1. Introduction: Jesus’ Death and the Defeat of the Devil in Hebrews
The central argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains how Christ achieves the ultimate Day of Atonement sacrifice. However, Heb 2.14 states that Jesus ‘through death might disable the one who has the power of death, this is the devil’ (ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον).Footnote 1 No aspect of the Levitical Day of Atonement ritual involves defeating the devil.Footnote 2 Instead, the context of Heb 2.14–15 seems to place it primarily within a larger Passover–Exodus typology, in which Jesus’ death is understood as a sacrifice of Passover rather than of Yom Kippur. However, this also fails to explain the language of ‘defeating the devil’ – nowhere in Passover is the devil defeated.
In the Passover ritual, as recounted in Exodus and remembered by Jews and Christians, the blood of the Passover lamb plays an apotropaic role.Footnote 3 It shields the Israelites from the power of the destroyer, but it does not disable or destroy the destroyer. More appears to be going on in Heb 2.14–15 than a simple one-to-one typological correspondence with either Passover or Yom Kippur. How is this defeat accomplished? Or more specifically, what constructive role does the defeat of the devil play within the larger theological argument of Hebrews? Why include it at all?
This article will seek to answer these questions through a defence and examination of the Passover/Exodus typology and the nature of death in Hebrews (§2–4), before examining how the author combines two streams of tradition: first, early Christian beliefs about the paschal death of Christ (§5) and second, contemporary Jewish and Christian beliefs about angels and supernatural warfare (§6). The article will then turn to the significance of these themes for Hebrews (§7), before concluding with evidence from early Christian tradition to support these arguments (§8).
This article therefore will examine, first, the presence of pre-existent tradition in Heb 2.14–15, and then, secondly, how the author deploys and adapts this tradition for his own theological purposes. These arguments will be supported with close readings of selected passages in Hebrews (2.14–18; 11.28), along with evidence from Second Temple Jewish and early Christian literature. In conclusion, this article seeks to demonstrate that Hebrews reflects early Christian belief in what eventually came to be known as the descensus Christi ad inferos Footnote 4 and the harrowing of Hades.Footnote 5
Scholars such as John A. MacCulloch, Richard Bauckham, Harold W. Attridge and James A. Charlesworth have investigated Christian descent traditions against the diverse backgrounds of Greek and Roman katabatic traditions, as well as the more distant descent traditions of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylonia and Persia.Footnote 6 However, despite being enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed and witnessed by extensive apostolic and patristic evidence, investigation into the origins of the descensus Christi within New Testament studies has suffered from neglect.Footnote 7
Though denied by some, evidence for Christ’s descent has occasionally been found in Hebrews.Footnote 8 In 1911, Friedrich Loofs wrote that in comparison with other New Testament texts, ‘We are on surer ground in saying that the idea of the Descensus was known to the author of the Hebrews.’Footnote 9 He was followed in 1930 by MacCulloch.Footnote 10 More recently, Attridge has called for scholars
to recognize that an early, if not the earliest, attestation of the motif of Christ’s descent appears in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in a text generally overlooked or slighted in treatments of the theme.Footnote 11
Building on this work, I suggest that Hebrews depicts Jesus’ defeat of death and the devil precisely through Christ’s death, descent to the underworld, bodily resurrection and the liberation of the dead. If this is correct, then Hebrews can be convincingly read as early evidence for the descensus Christi and the harrowing of Hades. This, I argue, the author does through the development of a new Exodus typology, which Christ initiates through his paschal death, liberating those enslaved to death in the underworld.
Before beginning the main argument, I would like to clarify the relationship between Hebrews’ typological use of Passover and the Day of Atonement rituals. The typological use of these two rituals complements one another and, importantly, I suggest, serves different theological functions. These functions address two different theological problems: first, the subjugation of humanity to death and, second, the requirement for the purification of the heavenly sanctuary. William Loader identifies these two theological problems when he writes,
It is possible that the author of Hebrews saw at least two elements to Christ’s saving achievement: disempowerment of the devil and so removal of death as a barrier and purification, and may not have seen them as occurring in the one event, but, unlikely as it may seem, that is to be tested.Footnote 12
Loader goes on to reject this possibility, locating all of Christ’s salvific work at his death on the cross. By contrast, I suggest that the author of Hebrews treats these as (conceptually) separate problems, which are solved at different points in Christ’s salvific work.Footnote 13 Humanity’s subjugation to death is addressed through his Passover typology, while the author addresses the second problem through his exposition of the Day of Atonement. These two problems have different causes, which has a very significant effect not only on the temporal dimensions of Christ’s work (when it happens) but also on its geographical dimensions (where it happens). In this article, I will focus on Passover, but will do so with a view to contributing towards the ongoing academic discussions on the nature of Jesus’ high priesthood.
The complementary relationship between the Passover and Day of Atonement typologies can be seen most clearly through the lenses of a three-storey cosmology.Footnote 14 Through his paschal death, Jesus liberates his people from the fear of death, and, I argue, the place of death, underworld. If his paschal death in some way recapitulates the Exodus story, then it liberates God’s people from Egypt (death and the underworld) but does not, in itself, bring them into the promised land (rest and communion with God in heaven), a task which requires Jesus’ high priestly work.Footnote 15 However, we must now defend the presence of Passover typology in Hebrews.
2. Passover and Hebrews: The Death of the Firstborn
Does Hebrews use Passover imagery? Not according to Harold Attridge, who claims that ‘Hebrews does not make explicit any symbolic or typological significance of this event…’Footnote 16 He does not find Passover typology in 2.14–15, though he does allow for allusions to the Exodus in vs. 15.Footnote 17 Instead, Attridge, along with William Lane, locates this language in Greco-Roman hero myths (Orpheus/Eurydice, Herakles, etc.).Footnote 18 While this is possible, Attridge has too quickly dismissed the possibility of Passover typology in Hebrews.
By contrast, David M. Moffitt has recently argued that the Passover/Exodus narrative plays an important role in Hebrews, especially Hebrews 1–2.Footnote 19 In Exodus, Moses tells Pharaoh to release Israel, God’s firstborn, or else God will kill Pharaoh’s firstborn (πρωτότοκος; Exod 4.22–3). In the final plague, all the unprotected firstborn children throughout Egypt are struck down.Footnote 20 For this reason, all Israelite firstborn, human or animal, belong to God and must be redeemed.Footnote 21 Hebrews’ language of the firstborn (πρωτότοκος) evokes the Passover as well as the liberating work of Christ.Footnote 22 Hebrews uses the term πρωτότοκος three times, once of Jesus (Heb 1.6), once referring to the Israelites at Passover (11.28) and once of believers (Heb 12.23). In using this term, the author of Hebrews evokes a Christological understanding of Passover, a term applied to Christ elsewhere in the New Testament.Footnote 23
In Heb 1.6, it is God who ‘leads the firstborn into’ (εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον) the οἰκουμένη. The references to ‘leading’ (εἰσάγω) and the firstborn evoke the Exodus narrative.Footnote 24 Moffitt has argued that the οἰκουμένη is the heavenly assembly, making Heb 1.6 a reference to Jesus’ ascension and glorification.Footnote 25 It is God who ‘leads’ Jesus into the heavenly assembly, just as God led Israel out of Egypt. The author then places the words of Deut 32.43 into God’s mouth, calling his angelic servants to worship the Son.Footnote 26 ‘Firstborns’ are thus a key part of the Passover/Exodus narrative, a theme which the author of Hebrews is attentive to.
Speaking of Heb 2.14–18, Moffitt writes,
Within the larger context of Hebrews the logic of these verses appears to presuppose an implicit comparison between Jesus’ death and Moses’ act of applying the blood of the Passover lamb to the doors and lintels of the Israelite houses.Footnote 27
Two specific clues suggest the presence of a Passover/Exodus in Heb 2.14–18: the references to ‘slavery’ (δουλεία; 2.15) and liberation (ἀπαλλάσσω; 2.15).Footnote 28 In Exodus, Israel was enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt, the ‘house of slavery’, (οἴκου δουλίας; Exod 13.3) a refrain echoed throughout the Scriptures.Footnote 29 Attridge interprets 2.15 in ‘existential terms’.Footnote 30 Yet, Hebrews is elsewhere able to speak of things in both an external and an internalised way.Footnote 31 While the author can speak about bondage to the fear of death for the living, this does not exclude (and may presuppose) the actual bondage of the post-mortem soul in the underworld (i.e., the reality or object of fear for the living).Footnote 32
When speaking of human death, death can be understood as the condition of mortality (and therefore separation from God), as well as the location of the deceased (the underworld).Footnote 33 In Jewish and Christian anthropology, the defining characteristic of what it means to be human is to die (Heb 9.27).Footnote 34 Christ, therefore, necessarily shared ‘blood and flesh’ (2.14) with humanity, becoming like them ‘in every respect’ (2.17), including death as a necessary entailment. As Luke Timothy Johnson explains, Hebrews is clear that Jesus defeats death through death: ‘Jesus does not conquer death by avoiding it or commanding its disappearance, but by experiencing it in the manner of other human beings.’Footnote 35 In other words, to experience the human condition fully, Christ needed to fully experience human death.
Hebrews specifies that Jesus rose ἐκ νεκρῶν (13.20) and also uses this phrase of resurrection in general (11.19). According to Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament, resurrection happens ἐκ νεκρῶν.Footnote 36 Common English translations, such as ‘from the dead’, suggest to the reader the state of death and obscure the sense of the plural, which could be translated as ‘from among the dead (people)’. Though some later Jewish apocalyptic texts depict a heavenly post-mortem location for the dead, the overwhelming location of the dead in ancient Jewish literature is the underworld.Footnote 37 Richard Bauckham explains,
Since the commonest Jewish view in New Testament times was that all the dead descend to Sheol (Hades), Jesus’ descent to Hades was simply the corollary of his death, just as it was implied in his resurrection ‘from the dead.’Footnote 38
The use of the phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν in Hebrews suggests Jesus’ resurrection from the underworld (11.19; 13.20; for ἀπὸ νεκρῶν, see 6.2).Footnote 39 Colossians 1.18 and Rev 1.5 similarly call Christ ‘the firstborn of the dead’ (Col. 1.18 πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν; Rev. 1.5 ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν). While Hebrews does not use this exact phrase, Hebrews does depict Christ as the ‘founder of our salvation’, (τòν ἀρχηγόν τῆς σωτηρίας; 2:10) who opens the way for his brothers and sisters to God. But what does it mean for Jesus to experience death and descend to the realm of the dead? The following section will seek to answer these questions by looking at how death and the underworld could be personified and described.
3. The Personification of Death and the Underworld
Death is the inescapable condition of humanity.Footnote 40 Sheol and Death were sometimes personified in the Hebrew Scriptures.Footnote 41 Like the god Mot, Sheol can be personified with a hungry mouth devouring the dead.Footnote 42 The ‘earth’ (ארץ) is also sometimes connected to the realm of the dead and personified as one who swallows.Footnote 43 In Isa 28.15, 18, the Israelites must be freed from their covenant with Death/Sheol.Footnote 44 As Tromp has documented, the underworld can be described as a prisonFootnote 45 with gates,Footnote 46 bars,Footnote 47 cordsFootnote 48 or chains.Footnote 49 No one who enters is permitted to leave.Footnote 50
Richard Bauckham has documented in detail how carceral imagery is picked up by early Christians to describe Christ’s liberation of the captives of the underworld.Footnote 51 In his study of the origins of Christ’s descent, Charlesworth identifies Ps 68.19–24, Amos 9.2–3, Zech 9.11 and Isa 24.21–2 as possible sources of inspiration for the descensus.Footnote 52 Zech 9.11 and Isa 24.22 describe the release of prisoners held in a pit. Psalms 68 combines themes of captivity, deliverance, escape from death and the destruction of enemies.Footnote 53 Significantly, Eph 4.8–10 quotes and interprets Ps 68.18 in what appears to be a discussion of Christ’s subterranean descent.Footnote 54
As in many bodies of ancient literature (Mesopotamian, Greek, Latin, etc.), Death in Jewish and early Christian literature could be personified.Footnote 55 When Death is personified in the New Testament, Death is depicted like a king in opposition to God.Footnote 56 As van der Horst explains, he can rule (ἐβασίλευσεν, Rom 5.14, 17); he is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15.26); he has no victory (1 Cor 15.54); and after his resurrection, Death no longer ‘lords over (κυριεύει)’ Christ (Rom 6.9).Footnote 57 The New Testament thus depicts Death as a king conquered by Christ.
There are clear parallels between the Jewish and Christian personifications of Death, Sheol, and related terms with Hades (both place and god) in Greek literature.Footnote 58 Hades the place is a shadowy, gloomy place, whose gatesFootnote 59 are famously guarded by Cerberus.Footnote 60 The god Hades was rarely worshipped and sometimes hated.Footnote 61 As Bremmer notes, his most famous narrative was his abduction of Persephone.Footnote 62 As Mackin concludes, Hades ruled over the dead as a king ruled over his citizens.Footnote 63
The Christian personification of Death also links it/him conceptually with Satan.Footnote 64 As Johnson writes, ‘Because the devil, in turn, can be associated intimately with death (see above all Wis 2.24), victory over him can be expressed in terms of victory over death (see Hos 13.14; 1 Cor 15.26, 55; 2 Tim 1.10; Rev 20.14; 26.4).’Footnote 65 For the author of Hebrews, the identification of Death with the devil was important enough for him to include an explanatory gloss specifically to ensure that recipients make this connection.
4. The Devil and the Destroyer in Exodus Traditions and the New Testament
The use of the Passover/Exodus tradition is developed in 2.14–15 with the reference to the devil. Moffitt links Heb 2.14–15 with 11.28, where the author refers directly to the Passover and ‘the sprinkling of blood in order that the destroyer of the firstborn (ὁ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα) would not touch their firstborn’.Footnote 66 In Exodus, God speaks of himself carrying out the tenth plague, the death of the firstborn.Footnote 67 However, Exodus 12.23 LXX speaks of ‘the destroyer (τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα)’, whom God allowed to smite those not protected by the lamb’s blood.Footnote 68 When read together, ‘the one who has the power of death, this is the devil’ in 2.14 is understood to be the ‘the destroyer of their firstborn (ὁ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα…αὐτῶν)’ in 11.28. The now-common epithet ‘angel of death’ for this figure does not occur in Exodus, or indeed any of the canonical Scriptures, though it does occur in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, often as a psychopomp.Footnote 69
Some biblical passages suggest that the figure in Exod 12.23 is an angel.Footnote 70 Second Samuel 24.16 refers to ‘the destroying angel’ (LXX: τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ διαφθείρoντι) and the parallel passage in 1 Chr 21.15 uses the designation ‘the angel of destruction’ (LXX: ἄγγελον…τοῦ ἐξολεθεῦσαι).Footnote 71 After surveying this and other evidence, Meier concludes, ‘There can be little question, therefore, that the Destroyer in Exod 12:23 belongs to the class of plague deities broadly attested in the ancient Near East.’Footnote 72
By the Second Temple period, the destroyer is explicitly identified as an angel.Footnote 73 In its poetic retelling, Wisdom 18 depicts the destroying (ὀλέθρῳ; 18.13) of the firstborn by a militant divine Logos (Wis 18.15–16).Footnote 74 Wisdom 18 then goes on to describe Korah’s rebellion as a plague (18.20; cf. Num 16–17). The plague is stopped by ‘a blameless man’ (i.e., Aaron; 18.21) clad in a robe and ephod (18.24). He intervenes to hold back ‘the anger’ (18.23). Wisdom concludes, ‘From these the destroyer (ὁ ὀλεθρεύων) yielded’ (18.25a). Wisdom thus depicts Aaron, the high priest, intervening to stop the destroyer.
Jubilees identifies the destroyer as Prince Mastema.Footnote 75 Moffitt explains,
Given that Mastema is identified throughout Jubilees with the Satan figure/destroyer who accuses God’s people (see Jub. 10.17; 17.16–17; 23.29; cf. Job 1.6–12; 2.1–6), it follows that some Jews understood Exod. 12.23 in terms of Moses’ liberation of the Israelites not just from Pharaoh, but also from the satanic power controlling him and keeping the people in slavery.Footnote 76
Thus, Hebrews and other texts, notably Jubilees, understood the mysterious ‘destroyer’ from Exod. 12.23 as an angelic figure, however variously named (the destroyer, Satan, the devil, Mastema).Footnote 77 The author of Hebrews was likely familiar with traditions that understood the destroyer from Exod 12.23 as a malevolent angelic leader of demonic forces (i.e., Satan, the devil or Mastema). This figure could be described using royal titles (Prince, King, ruler, etc.) and is sometimes associated with the underworld (Rev 9; cf. 11.7; 17.8; 20.3).Footnote 78
The association of the destroyer, malevolent angels, plague and death are found elsewhere in the New Testament. In 1 Cor 10.9, Paul refers to those who tested God and were destroyed (ἀπόλλυμι) by serpents, alluding to Num 21. He continues, ‘And do not complain, as some of them complained, and were destroyed (ἀπώλοντο) by the destroyer’ (ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ; 1 Cor. 10.10).
At the fifth trumpet, Revelation 9 depicts ‘a star that had fallen to the earth’ (9.1). This angelic figure is now in the bottomless pit and is associated with fire. A demonic plague of locusts begins and afflicts those without the apotropaic seal of God (Rev 9.4). The demonic locusts ‘have as king over them the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he has the name Apollyon’ (Rev 9.11 cf. vs. 12). The Hebrew and Greek names create a bilingual wordplay. Abaddon means ‘destruction’.Footnote 79 Apollyon’s name is similarly connected with the verb ἀπόλλυμι, ‘to destroy’ as well as the god Apollo, the god of pestilence and destruction.Footnote 80 Revelation identifies Abaddon/Apollyon as both ‘king’ of the locusts and an angel. These texts from 1 Corinthians and Revelation provide snapshots of early Christian demonology. They also witness to early Christian conflation of Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions.
5. First Stream of Influence: Early Christian Traditions
Scholars recognise that the author of Hebrews was well versed in early Christian teaching and tradition.Footnote 81 This tradition is especially strong in Heb 2.14–15, though in the author’s own voice. This is supported by Backhaus’ observation that 2.14–15 contain an impressive total of nine hapax legomena.Footnote 82 Furthermore, death figures very prominently in Heb 2 (2.9 x2; 14 x2; 15), in contrast with the rest of the letter.Footnote 83 Hebrews 2.14–15, therefore, seem to reflect pre-existent early Christian tradition known to the author of Hebrews.Footnote 84
It seems likely that the traditions now represented in the Gospels, among others, were known in some form to the author of Hebrews. It will be sufficient here to note very briefly how early Christian literature both links Jesus’ death with Passover and also depicts Jesus’ conflict with the devil/Satan. Many other examples could be listed, but it is hoped that the evidence provided here from the Gospels should be sufficient to establish the prominence and importance of these themes in early Christianity.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul calls Christ ‘our paschal lamb’ (τό πάσχα ἡμῶν; 5.7) which has been sacrificed.Footnote 85 The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus celebrating the Passover meal (Mk 14.12–17; Matt 26.17–20; Lk 22.7–14), while John aligns the death of Jesus with the slaughter of the Passover lamb (Jn 13.1). John strengthens this connection by noting that none of Jesus’ legs were broken, following the scriptural instructions for Passover (Jn 19.23, 36; Exod 12.46; Num 9.12; Ps 34.20).Footnote 86
Likewise, all four Gospels depict conflict between Jesus and the devil/Satan.Footnote 87 The fluidity of terminology for this figure is illustrated in Matthew’s temptation narrative, which uses both the devil (4.1, 5, 8, 11) and Satan (4.10) to describe Jesus’ adversary. The parable of the strong man in the triple tradition anticipates Jesus’ victory over or binding of this demonic adversary (Mk 3.20–30; Matt 12.22–30; Lk 11.14–23).Footnote 88 According to Lane, the parable may draw upon Isa 49.24–6, in which God rescues his people from a tyrant.Footnote 89 In these Gospel narratives, the titles of Beelzebul (Mk 3.22; Matt 12.24; cf. Matt 10.24, 27; Lk 11.15, 18–19), ruler of demons (Mk 3.22; Matt 12.24; Lk 11.15) and Satan are apparently used interchangeably (Mk 3.23, 26; Matt 12.26; Lk 11.18). Luke and John specifically connect Judas’ betrayal with the work of Satan (Lk 22.3; Jn 13.2, 27; cf. 6.70 where διάβολος is used of Judas Iscariot).
This very brief rehearsal of evidence demonstrates the context in which the author was writing, a context in which the themes of Passover and the defeat of the devil were already prominent.Footnote 90 While the author of Hebrews inherited early Christian traditions, he may be one of, or perhaps the first to combine Jesus’ paschal death and Christus victor motifs: it is somehow through his sacrificial death as a Passover offering that Christ defeats the devil. Jesus’ victory over the devil or destroyer in Hebrews evokes Jewish speculation of war in heaven, the second stream of influence on Heb 2.14–15, to which we now turn.
6. Second Influence: Angels and Supernatural Warfare in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christian Literature
At first glance, the reference to demonic power in Heb 2.14–15 appears to be unconnected with the epistle’s larger exposition of Yom Kippur. By contrast, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra has demonstrated that Jewish apocalyptic texts could infuse Yom Kippur with eschatological significance.Footnote 91 He writes,
In some cosmological myths of Urzeit and Endzeit about the genesis and termination of sin, the ‘Az’azel goat serves as imagery for the leaders of the evil powers (Apocalypse of Abraham; 1 Enoch 10). Sometimes the ‘Az’azel goat ritual is used to describe the eschatological end of sin (1 Enoch 10). Often the protagonist of the good forces is portrayed as a (high) priest (1 Enoch, Zechariah 3, 11QMelchizedek, Apocalypse of Abraham).Footnote 92
As Stökl Ben Ezra demonstrates, 1 Enoch 10 describes the binding and imprisonment of ‘Az’azel in terms reminiscent of the ‘Asa’el goat ritual. The angels Raphael and Gabriel both play important roles in these events, and in so doing connect Yom Kippur with motifs of supernatural warfare and eschatology. He concludes, ‘1 Enoch and 11QMelchizedek perceive Yom Kippur as an eschatological day of liberation of the good prisoners from the vanquished powers of evil.’Footnote 93 Thus, the supernatural warfare language of Heb 2.14 may have more in common with Yom Kippur than has often been thought.Footnote 94
In Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, there was diverse, widespread belief in the cosmic, supernatural war of God’s heavenly forces against the forces of malevolent demonic beings and their leader.Footnote 95 As discussed above, the leader of the demonic forces was variously identified as the devil, Satan, the destroyer, Prince Mastema, or Beelzebul. To these could also be added Belial (and its likely variant Beliar; 2 Cor 6.15).Footnote 96 There was a tendency in both Jewish and early Christian texts to conflate these discrete titles and names into a single figure.Footnote 97
The roots of these beliefs are complex, but they may stem in part from speculation on Deut 32.8–9; in which God appointed angels over the nations of the world.Footnote 98 Israel originally had no angelic guardian because she was God’s own portion (Deut 32.9). However, in some Jewish texts, Michael begins to assume the role of Israel’s protector on God’s behalf.Footnote 99 There is no indication in Deut 32.8–9 that the angelic guardians of the nations are demonic. The author of Hebrews seems to reflect the common belief that angels in general have been given dominion over the world (Heb 2.8; cf. Deut 32.8–9).Footnote 100
However, it seems that as speculation about angels increased, strong morally loaded judgements were projected onto these heavenly guardians, aligning most with God’s demonic adversary.Footnote 101 As Antti Laato writes, ‘In the course of time, Satan became associated with the angels of foreign nations, assuming position as their leader.’Footnote 102 Hebrews does not explicitly describe the world as ruled by Satan or under his authority, but this may be implied. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Satan is described as ruling over the current world.Footnote 103
Michael, Israel’s guardian, is often described in military language, leading the heavenly hosts.Footnote 104 Michael takes on a warrior role in the New Testament as well (Jud 9; Rev 12.7–9; 20.1–3).Footnote 105 Michael’s role could also be depicted in judicial terms.Footnote 106 Darrell D. Hannah summarises,
Thus, the evidence for Michael as the military protector of Israel, as well as her legal champion, is widespread and multifaceted. It appears that his role as Israel’s military guardian led to the office of heavenly ἀρχιστράτηγος being attributed to him, while his judicial advocacy for Israel developed into the traditional role of Satan’s opponent.Footnote 107
Hannah also notes that Michael could also function as Israel’s intercessor and heavenly high priest.Footnote 108 If the author of Hebrews understood Melchizedek as a heavenly priest (Heb 5.10; 6.20), then this similarity may have affiliated Michael and Melchizedek in the author’s mind.Footnote 109 As various scholars have argued, it seems clear that some Second Temple interpreters identified Michael with Melchizedek.Footnote 110 Both figures could be depicted as heavenly high priests and warriors.Footnote 111
Additional evidence for the identification of Michael and Melchizedek may be found in 4QAmram, which states:Footnote 112
Due to the highly fragmentary nature of the text, the key lines have to be reconstructed based on the parallelism of the three names of the demonic figure with the three names of the heavenly figure. The name Melchizedek is reconstructed as the counterpart to Melchirešaʿ. If this reconstruction is accepted, then 4QAmram directly identifies Michael and Melchizedek. While limited weight can be placed on this text, the case is strengthened by the similarity of priestly and warrior roles shared by Michael and Melchizedek elsewhere. Just as multiple names and titles clustered around the principal demonic figure, so it seems that previously separate angelic identities converged in the figure of Michael. This assimilating force may have encouraged the identification of Melchizedek with Michael.
According to Anders Aschim, an important stream of Jewish tradition identified Melchizedek as an angelic warrior, battling the forces of evil.Footnote 113 Aschim proposes that the roots of this tradition lie in interpretation of Genesis 14.Footnote 114 As Paul Kobelski notes, while there is no indication in the text of Genesis that Melchizedek is an angel, there are elements that may have suggested this to later interpreters (namely, the author of 11QMelch).Footnote 115 It is plausible that some Jewish interpreters attributed Abram’s victory to Melchizedek’s angelic intervention (cf. Josh. 5.13–15).Footnote 116 What happened on earth reflected a supernatural reality. Aschim writes,
On a parallel invisible, heavenly plane an angel comes to the help of Abraham. He leads the angelic forces to victory over the hostile forces of evil powers, the supporters of Abraham’s enemies. This, I propose, is the role of Melchizedek, whom Abraham honors following battle and who blesses him.Footnote 117
The author of Hebrews extrapolates that Melchizedek was the superior party by the fact that Abram gives a tithe to him (Heb 7.1–2).Footnote 118 Further, the only two biblical passages which mention Melchizedek may have also contributed to this conception: both passages (Gen 14 and Ps 110) can be linked by the dominant theme of military victory.Footnote 119
Genesis 14 narrates a war between two groups of allied kings (Gen 14.1–10), in which Lot and his family are captured (Gen 14.11–12, 14). One person escapes and reports that Lot ‘had been taken captive’ (14, נִשְׁבָּה; ᾐχμαλωτεύθη). Abram marshals his forces, rescues his relatives, and then encounters Melchizedek, King of Salem. Melchizedek blesses Abram and God Most High ‘who has delivered your enemies into your hand’ (Gen 14.20). Release from captivity is a theme that links Gen 14, Isa 61 and 11QMelch.Footnote 120
Similarly, Psalm 110 is replete with images of victory: enemies in subjection (110.1), rule over foes (110.2), the shattering of kings (110.5) and the execution of judgement (110.6). It would seem improbable for Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 not to have influenced the Qumran sectarians’ understanding of Melchizedek.Footnote 121 Reflecting on 11QMelch, Hay asks, ‘Could any Jew acquainted with those scriptural passages fail to think of them when mentioning Melchizedek?’Footnote 122
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Melchizedek is unambiguously mentioned twice (11QMelch, 1QapGen).Footnote 123 11QMelch is a thematic pesher, based roughly on Leviticus 25.Footnote 124 Kobelski explains,
The interpretation of the biblical passages focuses on the eschatological figure Melchizedek, who is presented as a heavenly redeemer who secures liberty for those held in captivity by the power of Belial and the evil spirits allied with him. Standing at the head of the good angels, the heavenly leader Melchizedek leads the forces of good against the forces of evil at the end of days.Footnote 125
11QMelch alludes to Isa 61.1, in which the prophet is sent ‘to proclaim to the captives liberty and to those who have been bound release’. In 11QMelch, Melchizedek takes this role.Footnote 126 In the following annotated translation taken from Kobelski, allusions to the biblical text are underlined:Footnote 127
The theme of the release of captives links Gen 14, Isa 61.1 and 11QMelch, as well as Heb 2.14–15. ‘In Gen 14.14, the verb שבה niph., “be taken captive”, is used in reference to Lot; שבויים, “captives” (11QMelch 2.4; Isa 61.1) is derived from the same root.’Footnote 128 In 11QMelch, Melchizedek is the angelic warrior who frees the captives. Aschim concludes, ‘There seems to be more than a superficial resemblance.’Footnote 129 In addition to his priestly roles, there also seems to be an established tradition which understood Melchizedek as a heavenly, angelic warrior. Aschim concludes that both 11QMelch and Hebrews 2.10–18 ‘invoke a traditional picture of the heavenly warrior-priest Melchizedek’.Footnote 130 While most attention has been rightly paid to Melchizedek as a priestly figure, this article therefore suggests that Melchizedek’s status as a warrior (and possibly a heavenly one at that) may be an additional point of correspondence between himself and Jesus in Hebrews.
In conclusion, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra has argued that Heb 2.14–15 stands in alignment with traditions of an eschatological Yom Kippur found in apocalyptic Jewish texts (1 Enoch, 11QMelch).Footnote 131 Thus, there is good reason to see the defeat of the devil in Hebrews as a creative conflation of Passover and Yom Kippur informed by contemporary Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. What makes this observation particularly striking for this study is the fact that the themes of liberation from captivity, prison and death appear to be central elements of early Christian belief in Christ’s descent to the underworld.
7. Passover and the Defeat of the Devil in Hebrews
Drawing these threads together, this article has argued that Heb 2.14–15 reflects the author’s synthesis of various Jewish and early Christian traditions. From both Jewish and Christian traditions, it seems likely that the author was familiar with depictions of Michael as a heavenly warrior. It is also possible that he knew traditions about Melchizedek as a heavenly warrior. He may have identified Michael with Melchizedek.
What the author does clearly explain is the superiority of Christ’s priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek compared to the priesthood of Levi. If the author’s Melchizedek had a heavenly, angelic identity, alongside his priestly identity, then this neatly contributes to the author’s reasons for beginning the letter as he did: emphasising Christ’s superiority to angels.Footnote 132 Though the main focus on Melchizedek as priest comes later, Christ’s superiority to angels in general (and Michael and Melchizedek in particular) may have influenced Heb 1–2, especially 2.14–15.Footnote 133 The underlying rationale would be thus: Christ is superior to all angels in general, but he is superior to Michael and Melchizedek in particular because he not only battles with the devil as do they, but defeats him.
This case is strengthened by Heb 2.16, which returns to the theme of angels, saying that Jesus came not to help the angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Many commentators, if they comment on the angels in this verse at all, do not have much to say about them.Footnote 134 In contrast, there are clear reasons for why the author returns to them here. As in Hebrews 1, they indicate a key distinction between themselves on one hand and the Son and humanity on the other.Footnote 135 Specifically, Jesus conquered death by dying as a human being.Footnote 136 Angels, by their very nature as supernatural beings, are not subject to death or the fear of death.Footnote 137 Hebrews 2.16 thus explains what may seem counterintuitive – that Jesus, through dying, is superior to angels who do not die.Footnote 138 Michael E. Gudorf explains
At this juncture (v. 16), our author interjects the obvious reality that the fear of death does not affect angels at all, but it certainly does human beings (i.e., the ‘seed of Abraham’). This statement brings into sharp focus the difference between the two natures and strengthens the author’s argument as to why it was necessary for Jesus to have a mortal, human nature. The author concludes in v. 17 that Jesus’ human nature further facilitated his becoming a merciful and faithful high priest, able to make atonement for the sins of the people. It also enabled him to be able to identify with and help those who suffer and are tempted because he, possessing a human nature, likewise suffered and was tempted (v. 18).Footnote 139
Here and in the rest of his exegesis, Gudorf explains how Heb 2.5–18 is ‘all in all a very tightly knit construction’.Footnote 140 The reference to angels is thus not ancillary, but central to the author’s Christological argument: Christ is superior to the angels precisely through his (counterintuitive) death. It is through his death that he has become like his brothers and sisters in every respect and is able to liberate them from the power of death and the devil.
Within this context, the Passover typology is simultaneously infused with angelic dimensions from Second Temple Judaism and Christological significance from early Christianity. The author of Hebrews understood there to be a typological correspondence between Passover and the death of Jesus. Just as the blood of the lamb liberated the Israelites from Pharaoh, so did the blood of Jesus liberate the seed of Abraham from the devil, death and the fear of death. This typology is reflected in the references to bondage, death and liberation. Drawing from early Christian tradition, the author conflated early Christian Christological understandings of Passover and the defeat of the devil. Michael, Melchizedek and the heavenly hosts may do battle with their demonic adversary, but it is Christ who defeats him by dying as the Passover lamb and rising again with indestructible life. In this way, Jesus achieves a superior deliverance for those in bondage to death and the fear of death, ‘leading many sons (and daughters) to glory’ in a new salvific exodus.
In Heb 11.28, the author alludes to the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb so that ‘the destroyer of the firstborn ones (τὰ πρωτότοκα) would not touch their [firstborn].’ Typologically, the blood of the lamb foreshadows the blood of Christ, which correlates believers with the Israelites who were brought up out of slavery in Egypt. As Moffitt explains, if the destroyer in 11.28 is connected with the Exodus tradition, then
the further identification in Hebrews 12.23 of the homily’s intended audience as part of ‘the congregation of the firstborn’ (ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων) can be seen to suggest that the author wants them to understand themselves as caught up in the cosmic battle between ‘the one who destroys the firstborn’ and the primary object of his hostility – God’s people, ‘the congregation of the firstborn’. In other words, they are those whom, like the firstborn of Israel, God has protected and liberated.Footnote 141
Believers are part of the church of the firstborn through their union with Christ, the firstborn par excellence. This designation aligns the redeemed with the triumphant life of Christ.
Just as Moses does not leave Egypt alone in Exodus, but in the company of the liberated children of Israel, so I suspect, Christ does not rise alone from Hades in Hebrews, but rises as the first of a triumphal procession to God’s heavenly throne. In Heb 2.10, Christ leads (ἀγογόντα) many sons and daughters to glory as the pioneer of their salvation (τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αύτῶν). The ἄγω-word group also appears in Hebrews 13.20, which says, ‘Now may the God of peace, who brough back from the dead (ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν) our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant…’Footnote 142 Furthermore, the catena of quotations in Heb 2 emphasises Christ’s relationship with humanity as his brothers and sisters (2.11–13, 14, 17).
8. Conclusion: The Case for the Descensus Christi in Hebrews
With the theme of ‘leading many sons (and daughters) to glory’, we can at last return to the question of the descensus Christi and harrowing of Hades in Hebrews. The question is, given the Passover–Exodus typology in Hebrews, is it likely that that author imagined Christ to rise from Hades alone? I would suggest that the answer is no. The Exodus typology would seem to require, at a conceptual level, the liberation of the saints from Hades. A corporate reading of Christ leading a procession of the liberated up from Hades coheres very well with the Exodus themes in the rest of Hebrews.
Support for a corporate resurrection and ascension may be found in Hebrews itself in the declaration of Isa 8.18 in Heb 2.13, ‘Here I am and the children whom God has given to me.’ If it is understood to take place in heaven, Jesus is presenting himself, along with the liberated saints, to God in heaven.Footnote 143 Notably, commentators have very little to say about the function of this quotation in 2.13. By contrast, when it is read in the context of the harrowing of Hades, it fits very well indeed as the triumphant declaration of Christ, the liberator of the dead. Thus, more could be said to support this position with evidence from Hebrews itself, but a full testing of this proposal must await further study.
Beyond Hebrews, the arguments proposed here find support in apostolic and patristic interpretation.Footnote 144 Barnabas (5.6) discusses Christ’s suffering in language very similar to Heb 2.14 but without quoting Hebrews directly.Footnote 145 Eusebius of Caesarea explicitly interprets Heb 2.14–15 in terms of the descensus Christi and harrowing of Hades.Footnote 146 Melito of Sardis interprets the paschal lamb as foreshadowing the death of Christ (Peri Pascha 67–8).Footnote 147 Those who were enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt are understood as Melito’s ‘we’, contemporary believers, who were ransomed and ‘set free from the slavery of the devil’. Both Melito and Justin Martyr connect Pharaoh to the devil. For Cyprian, the deceit of Pharaoh foreshadows the deceit of the devil, which believers are liberated and protected from through baptism.Footnote 148 In his Dialogue with Trypho (111.3; 40.1), Justin explicitly identifies Christ as the Passover lamb, interpreted in light of Isa 53.7.Footnote 149 For Justin, just as the blood of the paschal lamb liberates those enslaved in Egypt, so does Jesus’ blood liberate believers from death. We will conclude with a brief reference to these themes in Gregory of Nazianzus, for whom the descensus Christi and the harrowing of Hades are two sides of the same coin.Footnote 150 Christ descends to the realm of the dead, defeats death, liberates the captives held there and triumphantly enters heaven. While this apostolic and patristic evidence does not prove the argument advanced here, it demonstrates the plausibility of this interpretation among early interpreters.
The arguments advanced here have sought to argue that a reading of Hebrews which segments Christ’s salvific work into distinct movements has much to commend it at the chronological, geographical, narrative and theological levels. Rather than see every problem solved at one point in the drama of salvation, such as Christ’s death, the reading advanced here argues that different problems are solved at different points in Christ’s work.
The author of Hebrews understood there to be a typological relationship between the Passover and Jesus’ salvific death and resurrection. Just as Israel was enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt, so was humanity, living and departed, enslaved to death, the devil and the fear of death. Just as the Israelites did not automatically enter the promised land after their Exodus, neither did the saints automatically enter heaven. The chronology and the geography must go together. Jesus thus led the deceased saints out of their mortal bondage in the underworld, but this liberation does not, in itself, enable them to enter heaven, God’s rest, the correlate of the promised land in Exodus.
This article has therefore argued that Heb 2.14–15 reflects the author’s synthesis of several streams of Jewish and early Christian tradition. Through the influence of interpretive traditions in Second Temple Judaism, the elements of the Passover are infused with supernatural dimensions. The mysterious ‘destroyer’ in Exodus becomes the demonic Prince Mastema, Satan or the devil, to give a few of his many names. This demonic figure’s traditional opponents are Michael and possibly Melchizedek. In Hebrews, it is the human Christ who defeats death and the devil through his at first counterintuitive death and subsequent resurrection from the dead, thereby liberating the saints from the darkness of the underworld and ultimately leading many brothers and sisters to heavenly glory.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank James Harding, Carl Mosser, Madison Pierce, Philip Church and David Moffitt for their valuable feedback on drafts of this article.
Open access
