Celestial crucifixion in Hebrews 13:12
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:08 am
So Couchoud :
The reason why the Christians have to leave this world (=this city) is the celestial sacrifice of Jesus happened, itself, outside this world. If they continue to remain in this world, their sacrifices are not equally valid as the celestial sacrifice is, and so they are not sanctified totally.
Only by ascending to heaven, their earthly sacrifices become the same sacrifices ''he bore'', outside the world.
The alternative is that their sacrifices remain earthly sacrifices and therefore vain.
So I wonder: could the same crucifixion of Jesus be considered earthly insofar it was vain? While, insofar it was a celestial crucifixion, it was not vain, but effective.
In other terms, the author of Hebrews believed in a celestial crucifixion, but he was aware that some Christians were introducing the idea of an earthly crucifixion. His reaction to it was: if the crucifixion is earthly, then it continues to be vain as all the earthly sacrifices.
Why did not it [the crucifixion] take place on earth? The author of Hebrews, idealist if ever there was one, didn't arrive until this conclusion. For him, the priestly sacrifice of Jesus, however temporal it may be, is not at all an event of this world. It took place outside the world and the Christians have to leave the world if they want to meet the Crucifix: “ And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to sanctify the people. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore, for here we do not have an enduring city" (13:12).
The reason why the Christians have to leave this world (=this city) is the celestial sacrifice of Jesus happened, itself, outside this world. If they continue to remain in this world, their sacrifices are not equally valid as the celestial sacrifice is, and so they are not sanctified totally.
Only by ascending to heaven, their earthly sacrifices become the same sacrifices ''he bore'', outside the world.
The alternative is that their sacrifices remain earthly sacrifices and therefore vain.
So I wonder: could the same crucifixion of Jesus be considered earthly insofar it was vain? While, insofar it was a celestial crucifixion, it was not vain, but effective.
In other terms, the author of Hebrews believed in a celestial crucifixion, but he was aware that some Christians were introducing the idea of an earthly crucifixion. His reaction to it was: if the crucifixion is earthly, then it continues to be vain as all the earthly sacrifices.