ’s earthly priesthood and sacrifice in order to emphasize the heavenly, post-ascension aspects of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice. The ultimate goal of the Socinians in this emphasis is to distance expiation and purgation of sins from Christ’s death, so that Christ’s death is no longer viewed as a satisfaction or substitution.[47]

III. Reformed Responses to Socinians

Johannes Cocceius and John Owen responded to these Socinian arguments in their exegesis of Hebrews. To begin, one should note that there are two key Socinian doctrines that Cocceius and Owen adamantly and repeatedly reject. First, Cocceius and Owen oppose Socinian Christology, as they both strongly affirm the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Cocceius, for instance, makes clear that Jesus’ appearance before God in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:26) does not make him a dependent power,[48] and Owen contends that Christ’s divinity makes his sacrifice fully efficacious.[49] Second, Cocceius and Owen oppose the way Socinians detach Christ’s suffering and death from his sacrifice or offering and its associated expiation.[50] As noted in the last section, Socinian authors, while maintaining the necessity of Christ’s earthly death, diminish the importance of the earthly aspects of Christ’s sacrifice in order to emphasize the post-ascension aspects. In response, Cocceius and Owen go to great lengths to connect Christ’s earthly life, suffering, and death both to his sacrifice and to the sacrificial efficacies of remission, expiation, and redemption. Their disagreements with the Socinians can be organized into two main topics: (1) the essence (or focal point) of sacrifice and (2) when redemption took place.

1. The Essence of Sacrifice

Debates between Socinians and their opponents often polarize over what part of the sacrificial process is actually effective: the slaughter or the presentation of blood. Since the Socinian authors wanted to emphasize Christ’s post-ascension presentation of himself in the heavenly sanctuary, they identified the presentation of the blood as the part of the sacrificial sequence of events that effected atonement. In contrast, Socinian opponents sought to maintain that Christ’s earthly death was a satisfactory atonement, so they identified the slaughter as the key moment of sacrifice. Thus, the exegesis of Hebrews often hinges on how scholars interpret Hebrews’s use of the words sacrifice (θυσία) and offering (προσφορά).

For instance, when Schlichtingius discusses the parallel between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s sacrifice in Heb 9:1–14, he contends that the essence of the sacrifice was not in the slaughter but in the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies, so that the essence of Christ’s sacrifice is similarly not in his death on the cross but in his offering (oblatio) in the heavenly sanctuary.[51] Christ’s offering or presentation in heaven is the central aspect of sacrifice that attains atonement. For this reason, Schlichtingius clings to Hebrews’s use of the word offering (προσφορά) and reinterprets the word θυσία accordingly. Although he identifies slaughter as significant to the etymology of θυσία (because it comes from θύω), he reinterprets θυσία in light of the ultimate sacrificial moment—the offering or presentation—so that θυσία denotes that which is offered.[52]

Cocceius and Owen oppose Schlichtingius on these points contending that the slaughter and bloodshed of sacrifice is what is most significant and what ultimately leads to atonement.[53] Cocceius refutes Schlichtingius’s identification of θυσία with presentation, arguing that a slaughtered victim (victima) is a θυσία and that θύω denotes slaughter.[54] Further, Owen quarrels with the Socinians over the relationship between slaughter and offering. He argues that in Levitical practice slaughter is the essence of sacrifice, while the offering is also necessary for its completion or perfection. Likewise, the “essence and substance of Christ’s sacrifice” is his bloody death, while his entrance into heaven is the completion or perfection of the act and verifies its efficacy.[55] In this way, Cocceius and Owen do not deny Christ’s post-ascension presentation of the offering in the heavenly sanctuary; rather, they affirm the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death and identify that death as the central aspect of his sacrifice. Cocceius and Owen both argue that Christ’s heavenly presentation cannot be the primary aspect of his sacrifice, because most Levitical sacrifices do not involve entry into the Holy of Holies. Most often the blood application occurs outside the Holy of Holies, including some of the sacrifices performed on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:6, 10). Yet, those acts that do not culminate in the Holy of Holies are still considered sacrifices.[56] In a similar fashion, Christ’s suffering and bloodshed are the essence of his sacrifice, and Christ’s death gives him the salvific power to enter the heavenly sanctuary. Thus, Christ’s death is the significant and efficacious aspect of his sacrifice (not post-ascension presentation).[57] Cocceius is so appalled by those who try to detach Christ’s death and bloodshed from the sacrifice that he says that their arguments demonstrate “the evil conscience of those who teach those things” because “they cannot be ignorant” of the passages in Hebrews and the rest of the NT that connect Jesus’ death to his sacrifice and atonement.[58]

2. When/Where Redemption Happens

A second debate related to the first one is the relationship between redemption and sacrifice in Hebrews. Two Hebrews texts are significant to this discussion: (a) Heb 1:3: “having made purification for sins, Christ sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” and (b) Heb 9:12: “he entered the Most Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption.” In these two verses, Christ’s entrance (9:12) and sitting (1:3) are the main verb in the aorist, while Christ’s attaining purification (1:3) and redemption (9:12) modify the main verb with aorist participles. Socinian interpreters do not see these passages as damaging their case because they interpret the participles as coincident or concurrent. Christ obtains redemption by and upon his entrance.[59] In contrast, Cocceius and Owen consider the participles antecedent, so that the redemption happens prior to the entry into heaven and, likewise, purification happens before Christ sits on the throne.[60] While this is a grammatical debate, most of the arguments (then as now) relate to which reading fits Hebrews’s sacrificial logic. Thus, Cocceius and Owen affirm the antecedent reading (Christ attained purification and redemption before his ascension) largely because they want to ensure that Christ’s death is endowed with atoning efficacy and not stripped of any meaning.

IV. Sequence Approaches: Socinian and Reformed

Up to this point, we have been highlighting key aspects of the Socinian arguments that Cocceius and Owen oppose. Yet, there are significant similarities in how Cocceius, Owen, and their Socinian opponents interpret Hebrews. In particular, Cocceius and Owen are, perhaps surprisingly, open to sequence readings of Hebrews, even in the wake of the Socinian movement. One might have expected them to reject a sequence approach entirely since the Socinians used such a reading to diminish Christ’s atonement. Instead, Cocceius and Owen adopt conservative sequence approaches.

1. Day of Atonement Parallel and a Sequence of Events

A key part of sequence readings of Hebrews is how one interprets the parallel between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s sacrifice. Both Cocceius and Owen consider Christ’s atoning work to include a series of discrete events—including slaughter on earth and presentation in heaven—that follow the model of the Day of Atonement.

When discussing the high priestly offering of blood on the Day of Atonement in Heb 9:7, Cocceius responds to his Socinian sparring partner Schlichtingius by emphasizing that the slaughter and not the presentation of the blood is the central and efficacious aspect of the Levitical—and subsequently Christ’s—sacrifice.[61] Cocceius here seems to anticipate a question, because one wonders, if adopting Cocceius’s understanding of sacrifice, why the priest brought the blood into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, since this action was seemingly unnecessary. Cocceius notes that it was necessary for the Levitical priest to bring the blood into the sanctuary because it signified (significatum) or anticipated Christ’s sacrifice.[62] The type must correspond to the archetype.[63] Since Christ would shed his blood as a satisfaction and then enter the heavenly sanctuary, the Levitical type prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice must include bloodshed and an entrance into the sanctuary. Cocceius does not argue that Christ presented or sprinkled his blood in the heavenly sanctuary; yet, since the shed blood is the blood of Christ and since Christ’s body (and within it the blood) is present in heaven, the blood of the sacrifice is brought into the heavenly sanctuary.[64] Later, when discussing Heb 9:12, Cocceius makes the same argument, noting that “Christ here is considered as the Priest offering first his body on the cross, and then as it were bringing [his] blood into the Holy of Holies, when he brings his slain body into heaven.”[65] The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood as part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement to signify Christ’s entry into the heavenly sanctuary and his sitting on the heavenly throne (which the mercy seat signified).[66] Thus, Cocceius considers the sequence of events during the Levitical Day of Atonement to signify the sequence of events in Christ’s atoning work, from slaughter to post-ascension presentation in the heavenly sanctuary.[67]

Similarly, John Owen outlines how Jesus’ actions followed the pattern of the Day of Atonement. First, the sacrifice began with adduction. A proper animal had to be brought forward as a gift or offering. Christ fulfills this through bringing himself forward as an offering, which “consisted in all those sacred actions of his which were previously preparatory to his death,” including his journey to Jerusalem and experience in the Garden of Gethsemane.[68] Second, the sacrifice proceeds with the killing of the victim. For both the Day of Atonement and Christ’s death, Owen says this is the “essence” and “substance” of sacrifice.[69] Third, after the slaughter comes oblation, the sprinkling of the blood. Owen admits that with Levitical sacrifice “atonement on the altar was to be made with the blood after the effusion of it”; however, he essentially merges the blood sprinkling with the slaughter, because the warm blood represents the life “being poured out in death” and the “total destruction of the life of the sacrifice.”[70] Similarly, he identifies Christ’s oblation with his slaughter, for Christ’s oblation was his offering himself in obedience unto death.[71] Fourth, the Day of Atonement included entrance into the Holy of Holies. Since Owen, like Cocceius, identifies the essence of sacrifice with slaughter, he considers the Levitical high priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies a “consequent” of sacrifice, that is, something that followed after sacrifice for no particular reason other than to represent Christ’s ministry: “And [the entry of the Levitical high priest into the Holy of Holies] was appointed for no other end, but because it was the only way whereby the perpetual efficacy of the blood of Christ in heaven, which was shed on the earth, might be represented.”[72] Thus, while Owen considers the priestly entry into the Holy of Holies a discrete event after sacrifice, he does consider Christ’s atoning work as described in Hebrews to parallel each part of the Day of Atonement: adduction, killing, oblation, and entrance into the sanctuary.[73]

Therefore, despite the fact that the Socinians rely on the parallel actions of the Day of Atonement, Cocceius and Owen also maintain that Christ’s actions follow the same sequence and progression of actions. Later Reformed scholars affirm the same views, and Herman Witsius in particular says that the Day of Atonement “represents to us Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven.”[74]

2. Essential Nature of Ascension

Another key aspect of sequence readings of Hebrews is an emphasis on Christ’s ascension as a part of his atoning work. While Cocceius and Owen go to great lengths to affirm the efficacy of Christ’s earthly death, they also affirm the significance of the ascension in atonement. Some readers of Hebrews might think that Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary is simply a nice way to make Christ’s actions fit the Day of Atonement so that the author can develop a sacrificial metaphor. Neither Cocceius nor Owen adopts such a view. Rather, as discussed above, they contend that the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies during the Day of Atonement occurred for the explicit purpose of anticipating Christ’s sacrifice and entrance into the heavenly sanctuary. They consider Christ’s entrance into heaven to be vital for his work of atonement, which raises the question: what role does the ascension play in the atonement?

Cocceius, when discussing Heb 9:24, distinguishes between Christ’s offering and appearance in the heavenly sanctuary. He suggests that Christ’s entrance into heaven demonstrates the completion of the offering. Since the sins of humanity are joined to Christ, his entrance into heaven demonstrates that those sins have been fully removed, because Christ could not bring sin into the presence of God. While Socinians will talk about Christ’s entrance into heaven as the completion of his sacrifice, their statements see Christ’s entrance as the culminating or final act in the sacrifice. In contrast, Cocceius speaks of Christ’s entrance as a demonstration of an already completed offering and completed purification.[75] Still, while making a clear distinction between Christ’s offering and his subsequent appearance, Cocceius affirms the necessity of the ascension and makes an interesting distinction. He associates expiation with Christ’s offering, while his entrance into heaven relates to reconciliation. Christ enters heaven as humanity’s forerunner, allowing God to live with humans and humans to love the Father.[76]

In a similar fashion, Owen is adamant that Christ’s sacrifice is “in his suffering, his death and blood-shedding only.”[77] Christ’s sacrifice is in his death, and therefore the efficacy of sacrifice is accomplished through his death.[78] Still, like Cocceius, Owen describes Christ’s entrance into heaven as a “completion of all that was fore-signified” and evidence of his “having done the will of God” and “finished the work committed to him.”[79] Owen goes even further finding great significance in Christ’s entrance into heaven as the “application of the value and efficacy of his sacrifice to the church, according to the covenant between Father and Son” (emphasis added).[80] For Owen, Christ’s entrance into heaven is “necessary” because, although Christ’s death attains the efficacy (atonement and redemption), the efficacy is not applied to believers unless Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary.[81] In this way, Owen links Christ’s ascension very closely to his sacrifice and makes the ascension a necessary result of his death and a necessary component of atonement. On one occasion, Owen describes the entrance of the Levitical priest into the sanctuary as “the complement or perfection of his service in the expiatory sacrifice,” which leads to the correlating conclusion that “the entrance of Christ into heaven belongs unto the perfection of the effects and efficacy of his sacrifice, as unto the way of its application unto the church.”[82] Owen considers Christ’s ascension so inseparably bound to sacrifice as part of atonement that he argues that “faith in Christ doth jointly respect both his oblation of himself by death, and the glorious exaltation that ensued thereon.… Neither of these separately is a full object for faith to find rest in; both in conjunction are a rock to fix it on.”[83]

William Gouge, writing around the same time and interacting with Socinian authors, also affirms the essential nature of the ascension in Christ’s priestly work. “Christ’s priesthood was in an external act begun on earth, yet the continuation, consummation, and full accomplishment … of all is in heaven, and thereupon the apostle’s position is true and sound.”[84] Gouge suggests that Christ attains all merit on earth through sacrifice, and he applies that merit to believers through his intercessory work in heaven.[85]

Thus, Cocceius, Owen, and others, in responding to the Socinians, (1) maintain that Christ’s atoning work, following the pattern of the Day of Atonement, consists of a sequence of events that include his death on earth and entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, and (2) they note the essential aspect of Christ’s ascension and entrance into heaven for atonement. Based on our initial definition of sequence approaches, one can identify Cocceius’s and Owen’s readings of Hebrews as kinds of sequence approaches.

V. A Non-Socinian Issue

Part of the contemporary discussion over sequence readings relates to whether Christ brought blood into the heavenly sanctuary. Some scholars who affirm a sequence reading of Hebrews draw on the parallel between the Levitical Day of Atonement and Christ’s sacrifice to suggest that Christ, just like the Levitical high priest, brought blood into the sanctuary.[86] At this stage, it may be helpful to point out that the position that Christ brought blood into heaven is not a “Socinian” position, even though it has been labeled as such.[87]

While Socinus draws clear parallels between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s expiatory oblation, he never states that Christ’s offering included bringing blood into the sanctuary. Rather, he describes Christ’s blood as the means by which Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary where he offers or presents himself (not his blood).[88] Not only does Socinus not argue for blood in the heavenly sanctuary, but neither does the Racovian Catechism. While it makes a strong point to draw the parallel between Christ and the Levitical system, it remains silent on the issue of what Christ brought into the heavenly sanctuary, certainly never affirming that Jesus brings blood into the sanctuary.[89]

Schlichtingius is able to address this issue in greater depth in his commentary when interpreting Heb 9:12, “He did not enter by means of [δι’] the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy place once for all by [διά] his own blood.” Schlichtingius is adamant about the fact that Jesus does not enter heaven with blood. While the Levitical high priest entered by and with blood, Jesus enters by and without blood, which is why—in Schlichtingius’s view—Hebrews uses the preposition by (διά) and not with.[90] Christ shed his blood on earth, after which he entered heaven where he offered himself, not his blood.[91]

In contrast, some Reformed scholars responding to the Socinians are more open to the possibility that Christ entered heaven with his blood. While John Owen completely rejects the idea that Christ could bring his blood into heaven,[92] Cocceius talks about Christ entering heaven with blood to the extent that Christ’s blood was inside him when he entered the heavenly sanctuary. While this is not an exact parallel to the bloody Levitical sacrifice, Cocceius tries to draw the parallel as closely as he can by stating his position as follows: “Christ here is considered as the Priest offering first his body on the cross, and then as it were bringing his blood into the Holy of Holies, when he brings his body into heaven.”[93] William Gouge makes a very similar argument as Cocceius, suggesting that Christ does not carry his blood into heaven in a vessel like the Levitical high priest; rather, Christ “presented his body, out of which the blood is shed, and which was the sacrifice itself that was offered up.”[94] Elsewhere, Gouge articulates this idea by saying more strongly, “Christ offered himself, and with his own blood entered into heaven.”[95] Finally, Herman Witsius notes the many parallels between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s sacrifice, highlighting the entrance into the heavenly sanctuary. As part of these parallels, Witsius says: “And there was no entrance possible for Aaron without the blood of the expiatory sacrifice: neither did Christ enter into the holy place without blood.”[96] Just as the blood of the Day of Atonement “remained in the holy of holies,” so also Christ’s blood remains in the sanctuary since “Christ appears always in heaven with his blood.”[97]

Thus, the idea that Christ brought his blood into the heavenly sanctuary ought not to be identified as “Socinian.” Not only is this position not held consistently among Socinians (in fact, none of our representative sources affirm it), but also some Reformed exegetes who oppose the Socinians hold the position.

VI. Implications for the Modern Debate

Before proceeding to applications for the modern discussion, allow me to summarize some of our findings. Cocceius and Owen oppose Socinians regarding their Christology and the way they separate Christ’s death from the sacrificial offering and the sacrificial efficacies. As it relates to this latter issue, we should read their description of slaughter as the essence of sacrifice and their arguments that redemption is attained before Christ’s ascension as polemical statements, trying to maintain the sacrificial significance of Christ’s death. Due to the polemical nature of these comments, Cocceius and Owen may overstate their case, and some biblical scholars may not agree with their particular exegetical conclusions, even while seeking to defend the same things Cocceius and Owen seek to defend, that is, Nicene Christology and the significance of Christ’s death in his salvific work.

We also found that Owen and Cocceius adopt sequence approaches. This is somewhat surprising. They deviate from John Calvin who does not adopt a sequence approach but argues that Hebrews’s discussion of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary is simply a heavenly way of speaking about what was taking place on earth.[98] Rather than adopting such a metaphorical reading in keeping with their exegetical forefather, they adopt sequence approaches, which their sworn enemies—the Socinians—also utilize. They find a sequence reading compelling, even when they might naturally reject it.

So what does this historical study tell us about the modern discussion of atonement and sacrifice in Hebrews? There are a few important conclusions that I think we can make.

First, if we define sequence readings of Hebrews as affirming Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension as all essential elements in Christ’s atoning work (following the pattern of the Levitical Day of Atonement), then sequence approaches are not “the Socinian view.” David Moffitt and Michael Kibbe have demonstrated that sequence approaches precede Socinus. Christians throughout all generations have concluded that Hebrews depicts Jesus’ post-ascension presentation of himself in heaven as part of his atoning sacrifice.[99] Socinus was not the first, last, or best in the long line of scholars who adopted a sequence reading. Rather, Socinus was one person who adopted a sequence approach, and he used that approach in his larger arguments to deny the divinity of Christ and his substitutionary death as an atoning sacrifice. His errors were not caused by a sequence approach, and a sequence approach does not lead to Socinian beliefs. This reality is evidenced by the works of Cocceius and Owen who adopt sequence approaches while refuting Socinus. Further, we should note that there is not one monolithic sequence reading, but there are variations of sequence approaches.[100] Thus, all the variations cannot be the Socinian view. Rather, Socinians adopt one of the possible sequence approaches. Even then, it is not their choice of sequence approach that is distinctive, but the theological conclusions they draw from their sequence reading of Hebrews. In sum, sequence approaches have been held by scholars throughout the history of the church, and we do a disservice to any ongoing discussion if we label any and all sequence readings of Christ’s atonement in Hebrews as Socinian.

Second, the debate regarding the where and when of atonement in Hebrews is not a clear either/or—either cross or ascension. Sequence approaches view both as essential aspects of Christ’s atoning work. None of the authors we considered—Socinian or Reformed—fall into such an either/or. While Cocceius and Owen might seem to fall on the “cross” side of the either/or, they go to great lengths to demonstrate the vital nature of the ascension for atonement. Similarly, while the Socinians do diminish the earthly aspects of Christ’s ministry, even they do not fall into a strict either/or, as they affirm that Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice do involve Christ’s earthly life. Therefore, scholars would be wise not to draw an impassable divide between death and ascension but to start showing the vital nature of both in atonement.[101]

Third, scholars need to be explicit about how they define certain terms. When scholars use the term sacrifice, are they referring to all aspects of the ritual process or are they referring to one of the aspects—for example, slaughter or offering/presentation? For instance, if someone says, “Christ’s sacrifice atones,” are they referring to Christ’s death, heavenly presentation, or to the sequence of events including his life, death, resurrection, and ascension? Similarly, when scholars use the term offering, are they only referring to the presentation of the offering before God, or are they using the term as a synecdoche to refer to the entire sacrificial process? Possibly more confusing is what scholars mean when they use the term atonement. Is atonement expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, or the fullness of salvation (new creation)? Are they intending one of those salvific goods or all of them?

Fourth, Cocceius, Owen, Witsius, and Bavinck give us potential ways forward in how to bring death and ascension together in one atoning work. (a) Attain v. apply: Owen suggests that Christ’s death attains the efficacy, and he mentions expiation, atonement, redemption, forgiveness, and reconciliation explicitly.[102] Still, Christ must ascend to finish his work, because he is not able to apply the benefits of his death to the church apart from his ascension.[103] Herman Bavinck articulates a similar position. He suggests that if one thinks broadly about Christ’s saving work in its entirety as “re-creation, one immediately senses that to this end the state of exaltation is as necessary as the state of humiliation.”[104] For Bavinck, Christ’s sacrifice is exclusively his act on the cross, and on the cross Christ achieves forgiveness and all other benefits.[105] Christ then ascends to heaven “with a treasure of merits” that he administers to the church.[106]

(b) Expiation v. reconciliation: While Cocceius does not make too much of a point of it, he does hint toward associating expiation with Christ’s death and reconciliation with Christ’s entry into heaven. The spilled blood expiates sin, while his entry into the heavenly sanctuary brings humanity into the divine realm, so that God and humans can live together.[107] In this manner, Cocceius appears to separate atonement into different salvific goods and to ascribe those different aspects of atonement (expiation and reconciliation) to different moments in the sacrificial process.

(c) Redemption v. reconciliation: Herman Witsius may offer another division of atoning benefits, although he does not develop his comments into a clear thesis distinct from proposal (b). When discussing the relationship of Christ’s death and ascension in Christ’s salvific work, he notes repeatedly that Christ’s death and suffering was the means by which he attained satisfaction or redemption.[108] Once he paid the price, the barrier between humanity and God was torn, so that Christ could lead the way into the presence of God.[109] One might, therefore, be able to identify redemption with Christ’s death and reconciliation with Christ’s ascension into the divine presence. Michael Horton has recently argued for such an understanding of the ascension and atonement.

The ascension not only reveals the success of Christ’s atonement, but, like the resurrection, it is as constitutive of redemption as the atonement itself. Our Lord’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary was not merely a victory celebration but an essential part of the victory itself. From the atonement we learn how God has saved us from condemnation, death, and hell, but the ascension highlights especially what he has saved us for: namely, communion with the triune God in immortal glory.[110]

The saving from can be understood as redemption (and perhaps also expiation), while the saving for clearly communicates reconciliation.[111]

(d) Holistic approach: Both Cocceius and Owen argue that Christ’s ascension is the completion of the sacrifice. While they go on to make further distinctions, it may be best not to divide salvific efficacies or actions between the different events in the sacrificial process but to view the events as one single work of Christ that achieves atonement.[112] Douglas Farrow may exemplify this position, as he identifies the ascension as both an act of (1) saving grace, which includes salvific goods including “the defeat of sin, the overthrow of Satan, the reconciliation of Israel to God, and the founding of a royal priesthood that is catholic in scope,” and (2) a perfecting grace, which “establishes communion between God and man” and “brings human nature as such to its true end and to its fullest potential in the Holy Spirit.”[113] In this way, Farrow suggests that the ascension is vital to both the soteriological (purgation) and teleological (glorification) aspects of atonement.[114] The emphasis on ascension, however, does not lead to a diminishment of the cross for Farrow; rather, he contends that “Jesus’ ascension, considered as a priestly act, begins already on the cross; or rather his whole life is seen as an act of self-offering that culminates in the cross. In the ascension this offering is received on high.”[115]

Fifth, if Hebrews moves us to discuss Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension as all essential to atonement, one might still wish to talk about an order or rank of those events in the atonement.[116] While Hebrews stresses the significance of the ascension for atonement, the apostolic witness consistently emphasizes Christ’s death as effecting redemption and atonement (e.g., Matt 20:28; Rom 4:25; 5:9–10; 1 Cor 15:3; Eph 2:16).[117] John Calvin notes that it was through “the whole course of [Christ’s] obedience” that he abolished sin, but he goes on to state that “to define the way of salvation more exactly, scripture ascribes this as peculiar and proper to Christ’s death.”[118] Thus, while integrating life, death, resurrection, and ascension together in atonement, one can still maintain an order and rank. If one proceeds toward ranking or ordering the events, the Reformed critique of Socinians also serves as a caution to sequence approaches. When talking about the sequence of events that make up Christ’s sacrificial action, exegetes should be careful about how they speak about Christ’s death on the cross, so that his death is not diminished. Socinian arguments do diminish Christ’s earthly death, whereas Hebrews and the whole of Scripture connect atoning efficacy to Christ’s death (Heb 9:15, 26–28).[119] Thus, contemporary scholars should be careful when talking about the sequence of events not to describe Christ’s death or slaughter as preparatory or a precondition (to the blood manipulation), because this implicitly makes Christ’s death seem merely preparatory and not essential or vital. Even speaking about the ascension as the culmination of the sacrifice could diminish the cross, because it is unclear whether this culmination is simply the last in a series of events or if it is the most significant in the series, a viewpoint that does implicitly diminish the cross.

Notes

1. David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 42–43, 219–20, 269–81, 292–93.
2. Ibid., 43.
3. George Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), 135, 141–52; William Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord (London: MacMillan, 1901), 113–49, esp. 120, 133, 138–41; S. C. Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood; Jewish and Christian, 2nd ed. (London: Metheun, 1953), 140–56; Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960), esp. 170–71, 178–79, 199–200; Walter Edward Brooks, “Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 89 (1970): 208–14; William L. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols., WBC 47a–b (Dallas: Word, 1991), 2:239, 251–52; F. Dunkel, “Expiation et jour des expiations dans l’Épître aux Hébreux,” RRef 33 (1982): 63–71; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, 3 vols., EKKNT 17 (Zürich: Benziger, 1990–1999), 1:245; Thomas Knöppler, Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu, WMANT 88 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 199–200; Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT 2.142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 254, 259–61, 358; Richard D. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself’: Sacrifice in Hebrews,” Int 57 (2003): 252–57; Christian Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, BIS 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), esp. 58–64; Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie, WUNT 2.212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 212–319, esp. 252–53; Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT 2.223 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 95–96, 158–59, 169–70; Mayjee Philip, Leviticus in Hebrews: A Transtextual Analysis of the Tabernacle Theme in the Letter to the Hebrews (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011), 53; Nicholas J. Moore, Repetition in Hebrews: Plurality and Singularity in the Letter to the Hebrews, Its Ancient Context, and the Early Church, WUNT 2.388 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 12–13; Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews, BZNW 222 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 129–36.
4. It is unclear why Moffitt’s work caused such a backlash when other scholars had previously affirmed similar positions. Two possibilities come to mind: (1) Moffitt made the sequential reading a focal point of attention by making it central to the thesis of his monograph; (2) Moffitt presents his sequential reading in a provocative way. One of Moffitt’s main goals in his book is to fight against those who reduce Jesus’ sacrifice to his death. Some of those opponents contend that Jesus’ death alone is his sacrifice, while his ascension into the heavenly sanctuary is a distinct event taking place after his earthly sacrifice (e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 201; Lane, Hebrews, 2:249; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 70, 448; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 58, 289, 321; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012], 394–95, 416; Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT 2.338 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], 36–43; Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2015], 244, 267–68, 284–85). Other opponents contend that Hebrews’s language of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary is not about his post-resurrection ascension but is a heavenly way of speaking about what was taking place on earth on the cross (see n. 98 below). Because his opponents emphasize Jesus’ earthly death in a way that diminishes his post-resurrection and post-ascension work in the heavenly sanctuary, Moffitt often emphasizes Christ’s post-resurrection work in a way that some have perceived as a diminishment of Jesus’ earthly death. For instance, Moffitt argues that, just as in Levitical sacrifice “the death or slaughter of the victim, while necessary to procure the blood/life that is offered, has no particular atoning significance” (Atonement, 271), so also Jesus’ “sacrificial death is not the point at which atonement is obtained. The presentation of the blood is the means of atonement” (292; similarly 2). Likewise, Moffitt says, “Jesus’ atoning offering occurred precisely where the author depicts it occurring—in heaven, not on the cross” (42). Still, Moffitt views Jesus’ death/slaughter as both sacrificial and necessary, maintaining that all “the various elements of the ritual are necessary” (293). Among the essential, discrete moments of the sacrifice, however, Moffitt describes Jesus’ death as “preparation for making his offering” (285) and “the trigger that sets into motion the chain of events that culminates in atonement” (42; similarly 220, 285). Thus, some of Moffitt’s strong rhetoric against his opponents may have led to the strong backlash among scholars.
5. Michael Kibbe, review of Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, by David M. Moffitt, Them 37 (2012): 69–70; Nicholas J. Moore, review of Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, by David M. Moffitt, JTS 64 (2013): 675; Michael Kibbe, “Is It Finished? When Did It Start? Hebrews, Priesthood, and Atonement in Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Perspective,” JTS 65 (2014): 25–61; David Schrock, “Resurrection and Priesthood: Christological Soundings from the Book of Hebrews,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 18 (2014): 89–114; Jeremy R. Treat, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 216–17; Jared Compton, review of Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, by David M. Moffitt, TJ 36 (2015): 134–35; Schreiner, Hebrews, 238, 244, 271, 285, 300–301; Jeremy R. Treat, “Atonement and Covenant: Binding Together Aspects of Christ’s Work,” in Locating Atonement: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 111–12; Jean-René Moret, “Le rôle du concept de purification dans l’Épître aux Hébreux: une réaction à quelques propositions de David M. Mofftt,” NTS 62 (2016): 289–307, esp. 300–301.
6. Kibbe, “Is It Finished?,” 25–61.
7. Ibid., 46n93, 60–61.
8. Treat, Crucified King, 216–17; Treat, “Atonement and Covenant,” 111–12; Schrock, “Resurrection and Priesthood,” esp. 89–90, 105, 109. Schreiner notes the similar views of Moffitt and the Socinians while acknowledging that “Moffitt isn’t defending Socinianism” (Hebrews, 285n466).
9. David M. Moffitt, “The Worship of the Great High Priest: Some Reflections on the Humanity and Atoning Work of the Son in Hebrews” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego, 21 November 2014), 3. That paper was revised and published as “Jesus’ Heavenly Sacrifice in Early Christian Reception of Hebrews: A Survey,” JTS 68 (2017): 46–71.
10. Moffitt, “Jesus’ Heavenly Sacrifice,” 49–68.
11. Michael Kibbe, “Sacrifice on the Cross or Offering after the Cross? The History and Significance of a Key Issue in Hebrews’ View of the Atonement” (presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, 22 November 2014).
12. For a list of these sources, see n. 99 below.
13. These debates centered on three things in particular: first, “the nature of the Christian Sabbath”; second, a “distinction between πάρεσις and ἄφεσις as diverse modes of justification”; third, the nature of Christ’s sponsorship (Brian J. Lee, “Johannes Cocceius as Federal Polemicist: The Usefulness of the Distinction between the Testaments,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 170 [Leiden: Brill, 2013], 568).
14. Lee, “Cocceius as Federal Polemicist,” 572; similarly Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, Reformed Historical Theology 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 101–2, 105–6.
15. Johannes Cocceius, Epistolae ad Hebraeos explicatio et veritatis eius demonstratio (Leiden, 1659); henceforth, AdHeb. I want to thank Burt Rozema for his assistance with the Latin works of Cocceius and Socinus. In addition, credit for the translations of Cocceius (nn. 58, 65) and Socinus (n. 39) is to be given to Burt, who produced these translations which are far more elegant than I could produce.
16. Lee, “Cocceius as Federal Polemicist,” 573; cf. 569–63. For a sense of how often Cocceius speaks against the Socinians in AdHeb, search for Socinus, Enjedinus, Smalcius, and Schlichtingius in Brian Lee’s “Appendix A: Authors and Works Cited in the Epistolae ad Hebraeos explicatio” (Johannes Cocceius, 181–82).
17. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7 vols., 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Ritchie, 1812–1814).
18. John W. Tweeddale, “John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews in Context,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Mark Jones, Ashgate Research Companion (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 49–63, esp. 61.
19. William Gouge, A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews, 3 vols. (London: Nisbet, 1866–1867); Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Escondido, CA: den Dulk, 1990); Herman Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, vol. 3 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). I will also occasionally cite a work of the Dutch-American Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949), The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956).
20. Faustus Socinus, De Jesu Christo Servatore, in vol. 2 of Opera Omnia (Amsterdam, 1656), 121–246; henceforth, JCS. De Jesu Christo Servatore is a lengthy treatise in which Socinus responds to Covetus, who opposes Socinus and affirms that Christ’s death is a substitution or satisfaction. The whole of De Jesu Christo Servatore, therefore, is Socinus’s biblical and theological arguments against substitution and for expiation.
21. The Racovian Catechism, trans. Thomas Rees (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1818); henceforth, RC. While the identity of the author of the original Racovian Catechism is unclear, the document was revised and reformed by numerous Socinians including Socinus and Schlichtingius (RC, lxxi–lxxviii).
22. Schlichtingius’s original commentary (Jonas Schlichtingius, Commentarius in epistolam ad Hebraeos [Raków, 1634]) was later included in Johann Crell’s Opera omnia exegetica in Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum, vols. 8–9 (Amsterdam, 1656). Apparently, as a result of an attempt to acknowledge the influence of Crell on the work, the editor of the Bibliotheca credited the work to Crell (for a thorough history, see Lee, Johannes Cocceius, 60–62). A later anonymous English translation, The Expiation of a Sinner in a Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1646), is also often credited to Crell, but we will proceed by attributing The Expiation of the Sinner to its rightful author, Schlichtingius.
23. Lee notes that “two-thirds of references in [Cocceius’s AdHeb] are to Socinian opponents, and the vast majority of these are extensive quotations and refutations of Jonas Schlichtingius” (“Cocceius as Federal Polemicist,” 570). For instances where Owen interacts with Schlichtingius, see Owen, Hebrews, 6:278–79, 285–90, 320, 388–89, 393, 396–97.
24. The Racovian Catechism identifies Christ as the Son of God but rejects Nicene orthodoxy; Christ is not the pre-existent Son who has the same essence as God the Father (RC, 51–56 [§4.1]). Instead, the mortal Jesus had a supernatural birth (RC, 52–55 [§4.1]), and he had a divine nature in that the Holy Spirit “dwelt in Christ, united by an indissoluble bond, to his human nature” (RC, 55 [§4.1]).
25. RC, 52–55 (§4.7).
26. Socinus, JCS, 172–73 (§2.20), 247 (§3.2), 302 (§3.9), 310 (§3.11); RC, 349, 358 (§6); 360, 366 (§7); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 141, 171–72, 175, 192, 198.
27. Socinus, JCS, 164–66 (§2.15), 172–73 (§2.20); RC, 297–320 (§5.8), 349–68 (§6–7); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 146, 160, 168, 173–75, 192, 194, 198.
28. Socinus, JCS, 226–29 (§3.1–2); RC, 305–11 (§5.8).
29. Socinus, JCS (see n. 20 above); RC, 304–5 (§5.8).
30. Socinus, JCS, 192–95 (§3.2); cf. 162–75 (§2.13–21); 201 (§3.4); 204–5 (§3.6); RC, 297, 310, 314–15, 320 (§5.8), 351–53, 355–57 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 146, 167, 171–72, 175–76, 194. For a summary of later Socinian debate on this issue, see Owen, Hebrews, 2:205.
31. Socinus, JCS, 158–59 (§2.11); RC, 310–11, 320 (§5.8).
32. Socinus, JCS, 210–11 (§3.9); RC, 314–15 (§5.8).
33. Socinus, JCS, 172–73 (§2.20); RC, 349–50 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 171, 175, 192.
34. Socinus, JCS, 162–64 (§2.13–14), 168–69 (§2.17), 172–73 (§2.20); RC, 310–11, 319–20 (§5.8), 349–50, 352–53 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 160, 167–68, 192.
35. Socinus appeals particularly to Heb 9:13–14 (and 9:7) to draw the parallel between the Day of Atonement and Christ’s sacrifice (JCS, 164–66 [§2.15]), to Heb 9:25 to prove that Christ’s offering of himself happens when he enters into the heavenly sanctuary (JCS, 165 [§2.15]), and to Heb 8:5 to argue that Christ offers his sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (JCS, 165 [§2.15]). Similarly, the Racovian Catechism cites Heb 1:3; 2:17; 4:14; 5:1, 9–10; 7:26, 28; 8:4; 9:7, 24 when discussing Christ’s sacrifice (RC, 319 [§5.8], 350, 354–58 [§6]). As a commentary on Hebrews, Schlichtingius’s Expiation draws on Hebrews throughout. For the parallel with the Day of Atonement specifically, see esp. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 168, 175, 192.
36. Socinus, JCS, 164–66 (§2.15); RC, 310, 319 (§5.8), 349–50, 355–58 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 141, 146, 160–61, 167–68, 171–75, 191–94, 198.
37. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 141, 191, 200.
38. RC, 319 (§5.8), 355 (§6), similarly 349–50 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 141.
39. Socinus, JCS, 165 (§2.15): in caelo sui ipsius oblationem peregit. Socinus introduces this section with a similar statement, saying, oblationem Christi expiatoriam peractam fuisse in caelo (JCS, 164 [§2.15]; similarly 174–75 [§2.21]).
40. RC, 355–56 (§6); similarly 319 (§5.8).
41. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 160; similarly 146, 160; cf. 173, 174, 194.
42. Socinus, JCS, 164–65 (§2.15); RC, 297, 310, 314–15, 320 (§5.8), 351–53, 355–57 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 160, 168, 190, 198, 200.
43. Owen, Hebrews, 2:145, 173–74, 204; 6:286–90, 310–11; Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 348, 476.
44. Maintaining the significance or necessity of Christ’s death is what makes the Socinian description a sequence position. If Christ’s death were meaningless, then Christ’s atonement is not a sequence of events but a solitary event that takes place in heaven.
45. Socinus, JCS, 166 (§2.15); similarly 165, 178–79 (§2.23); RC, 303 (§5.8), 356–57 (§6); Schlichtingius, Expiation, 141, 146, 160, 171–72, 191, 193–94. While in some passages Schlichtingius appears to ascribe power to Christ’s blood in and of itself (e.g., Expiation, 170, 176, 189), in other passages this power seems to be obtained by Christ after shedding the blood (Expiation, 171–72).
46. RC, 354–55; cf. 350 (§6); Socinus, JCS, 166 (§2.15), 178–79 (§2.23).
47. RC, 358 (§6).
48. Cocceius, AdHeb, 429 (9§117–18).
49. Owen, Hebrews, 6:286. Bavinck also rejects the Socinians for denying the full divinity of Jesus before the ascension (Sin and Salvation, 429–30). He argues that Christ did not gain divinity or priesthood in the ascension but only mediatorial glory to which he was raised in both natures (Sin and Salvation, 434).
50. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379–80 (9§17); 397–98 (9§48); Owen, Hebrews, 2:175–76; similarly Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 327–410, esp. 3.347–49, 399; Vos, Hebrews, 108.
51. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 160, 168.
52. Ibid., 198. Schlichtingius concludes that θυσία is not used “abstractedly for the slaughter, but concretely for the creature slaughtered, or rather for that part of it which is offered to God.” This statement comes immediately after Schlichtingius identifies Christ’s θυσία in 9:26 with both his death on earth and presentation in the heavenly sanctuary: “The Sacrifice of Christ is Christ himself sacrificed; being first slain & then raised to immortall life, that he might enter his heavenly Tabernacle, and therein offer himself, and appear for us for ever” (Expiation, 198). Thus, while θυσία refers to the entire sacrificial process, the emphasis is clearly on the offering over the slaughter.
53. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379–80 (9§17); 397–98 (9§48); Owen, Hebrews, 2:161–63, 170–71; 6:289–90, 310, 313–14. Cocceius, in particular, interacts with Schlichtingius, quoting him and opposing him point-by-point.
54. Cocceius, AdHeb, 397 (9§48); cf. 379 (9§17).
55. Owen, Hebrews, 2:163, also 2:161–62, 202–3, 6:289–90, 310, 400. Cocceius argues that Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary demonstrates the efficacy of the death of Christ (AdHeb, 397–98 [9§48]).
56. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379 (9§17); 397 (9§48); Owen, Hebrews, 2:212–13; 6:289–90, 313–14.
57. Cocceius, AdHeb, 397 (9§48); Owen, Hebrews, 2:170–71; cf. 2:166; 6:253, 400; Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 477.
58. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379 (9§17): Haec aperiunt conscientiam malam ista docentium. Non enim possunt ignorare.
59. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 168; cf. RC, 358 (§6).
60. Cocceius, AdHeb, 323 (8§24); 427–28 (9§114); Owen, Hebrews, 2:164, 168–70, 220–21; similarly Gouge, Hebrews, 2:242; cf. Vos, Hebrews, 108–11.
61. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379–80 (9§17). Cocceius is responding to Schlichtingius’s claim that the offering (oblationem) of the priest “did not consist in the slaughter of those beasts whose bloud he offered,” which leads Schlichtingius to contend that in a similar way “neither did the offering [oblationem] of Christ … consist in the death of Christ, but by his entrance into heaven after his death” (Expiation, 160)
62. Cocceius, AdHeb, 379 (9§17).
63. Ibid., 382 (9§20).
64. Ibid., 379 (9§17); similarly 385 (9§22).
65. Ibid., 383 (9§20): Deinde Christus hic consideratur ut Sacerdos corpus prius offerens in cruce, & deinde sanguinem quasi inferens in sanctum sanctorum, dum corpus occisum in coelom infert. In this passage, Cocceius identifies the church as the heavenly Jerusalem into which Christ entered and sanctified with his blood (AdHeb, 382–83 [9§20]). However, in other places Cocceius mentions Christ’s entry into a (non-metaphorical) sanctuary in the heavenly realm (AdHeb, 323 [8§24]; 427–28 [9§114]).
66. Ibid., 385 (9§22).
67. Cocceius clearly considers Christ’s death on earth and entrance in heaven two distinct moments (AdHeb, 385 [9§22]; 427–28 [9§114]).
68. Owen, Hebrews, 2:162. While Owen says that these actions are “preparatory to [Jesus’] death,” when describing Levitical sacrifice he contends that “adduction belonged to the sacrifice” (2:160). Thus, the preparatory events are still part of sacrifice.
69. Ibid., 2:161, 163.
70. Ibid., 2:161.
71. Ibid., 2:163–64. Owen acknowledges that in Levitical practice blood application was distinct from the slaughter as a separate act; however, he concludes that this separation was an “imperfection” and that, since Christ “was both priest and sacrifice, things were done at once, which were separately by them represented” (2:163).
72. Ibid., 2:162; similarly 2:171–72; 6:285. Owen’s position raises the question of how to define terms like sacrifice and offering. Can one separate the ritual actions of the Day of Atonement sacrifice, calling some of those actions sacrifice and some a necessary consequent? Should one not consider all parts of the ritual process part of sacrifice? Since Owen describes Christ’s entry into the heavenly sanctuary as a “necessary consequent” of sacrifice, he makes it functionally a part of sacrifice; further, he considers entry necessary to the intended outcome (atonement) of the sacrificial ritual. If entry into the sanctuary is functionally necessary to achieving the intended outcome of sacrifice, it is difficult to extricate entry from (this particular) sacrifice.
73. Ibid., 2:160–64; similarly 2:171–72, 202–4; 6:276, 285, 289–90; cf. Gouge, Hebrews, 2:161. For a discussion of Owen’s other works where he argues that Christ’s priestly office includes both his humiliation (including his death) and exaltation (including resurrection, ascension, and glorification), see Edwin Tay, “Christ’s Priestly Oblation and Intercession: Their Development and Significance in John Owen,” in Ashgate Research Companion, 159–69.
74. Witsius, Covenants, 2:218; cf. 1:212–13, 216–20; similarly Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 477–79; cf. Vos, Hebrews, 108, 112–14.
75. Cocceius, AdHeb, 427–28 (9§114); cf. 323 (8§24).
76. Ibid., 427–28 (9§114): ita intravit, ut potestatem habens nos adducendi ad Deum, quippe qui omnia fecerit, quae requirebantur, ut Deus decenter in nobis habitare & nobis dare posset, ut gloriaremur in ipso & justitia ejus, eumque tanquam Patrem nostrum amare in plenissima laetitia possemus.
77. Owen, Hebrews, 2:171.
78. Ibid., 2:202.
79. Ibid., 2:203.
80. Ibid., 2:171–72, similarly 2:203; 6:291.
81. Ibid., 2:171–72, 202–3.
82. Ibid., 6:400.
83. Ibid., 6:498.
84. Gouge, Hebrews, 2:161; similarly 2:156. While it is ambiguous here, Gouge clearly considers the heavenly continuation and consummation of Christ’s sacrifice to be actions distinct from the cross that happen post-ascension (2:156, 241–42).
85. Ibid., 2:242. Herman Bavinck also talks about the necessity of the ascension, and discusses Christ ascending to heaven with a treasure of merits that he distributes after the ascension. While he distinguishes clearly between the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, he states that “the two are equally necessary to the work of salvation,” which appears to assume a similar notion that a key benefit of the ascension is the application of the benefits of sacrifice/atonement (Sin and Salvation, 475, cf. 447, 473–45, 478–79).
86. Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KNT 14 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1913), 222–23; Ceslas Spicq, L’épître aux Hébreux, 2 vols., EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1952), 2:235; Gayford, Sacrifice and Priesthood, 152; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes, WMANT 53 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 189–92; Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 259, 261, 358; Angela Rascher, Schriftauslegung und Christologie im Hebräerbrief, BZNW 153 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 173–78; Moffitt, Atonement, 224; Jared Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly Context, WUNT 2.349 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 28, 144, 168, 173.
87. When Kibbe notes the significance of διά in Heb 9:12 for the discussion of the sequence approach, he cites Herman Bavinck, who includes the bringing of blood into the sanctuary as part of the Socinian position (Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 477). Following Bavinck’s lead, Kibbe associates blood in the sanctuary with the “Socinian position,” when he connects two scholars who argue for Christ bringing blood into the sanctuary (Brooks, “Perpetuity,” 210, and Moffitt, Atonement, 222) with the “Socinian view” (Kibbe, “Is It Finished?,” 32n26). However, once one disassociates the sequence approach from the Socinian understanding (as we are arguing), one sees that the Socinians do not argue for Christ’s bringing blood into the sanctuary but some proponents of a sequence approach do.
88. Socinus, JCS, 164 (§2.15): per proprii sanguinis fusionem Christi in coelo Deo factam sui ipsius pro nobis (ut ita dicam) praesentationem. Socinus repeatedly uses the preposition per to describe how Christ’s blood is the means by which he offers or presents himself: per proprii sanguinis fusionem (164 [§2.15]); per suum sanguinem … per proprium sangiunem … per proprium sanguinem (166 [§2.15]); per suum sanguinem (167 [§2.15]). Socinus anchors this position in his interpretation of Heb 9:24–25, where the author patterns Christ’s sacrifice after the Levitical Day of Atonement. Whereas the Levitical priest enters (a) “year by year” (b) with “the blood of another,” Christ enters (b') “not again and again” (a') to “offer himself.” The juxtaposition of animal blood with Christ’s self-offering suggests for Socinus that Christ’s offering of himself is not an offering of blood but a presentation of himself in the heavenly sanctuary (JCS, 165 [§2.15]).
89. RC, 350 (§6).
90. Cf. Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 477.
91. Schlichtingius, Expiation, 167; similarly 189–90. Owen actually opposes Schlichtingius on this point, introducing his opponent’s point by saying, “Their observation, that in ver. 14 the Lord Christ is said to offer himself, and not to offer his blood, is of no value” (Hebrews, 6:289).
92. Owen, Hebrews, 6:292–93, also 6:285–86, 297.
93. Cocceius, AdHeb, 383 (9§20); see n. 65 above for Latin text.
94. Gouge, Hebrews, 2:241, cf. 2:244, 277.
95. Ibid., 2:277.
96. Witsius, Covenants, 2:220.
97. Ibid., 2:220. Elsewhere Gouge makes similar statements, but he either identifies or relates the blood to the soul of Jesus. However, in the texts cited here, Gouge does not reinterpret the blood as the soul but identifies blood simply as blood.
98. John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. William B. Johnston, Calvin’s Commentaries 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 106; similarly Ulrich Luck, “Himmlisches und irdisches Geschehen im Hebräerbrief: Ein Beitrag zum Problem des historischen Jesus im Urchristentum,” NovT 6 (1963): 21; David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews,” SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 191–95; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 251, 271.
99. Moffitt lists Hippolytus, Origen, Theodore of Mopseustia, Theodoret of Cyrus, Narsai, and Jacob of Sarug (“Jesus’ Heavenly Sacrifice,” 51–68). Kibbe adds early and medieval scholars including Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Martin of Leon (“Sacrifice on the Cross or Offering after the Cross?”).
100. R. B. Jamieson delineates several different views based on how they deal with three variables: Christ’s death on the cross, Jesus’ entrance into heaven, and Jesus’ offering (“When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself? A Taxonomy of Recent Scholarship on Hebrews,” CurBR 15 [2017]: 338–68).
101. If the debate is couched in this either cross or ascension manner, ascension will lose out amongst conservative evangelical scholars who uphold evangelical crucicentrism. Seventeenth-century Reformed exegetes were not as encumbered by this contemporary baggage and may be able to help evangelical scholars maintain the significance of both cross and ascension.
102. Owen, Hebrews, 2:202; 6:289–90.
103. Ibid., 2:171–72, 202–3; 6:291, 400, 498.
104. Bavinck, Sin and Salvation, 473.
105. Ibid., 477; cf. 473–79.
106. Ibid., 447; similarly 478; cf. Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), esp. 273, also 94, 274.
107. Cocceius, AdHeb, 427–28 (9§114); cf. Vos, Hebrews, 112–13.
108. Witsius, Covenants, 1:212–14, 216, 226.
109. Ibid., 1:213, 216–17.
110. Michael Horton, “Atonement and Ascension,” in Locating Atonement: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 226, similarly 240; cf. Vos, Hebrews, 112–13.
111. In such a scheme, expiation could take place at the same time as either redemption or reconciliation. Witsius appears to unite expiation with bloodshed (and, therefore, redemption) (Covenants, 1:216, 226–27). However, if one understands blood application as necessary for expiation, one could identify the death as the cost paid (redemption), while expiation would be achieved when the blood is applied on the altar, which happens when Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary, thereby achieving reconciliation. Both proposals (b) and (c) separate what Jeremy Treat calls the outcome (reconciliation) and the means (expiation, redemption) of atonement (Crucified King, 47).
112. Milligan, Theology of Hebrews, 151–52.
113. Douglas Farrow, Ascension Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 122.
114. Ibid., 122–23.
115. Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 34.
116. Treat, Crucified King, 214–20.
117. For texts that identify Christ’s death on the cross as the central aspect of the gospel, see John 10:15, 18; Acts 8:32; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2; Phil 2:7–8; 1 Pet 1:19.
118. John Calvin outlines how each part of life, death, resurrection, and ascension is part of Christ’s salvific work; see Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1960), 1:507–24, esp. 1:507 (§2.16.5).
119. Christ’s offering is himself—i.e., his blood (αἷμα; 9:12, 14) and body (σῶμα; 10:10). Further, the singularity of his sacrifice is directly related to the singular death of mortal beings (9:26–28), and Hebrews considers his death to have achieved the cultic good of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις; 9:15; cf. 9:12).