520 James Swetnam Heb 2,10 follows on v. 9 with the illative particle gavr. V. 9 affirms the fact of the resurrection as perceived by faith; v. 10 affirms the suitability of how the resurrection came about by asserting that it was “fitting” that God “perfect” (teleiovw) Jesus the “son” through suffering as he led many “sons” to glory. This verse is unintelligible except in the light of an explanation of its underlying suppositions. God is pictured as the one on account of whom everything happens and for the sake of whom everything happens (di j o}n ta; pavnta kai; di j ou| ta; pavnta), i.e., he is in absolute control of all reality including death. He could have spared his son the necessity of suffering, but it was not fitting that he do so, for the son had entered the world precisely in order to die, and he had come to take in hand the spiritual children of Abraham who lived by faith-trust. Jesus is looked on as “son”, and hence by inference he is the son as opposed to the many sons who are being led into glory because of this son (13). The use of the aorist participle, ajgagovnta, is best taken as coinciding with the moment in time expressed by the verb teleiw'sai(14). The aorist seems to be “global” or “confective”: as God “perfects” the son he also in principle “perfects” the sons (15). The precise nature of this act of God by which he “perfects” the son is, of course, much discussed (16). It would seem at least to relate to the Old Testament use of teleiovw which indicates the consecration of the Levitical priests as portrayed in the language of the Septuagint (17). But in Hebrews the word is adjusted to the ontological significance of the priesthood of Jesus rooted in his ontological bloody death. When Jesus assumed a mortal body at the moment of his entering into the world (Heb 10,5-7) he became ontologically “equipped”, so to speak, for the main earthly task of his priesthood, sacrificial death (cf. Heb 2,13b-18). Just so, when Jesus assumes an immortal body at the moment of his entering into God’s glory, he became ontologically “equipped”, so to speak, for the heavenly task of his priesthood. Thus there are, in effect, two stages to the one priesthood of Christ, his earthly priesthood and his heavenly priesthood. The moment of his transition from the first to the second would thus seem to be the moment of “perfecting”, when the earthly priesthood is brought to the perfection of the heavenly priesthood. Thus the Old Testament terminology involving priestly (13) This verse tends to support the view that in the citation of Ps 8 given at Heb 2,6- 8a Jesus is viewed as indicated by the phrase “Son of Man”. A number of exegetes hold this view (cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 73, n. 38). (14) “Und stehen die beiden Verben in beiden Sätzen, das Partizip ajgagovnta und der Infinitiv teleiw'sai, im Aorist, so sind sie beide auch auf denselben Vorgang und auf dasselbe logische Subjekt zu beziehen” (H.-F. WEIß, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KKNT 13; Göttingen 151991) 206. (15) Cf. WEIß, Brief an die Hebräer, 206, n. 7. The thought that at the “perfecting” of Christ many other sons are “perfected” seems to be reflected in Heb 12,23. (16) Cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 83-87 (Excursus: “The Language of Perfection”). (17) “The statement that Jesus was ‘perfected through suffering’ draws upon a special nuance of the verb teleiou'n in the LXX. In ceremonial texts of the Pentateuch the verb is used to signify the act of consecrating a priest to his office (Exod 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Lev 4:5; 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3). The normal idiom is ‘to fill the hands’ (teleiou'n ta;" ceivra"), and in Exod 29:33 this expression is elucidated by the verb aJgiavzein, to consecrate, to qualify someone for priestly service’” (LANE, Hebrews, 57).