Reading Hebrews & James: A Literary and Theological Commentary: Volume 11 (Reading the New Testament) 1573123188, 9781573123181

Citation preview

Reading Hebrews and James A Literary and Theological Commentary

Marie E. Isaacs

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2002 by Smyth & Helwys Publishing All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Isaacs, Marie E. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reading Hebrews and James: a literary and theological commentary / Marie Isaacs. p. cm. (Reading the New Testament Series) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Bible. N.T. Romans—Commentaries. 2. Bible. N. T. James—Commentaries I. Title. II. Series BS2775.53.I82 2002 227'.8707—dc 21 2001055120

Contents

Editor’s Foreword Author’s Preface Abbreviations Hebrews Introduction Prologue: The Exaltation of Jesus, the Son of God (1:1-4) Jesus Excels the Very Angels (1:5–2:18) Confirmation of the Son’s Incomparable Status (1:5-14) A Warning “Aside” (2:1-4) The Sovereignty and Solidarity of the Son of Man (2:5-18) Jesus the Faithful Son (3:1–4:14) Jesus the Faithful Son and Moses the Faithful Servant (3:1-6) A Warning: Faithlessness of the Wilderness Generation (3:7-11) Lessons from Psalm 95 (3:12–4:14) Excursus 1: Ancient Israel’s Priesthood Jesus the High Priest (4:15–10:18) Jesus the Merciful and Compassionate Priest (4:15–5:10) An Exhortatory “Aside” (5:11–6:20) Jesus, the Melchizedekian High Priest (7:1-28) Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement The Sacrificial Work of Christ (8:1–10:18) The Need for Perseverance in Faith (10:19–12:13) An Exhortation to Perseverance (10:19-39) The Faithful of the Past (11:1-40) The Faithful Perseverance Required in the Present (12:1-13) Closing Exhortation (12:14–13:21) A Call to Holiness (12:14-29) A Reminder: The City of God Is the Christian’s Goal (12:18-24) Obligations of Holiness within the Community of Faith (13:1-19) A Prayer-Wish (13:20-21) A Personal Note (13:22-25)

v vii ix

3 19 25 25 34 38 49 50 56 57 68 71 71 80 89 99 104 121 121 127 137 145 145 147 153 160 163

iv

James Introduction Epistolary Opening (1:1) Trials and Temptations (1:2-19a) Trials as Occasions of Joy and Blessing (1:2-12) Temptations Do Not Come from God (1:13-19a) Word and Deed (1:19b–2:26) The Right Response to God’s Word (1:19b-27) Partiality (2:1-13) Faith and Works (2:14-26) Words and Wisdom (3:1–4:12) Power of the Tongue (3:1-12) Concerning Contentiousness (3:13–4:12) Living in View of the End-time (4:13–5:20) The Transitoriness of Life (4:13-17) An Indictment of the Rich (5:1-6) Exhortations in View of the Imminent Return of the Lord (5:7-11) Concluding Exhortations (5:12-20) Works Cited

Contents

167 177 179 179 187 191 191 194 201 211 211 218 233 233 235 238 242 251

Editor’s Foreword

“Reading the New Testament” is a commentary series that aims to present cutting-edge research in popular form that is accessible to upper-level undergraduates, seminarians, seminary educated pastors, and educated laypersons, as well as to graduate students and professors. The volumes in this series do not follow the word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, verse-by-verse method of traditional commentaries. Rather, they are concerned to understand large thought units and their relationship to an author’s thought as a whole. The focus is on a close reading of the final form of the text. The aim is to make one feel at home in the biblical text itself. The approach of these volumes involves a concern both for how an author communicates and what the religious point of the text is. Care is taken to relate both the how and the what of the text to its milieu: Christian (NT and noncanonical), Jewish (scriptural and postbiblical), and Greco-Roman. This enables both the communication strategies and the religious message of the text to be clarified over against a range of historical and cultural possibilities. Moreover, a section of commentary on a large thought unit will often contain a brief excursus on some topic raised by the material in the unit, sometimes sketching OT, postbiblical Jewish, Greco-Roman, NT, and noncanonical Christian views on the subject. Throughout, the basic concern is to treat the NT texts as religious documents whose religious message needs to be set forth with compelling clarity. All other concerns are subordinated to this. It is the hope of all participants in this project that our efforts at exposition will enable the NT to be understood better and communicated more competently. —Charles H. Talbert General Editor

Author’s Preface

I should like to thank Charles H. Talbert not only for inviting me to contribute to this series, but, by bringing together Hebrews and James in one volume, for making me grapple with two such different New Testament writings. The whole exercise has confirmed for me not only the diversity of early Christianity but its essential Jewish matrix. The main emphasis of this series is not the history of research but a clear articulation of each commentator’s own interpretation of the text. In what follows I have certainly attempted to make my own voice heard, but not, I hope, by drowning out others. Hence I have indicated alternative interpretations, as well as directed the reader to other scholars for amplification of the views I share. Similarly I have tried to introduce the reader who may not read Greek to some of the major issues involved in the language of the original texts, not least to enable them to make their own judgments and not to be left wholly in the hands of “the experts.” As far as my own verbal usage is concerned, perhaps I need to add two comments: (1) I have referred to the author of Hebrews as “he” because I remain unconvinced by those who would claim that its author was a woman. In the case of James the gender of its author is self-declared. (2) With reference to God, as in my previous work (Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 67), I have adopted the capitalization of personal pronouns to signal not that the deity is male but that God is above gender. The editor’s patience in waiting for this manuscript would have been tested even further had it not been for the support of my colleagues in the Biblical Studies Department at Heythrop College, London University: Jenny Dines, Tom Deidun, Ann Jeffers, Joe Mulrooney, and Bridget Gilfillan Upton. “In many and various ways” (as the author of Hebrews would say) over the past year they have tried to lighten my administrative load in order to enable me to complete Reading Hebrews and James. To them especially I

viii

Author’s Preface

want to say a big “thank you.” One of their number, Jenny Dines, also read an early draft of the commentary on James. From her insightful comments I have learned much. More recently my friend Liz Taylor generously gave up part of her annual holiday to proofread the commentary on Hebrews. This was a labor of love indeed, not least because her discipline is sociology rather than biblical studies. This work is dedicated to Peggy Jacobs, Emeritus Fellow of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. We first met some thirty years ago when I was a post-graduate student and she was assigned as my “Moral Tutor.” This was the title then given not to one’s academic tutor (Peggy’s area was German, not biblical literature), but to the person responsible for a student’s general well-being. In the intervening years, as my friend, she has continued admirably to fulfill that role. Knowing that her professional and personal interests combine both the literary and the theological, I hope she will enjoy what follows.

Abbreviations

Texts, Versions, and Translations AV Authorized Version (King James) JB The Jerusalem Bible LXX Septuagintal (Greek) text(s) MTMasoretic (Hebrew) text NA Nestle-Aland, Greek New Testament, 27th ed. NASB New American Standard Bible NEB The New English Bible NIV The New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version REB The Revised English Bible RSV Revised Standard Version UBS United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament TEV Today’s English Version Apocrypha and Septuagint 1–2 Esd 1–2 Esdras Jdt Judith 1–2 Macc 1–2 Maccabees 3–4 Macc 3–4 Maccabees Tob Tobit Wis Wisdom of Solomon Apostolic Fathers Barn. Barnabas 1–2 Clem. 1–2 Clement Did. Didache Ign. Eph. Ignatius, To the Ephesians

x

Ign. Magn. Ign. Smyrn. Ign. Phld. Ign. Pol. Ign. Trall. Herm. Mand. Herm. Sim. Herm. Vis.

Abbreviations

Ignatius, To the Magnesians Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans Ignatius, To the Philadelphians Ignatius, To Polycarp Ignatius, To the Trallians Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude Shepherd of Hermas, Vision

Dead Sea Scrolls CD (Cairo) Damascus Document 1QH Thanksgiving Hymns 1QM War Scroll 1QpHab Pesher on Habakkuk 1QS Manual of Discipline 1QSa Appendix a to the Manual of Discipline 1QSb Appendix b to the Manual of Discipline 11Q Melch The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek Josephus Ag. Ap. Ant. J.W.

Against Apion Jewish Antiquities Jewish War

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham 2 Bar. 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 1 En. 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) Jub. Jubilees 3 Macc. 3 Maccabees 4 Macc. 4 Maccabees 5 Macc. 5 Maccabees Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon Ps.-Phoc. Pseudo-Phocylides Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon T. Ab. T. Ash. T. Benj. T. Gad.

Testament of Abraham Testament of Asher Testament of Benjamin Testament of Gad

Abbreviations

T. Dan T. Iss. T. Job T. Jud. T. Levi T. Naph. T. Reu. T. Sim. T. Zeb.

xi

Testament of Dan Testament of Issachar Testament of Job Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Testament of Naphtali Testament of Reuben Testament of Simeon Testament of Zebulun

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Philo Abraham Alleg. Interp. 1, 2, 3 Cherubim Decalogue Worse Unchangeable Flight Moses 1, 2 QG 1, 2, 3, 4 Spec. Laws 1, 2, 3, 4 Journals and Series AB Bib BJRL BNTC CBQ CNT ExpT HeyJ HTKNT HTR ICC JBL JSNT

On the Life of Abraham Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3 On the Cherubim On the Decalogue That the Worse Attacks the Better That God Is Unchangeable On Flight and Finding On the Life of Moses 1, 2 Questions and Answers on Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4 On the Special Laws 1, 2, 3, 4

Anchor Bible Commentaries Biblica Bulletin of John Ryland’s Library Black’s New Testament Commentaries Catholic Biblical Quarterly Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Expository Times Heythrop Journal Herder’s theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentaries Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the New Testament

xii

JSNTS JTS NICNT NIGNTC NLC NovT NTS RB SB SBLDS SBLNTS SBT SJT SNTSMS TDNT TNTC TS WBC ZNW

Abbreviations

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplements Journal of Theological Studies New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek New Testament Commentaries New London Commentaries Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Revue Biblique Sources Bibliques Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society for Biblical Literature New Testament Series Studies in Biblical Theology Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Theological Dictionary of the New Testamen Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theological Studies Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Hebrews

Introduction

“The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.” This, the Authorized Version’s confident superscription for Hebrews, is misleading on all counts: It is almost certainly not written by the apostle Paul nor the product of a “Pauline” school; it is addressed to a Christian congregation rather than to the Jewish nation; and it is probably better classified as a homily or sermon rather than as an epistle. In fact, apart from what we can infer from Hebrews itself, we know nothing about the situation that led to its composition, original destination, or author. Author In the prologue to Hebrews in his 1534 translation of the New Testament, William Tyndale admits that there are those who deny its Pauline authorship. The grounds he gives for this opinion are ones with which most modern scholarship would concur. First, its written style is significantly different from that of Paul’s. Second, the author of Hebrews explicitly states (Heb 2:3) that his testimony is not firsthand but derived from those who had heard the Lord. Neither, unlike the apostle Paul, does he claim a direct revelation of the risen Christ as the source of his authority (see Gal 1:12). Third, Tyndale’s last and most weighty problem has to do with content, not authorship. He cites specifically Hebrews’ teaching vis-à-vis no second repentance (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29). In the epistle’s defense, however, he points out that, if this particular teaching were to bar it from inclusion in the church’s canon of scripture, a number of other New Testament texts that speak about the impossibility of restoration of the sinner who has committed the sin against the Holy Spirit would also have to be excluded. On the issue of Hebrews’ authorship Tyndale personally remained open. “Now whether it were Paul’s or no I say not, but permit it to other men’s judgment, neither think I it to be an article of any man’s faith, but that a man may be a doubter of the author,” he wrote. More importantly, he concluded, “though this

4

Introduction

epistle . . . lay not the ground for the faith of Christ, yet it buildeth cunningly thereon pure gold, silver and precious stones.” Tyndale was not the first scholar to notice that the Greek vocabulary and style of Hebrews was significantly different from that of the letters of Paul. Clement of Alexandria attempted both to acknowledge this and yet to uphold its Pauline authorship by suggesting that it was originally written by the apostle in Aramaic and subsequently translated into Greek by Luke (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.14.2). Origen knew of an alternative tradition according to which the translator was Clement of Rome rather than Luke. He himself believed that Hebrews contained the thoughts of Paul, although as to “who actually wrote the epistle God knows the truth of the matter” (Eusebius, op. cit. 6.25.14). Origen’s caution has not deterred scholars (either ancient or modern) from suggesting a whole host of possible alternative authors, including Barnabas (Acts 4:36; cf. Tertullian, On Chastity 20; modern adherents include F. Blass and M. Dibelius), Apollos (Acts 18:24; cf. Martin Luther, T. W. Manson), and even a woman, Priscilla (see Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; first suggested by Von Harnack in 1900 and revived by Hopkins, Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11-116). Origen was content to accept that the Letter to the Hebrews expressed the mind of Paul even if the apostle did not write it himself. For the Alexandrian church, therefore, its apostolic authority was not dependent upon its apostolic authorship. This seems to be reflected in the earliest manuscripts (themselves the product of such an Alexandrian tradition) that include Hebrews among the letters of Paul. In P46 (c. CE 200) it comes after Romans and before 1 Corinthians. Given that in this papyrus the principle by which the letters are ordered appears to be on the basis of their length, strictly speaking Hebrews should have come third, i.e., after 1 Corinthians. The scribe probably placed it second, however, because he did not want to divorce 1 from 2 Corinthians. A variety of places are assigned to it in later manuscripts (including after 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon), but their common bond is that Hebrews is always included in the Pauline corpus, and as such it was clearly accepted (whatever their doubts about its authorship) by the Eastern church. The western church, however, made no such sophisticated distinction between Hebrews’ authorship and its authority. Aware, therefore, of the problems concerning the former, the members took far longer to accept Hebrews into their canon of scripture. Although the letter was known in Rome from the early second century, another three hundred years passed before it was finally accepted as Pauline and thereby admitted into the canon of the western church. And this, in spite of the fact that the first evidence we

Introduction

5

have of the Letter to the Hebrews is found in 1 Clement (c. CE 96) and the Shepherd of Hermas (c. CE 120–140), documents emanating from the church at Rome. Although not explicitly named, Hebrews seems to be alluded to in 1 Clement. (See 1 Clem 36.12, 64, which refers to Jesus as “high priest” [cf. Heb 2:28; 3:1; 4:14-16]. For other allusions see also 1 Clem 17.5 [ Heb 3:2,5]; 1 Clem 27.2 [ Heb 6:18].) Strikingly, however, Clement of Rome, unlike the author of Hebrews (see Isaacs, “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 51-62) uses the model of Levitical priesthood for Christian ministry. The Shepherd of Hermas also shows knowledge of Hebrews. He refers (again without overt citation) to its teaching concerning no second repentance (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; Hermas, Mandate 4.3). Unlike the author of Hebrews, however, Hermas allows one post-baptismal sin before final excommunication from the church (Hermas, Vision 2.2.1-4). Intriguingly, therefore, Hebrews has its earliest attestation in a church that was at considerable variance with the main thrust of its theology (see Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome, 142-151). Given this it is no wonder that even as late as the fourth century (according to Eusebius, History of the Church 3.3; 6.62) there were some in the church at Rome who did not accept that Hebrews was written by Paul and hence to be accepted into the canon of Christian scripture. It may well be that the reference to Timothy in 13:23 initially gave rise to the suggestion that Hebrews was written by Paul. There is nothing else in the letter that would lead to such a conclusion. As it stands, Hebrews is anonymous. Although from the personal note appended at the end (13:2225) and the tone throughout, the original author was clearly well-known to the recipients, nowhere is his name mentioned. In determining Hebrews’ possible author, even more important than its written style is its content, and this tells unequivocally against the apostle Paul. His letters were addressed to the Gentile churches he founded, whereas from its content, it is evident that Hebrews was written to a Jewish-Christian community. In fact, nowhere in the letter do we find the designation “Jew” or “Gentile,” nor for that matter “Jew” as opposed to “Christian.” For our author, there is but one people of God (see 3:2-6). The contrast Hebrews draws is not between Christianity and Judaism or Jew and Gentile but between the faithful and the faithless among the people of God, past and present (see Isaacs, “Hebrews,” 157-158). Thus, unlike Paul, in Hebrews Abraham is not the type of faith in general (thereby including Gentile converts) but of the faith of Israel in particular (see 2:16; 6:13-15; 7:1-10; 11:8-10; 11:7-19), of whose faith Jesus is the supreme exemplar (see 12:2), and among whom our author includes his addressees. This is not to say that

6

Introduction

the author of Hebrews has no critique to make of Jewish institutions; clearly he does. Not least he denies the permanent efficacy of Judaism’s sacrificial system in attaining access to God (see 4:15–10:18). Unlike Hebrews, however, the apostle Paul displays no particular interest in Judaism’s cult. His major issue with the Mosaic law is not with its regulations for priesthood and sacrifice but with the obstacles it posed for his Gentile converts, notably its demand for circumcision as the initiation rite for entry into the people of God and an ongoing adherence to Judaism’s food laws thereafter. The situation that led to the writing of the Pauline epistles and Hebrews is therefore wholly different. Even though the identity of its author remains unknown, from Hebrews itself we may infer quite a lot about the author. He clearly stands within Jewish tradition. Hence it is to the Jewish scriptures that he constantly appeals, not least to uphold his claim that Jesus is the true fulfillment of that tradition. Richard Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period) identifies no less than 38 citations and 55 allusions to these scriptures, most of which are taken from the Psalter (33), the Pentateuch (26), and the prophetic writings (20). For the author of Hebrews, these scriptures are the divinely inspired word of God, addressed not only to the past but also to the present of his readers (see 1:5, 6, 7; 4:3, 4, 7; 5:5, 6; 8:8, etc.). Yet for all his indebtedness to the Jewish scriptures he seems to have no knowledge of them in Hebrew. Hence his biblical citations are taken not from the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament but from its Greek translation(s), the Septuagint (LXX). Thus in some places a biblical citation is only to be found in the LXX (see 1:6), and in others Hebrews’ explication is either wholly dependent upon the LXX translation (see 1:7-8) or upon the ambiguities of the Greek language (see 9:16). Furthermore, in most respects the exegetical methods he employs in handling scripture reflect those current among his Jewish contemporaries. Thus he lists religious exemplars of the past (11:1-40; cf. Ecclus 44:1-50:21; Wis 10; 1 Macc 2), adopts established allegorizations for the names of Melchizedek and the city of Jerusalem (see 7:2), explicates words or phrases in a biblical text that may be misunderstood (cf. the treatment of ”everything” and “a little while” in Ps 8:4-6 in Heb 2:7-9), highlights a particular word in the text (cf. “new” in Jer 31:31-34, explicated in Heb 8:8-13), strings together texts with a common word or theme (see “son” in 1:5-13), utilizes the principle of inference from the lesser to the greater (see 2:2-4; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:25), and interprets one word in a biblical text in the light of its occurrence elsewhere in scripture (see 4:1-11, where the “rest” of Ps 95 is interpreted in terms of the “Sabbath rest” of Gen 2:2). Like the

Introduction

7

Qumran Covenanters, the author of Hebrews reads scripture principally as prophecy addressed to his contemporary audience, and, like Jewish tradition in general, uses it to confirm and reinforce his paraenesis (exhortation). These similarities of exegetical method, however, should not blind us to a fundamental difference between the author of Hebrews and his nonChristian Jewish contemporaries. For him, scripture is the word of God (1:1), but not God’s last word. That was spoken through Jesus, the son (1:2), who is and always has been scripture’s true referent (see 5:11). This claim is implicit in our author’s adoption of a typological approach to the text that enables him to view biblical characters and events of the past as an anticipation or foreshadowing of the future. Thus Israel’s pilgrimage in the wilderness is seen as presaging the “testing” of his own contemporary readers in their journey of faith (3:1–4:13), the Aaronic high priest’s role in Israel’s Day of Atonement ceremonies as an anticipation of the expiatory role of Jesus in and through his death (8:1–10:18), and Melchizedek as the type of Jesus’ non-Levitical priesthood (7:1-28). Yet Hebrews goes beyond such comparisons to claim that Jesus is superior to them all. He is “much better” than angels (1:4), the Mosaic covenant (7:22; 8:6), the promised land (11:16), and the cult’s sacrificial offerings (9:23; cf. 12:24), and “greater” than the tabernacle (9:11). Even in the case of Melchizedek, with whom Jesus is compared rather than contrasted, significantly it is Melchizedek who resembles Jesus rather than vice versa (see 7:3). For Hebrews, therefore, Christ is the norm of biblical understanding. Where the text is amenable to a christological interpretation, it stands; where not, it becomes obsolete. The author of Hebrews finds evidence for this in the scriptures themselves. Thus the Melchizedek of Genesis 14 brings to an end the Aaronic high priesthood (7:11-28); the new covenant of Jeremiah brings to an end the Mosaic covenant (8:13); and the oath that accompanied the proclamation of a Davidic king as Melchizedekian priest (7:20-28; cf. Ps 110:4) demonstrates that Levitical priesthood was part of the first rather than the last edition of the word of God. Thus parts of scripture contain seeds of other parts’ redundancy. This goes far beyond anything we find in non-Christian Jewish exegesis of the period, which, however much it may reinterpret the written Torah, nowhere suggests that any part of it could become obsolescent. Judaism in the first century was no more uniform than the Christianity that was emerging from it. So where among the various “Judaisms” of the period are we to “place” Hebrews? (For the major first-century milieux that have been suggested as the background to Hebrews, see Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background and Thought.) The most likely answer is among its Greek-speaking Diaspora adherents, who formed its largest constituency.

8

Introduction

This is evident, not only from its use of the Septuagint, but also from the fact that the Letter to the Hebrews is written in a Greek style that exhibits the rhetorical skills of someone like Philo of Alexandria or the author of the Letter of Aristeas, who had a Hellenistic higher education. This is not to claim that our author was directly indebted to Philo (contra Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, vol. 1, 39-91), but, as Ronald Williamson has put it (Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 296), that “the writer of Hebrews drew upon the same wealth of literary vocabulary and moved in the same circle of educated thought as a man like Philo.” As we shall see in the commentary, though there are similarities, there are also a number of significant differences between the two. Chief among these differences is the fact that the author of Hebrews, unlike Philo, was not only a Jew; he was also a Christian. Thus, at the heart of his homily lie two central early Christian beliefs: that Jesus is now exalted at the right hand of God in heaven (see 1:1-4) and that his death was the means whereby he was thus exalted. Hebrews’ innovative treatment of these tenets in the extended analogy the author draws between the death and exaltation of Jesus and Judaism’s Day of Atonement rites should not blind us to the fact that his starting point is traditional Christian belief. Audience and Situation Whatever the second-century scribe who originally appended “To the Hebrews” (Pros Hebraious) to the manuscript understood by it, this particular New Testament writing was not addressed as a missionary tract to non-Christian Jews but written to those who were already Christian adherents. The author’s appeal is not therefore that his readers should join the church but that they should not renege upon their existing Christian commitment. The recipients of the letter cannot be “Hebrews” in the Lukan sense of Semitic as opposed to Greek-speaking Jewish-Christians (see Acts 6:1). If anything, they would be closer to Luke’s “Hellenists.” Paul, himself a Hellenistic Jew, referring to his own background, calls himself a “Hebrew” (Phil 3:5). If “To the Hebrews” is to be taken as an apt designation of this epistle’s recipients, it must be similarly understood in terms of the ethnic origin of the community to whom it was written. They were Jews who were also Christians—not of itself an incongruity in the first century when the two religious communities had as yet to diverge and go their separate ways. Opening as it does with a prologue (1:1-4) rather than an epistolary address, Hebrews gives us no indication as to the location or situation of its recipients. Jerusalem, Alexandria, Corinth, Syria, and Asia Minor have all

Introduction

9

had their proponents. The current favorite, Rome (see Lane, Hebrews, vol. 1, lviii-lxvi), has an ancient pedigree. Some scholars claim that the mention of “those from Italy” who send greetings (Heb 13:24) indicates that Italy/Rome was its destination. The phrase, however, is ambiguous and could equally indicate that Italy/Rome was Hebrews’ place of origin. Certainly the latter was the understanding of the fifth-century scribe of codex Alexandrinus who appended “written from Rome” to the end of the text. The majority of later Byzantine manuscripts add, “written from Italy via Timothy,” and one (81), “written from Rome by Paul to Jerusalem.” All of these scribal additions appear to be glosses based upon Hebrews 13:24. None of this information is conclusive, however, since apart from the fact that Hebrews’ epistolary note (13:22-25) may not have been written by the original author, “those from Italy” may simply refer to a group (“the Italians”) known to the recipients of Hebrews, rather than indicating Italy in general or Rome in particular as either the work’s place of origin or destination. If it were the product of the church in Rome, we would expect it to reflect what we know of that community’s views, whereas, as we have seen from its use by Clement of Rome and Hermas, just the opposite is true. It may, of course, have been addressed to a Jewish-Christian house church in Rome (see Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration; Brown and Meier, 139-88). If so, in spite of its early attestation there, its late acceptance into the western church’s canon of scripture would suggest that its content met with considerable opposition. The truth of the matter, however, is that the location of Hebrews’ original audience remains wholly conjectural. All that we have is what we can infer from the letter itself, and that is far from unambiguous. The homily’s paraenetic sections, where the preacher interrupts his theological exposition to address his audience directly (see 2:1-4; 3:7–4:14; 5:11–6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1–13:19), might at first sight seem to provide the clearest information about the community to which Hebrews was written, but they themselves are open to diverse interpretations—evidenced by the multiple and often opposing suggestions as to Hebrews’ original audience and message (see Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 15-67). In these passages we are confronted with a community in danger of drifting away from (2:1) or deserting (3:12) their Christian faith. Although some of their number have ceased to meet together—presumably for worship—(10:25), there is nothing to suggest that the majority have abandoned the community. Thus the tone of this particular homily is one of warning rather than despair. The preacher employs both carrot and stick as

10

Introduction

he seeks to encourage his audience not to go the way of those who have already given up. He therefore exhorts them, by way of warning, to remember the experience of the faithless among the wilderness generation, lest they too should fall short (4:1) or fail to enter God’s promised rest (4:11), and solemnly reminds his Christian addressees that, should they give up, for them there can be no second chance (6:4-6; 10:26-31). On the other hand, he appeals to God’s fidelity in keeping His promises (10:19-25) by way of encouragement to this dispirited group to keep theirs: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (10:23). “Waverers” rather than “apostates” is therefore a better designation of Hebrews’ recipients. They are berated for their spiritual immaturity (5:12-14). This does not, however, mean that they are recent converts, not least since the author of Hebrews commends them for their past track record of endurance in the face of public humiliation, which included the looting of their property and the imprisonment of some of their members (10:32-34). Scholars (e.g., Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 267-69; Lane, vol. 1, viii-lxvi) anxious to locate Hebrews’ addressees in Rome, see here a reference to the edict of the emperor Claudius, who in CE 49 banned all Jews from Rome. No doubt this would have affected Jewish-Christians as well as non-Christian Jews. Yet there is nothing in Hebrews that would suggest the persecution some of them had faced in the past was either a state initiative or was associated with their Jewish ethnicity. Rather, the author implies that the suffering of his addressees, past or present, is a consequence of their explicit Christian faith. Since it has not cost them their lives (12:4), their present crisis of faith is unlikely to be a result of the persecution of Roman Christians instigated by the emperor Nero in CE 64 in which many were killed (see Tacitus, Annals of Rome 25.44). In which case the issue of Hebrews’ date, destination, and the situation of its original audience remains open. As Jews, they would have been potentially open to Greco-Roman opprobrium at any time and in any place throughout the empire. As Christians they would have increasingly been regarded as renegades by their Jewish compatriots. The only thing we can be sure of is that Hebrews must have been written before AD 96, when it was used by Clement of Rome. The community’s present crisis of faith may not have been a result of persecution at all. Thus, if we look to the expository sections of the homily, we see there that, although the list of the exemplars of faith in the past includes those who died rather than renege on their faith (see 11:35-37), martyrdom is not a major theme. Hence Jesus’ death is not portrayed as that of a martyr but as a sacrificial offering (see 8:1–10:18).

Introduction

11

Given that its paraenetic sections are closely integrated into the homily’s theological exposition, any reconstruction of Hebrews’ original audience must also take into account the particular theology its author chooses to address to that situation. Those who have concentrated upon the section that affirms Christ’s supremacy over the angels (1:5–2:18) see Hebrews’ purpose as the refutation of any suggestion that Jesus was an angel (e.g., Manson, “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 1-17). Apart from the fact that this would hardly account for the rest of the epistle, there is nothing that would suggest that the author of Hebrews’ treatment of angels is corrective of some supposed christological “heresy.” Rather, having established that Jesus is in heaven, he wishes to establish en passant that that does not thereby mean that he is one of the heavenly host (see comment on 1:5-14). Traditionally, commentators have concentrated upon Hebrews’ theme of Jesus as high priest and victim (4:15–10:18) (see Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood), and seen its principal purpose as polemical refutation of Judaism’s temple cult. G. W. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, 256-66) has inferred from Hebrews’ treatment of the cult that its readers were a group of Diaspora Jewish-Christians, who, like the Qumran Covenanters, had priestly predilections. This group, Buchanan argues, had returned to Jerusalem in the expectation of an imminent parousia, and, discouraged by its delay, were perhaps toying with the idea of taking part in the Day of Atonement ceremonies as a means of effecting the coming of the kingdom. Apart from the fact that Buchanan’s assumption that Hebrews’ recipients were a group of priestly celibates means that he is obliged to dismiss the whole of chapter 13 as a later addition, there are difficulties with all attempts to reconstruct Hebrews’ original audience on the sole basis of those parts of the letter that deal with Judaism’s sacrificial system and its priesthood. As we shall see in the commentary, even in those sections our author’s criticisms of the cult are wholly different from those made by the priests who abandoned the Jerusalem temple and established the community at Qumran in the second century BCE (see Excursus 1: Ancient Israel’s priesthood). It is also highly unlikely that the tone and intention of Hebrews’ depiction of Jesus as the fulfillment of the purpose of the sacrificial system—notably to make possible a meeting between God and the worshipper by removing the barrier of sin— is a polemical one. Important as the cultic theme is, it is certainly not the homily’s only one. In coming to any conclusion as to the situation of its audience, we cannot ignore Hebrews’ other major theme, that of pilgrimage, especially since this occupies the two places crucial in any rhetorical discourse, i.e., its opening (3:1–4:14) and closing (12:14–13:21) sections. Whereas in 4:14–10:18 the

12

Introduction

pilgrim’s goal is depicted as the shrine’s inner sanctum, in chapters 3 and 4 it is the promised land to which, like the wilderness generation of the past, his contemporary readers are journeying (4:1-10). In the concluding section the image changes; the land now becomes the city of Jerusalem (11:10; 12:22). By 12:28 the place has taken on the dimensions of a city-state, a kingdom (basileia) that is unshakable. As yet Jesus alone has entered that promised land, but the readers are exhorted to take courage from his attainment and to follow him who has pioneered the way (2:8; 12:2) into the presence of God. Like 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras), themselves written at the end of the first century as consolation for the fall of Jerusalem, the author of Hebrews uses the spatial imagery of a heavenly city (see 2 Baruch 4:2-7; 6:9; 32:4; 4 Ezra 9:26–10:59; 13:35-36) to express his hopes for the consummation of God’s purposes in the future. It is thus used as a vehicle of eschatology rather than to advance a particular cosmology. Hebrews, however, unlike 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, does not take the form of an apocalypse or heavenly journey in which the seer is taken up to heaven and there, through what is seen and/or heard, granted divine revelation, and does not use the language of “heaven” to encourage his audience to take the route of mysticism as an escape from this world. Neither (contra Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews) does our author go the way of subsequent gnosticism and exhort them to achieve mystical union with God by following Jesus, “the redeemed redeemer,” and renouncing the material world in order to ascend to a heavenly immaterial one. A cosmological dualism between the unstable inferior world of sense perception and the changeless, superior, immaterial world of Ideas is also found in the first-century philosophy of Middle Platonism. Hebrews, on the other hand (contra Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews, 44-52), displays no such antipathy between the immaterial and the material, the spirit and the flesh (see 2:14; 10:5-7, 10; 10:19-20). On the contrary, our preacher stresses that it is Christ’s participation in rather than escape from human nature, in all its finitude, which makes him superior to the angels (see 2:9-18). His language of “place” therefore has not been inspired either by Greek metaphysics, gnosticism, or Jewish mysticism. Rather he uses biblical traditions of pilgrimage to encourage his recipients to persevere in and through human history, not to withdraw from it. What then, bearing in mind both its paraenetic and the expository sections, would seem to be the situation of Hebrews’ original audience? Most likely, it was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple in CE 70 by the Romans that caused their present crisis of faith. For Diaspora and

Introduction

13

Palestinian Jews alike this would have been catastrophic, not least because it would have meant the cessation of the sacrificial system that was regarded as the means of access to God, and the end of the effective ministrations of its priesthood. In subsequent centuries both Judaism and Christianity had to reinterpret these institutions in such a way as to be able to continue without them. For rabbinical Judaism, from the second century CE onwards, and especially after Israel’s’ defeat in AD 135 in the second Jewish war against Rome that ensued not only in the destruction of the temple but in Israel’s loss of statehood, the cult was replaced by a piety based upon the study of and adherence to the Mosaic Torah. Priesthood could now designate the whole people, whose every table was to be an altar of offerings to the Lord (see Neusner, Early Rabbinic Judaism, 40-49). Christianity in the first century also had to come to terms with these events. According to Acts (2:46; 3:1; 21:26), the early Christians saw no incongruity in continuing to worship in the temple at Jerusalem. We must not therefore assume that they eschewed Judaism’s sacrificial system. In which case, the events of AD 70 could not but have had their impact upon a Jewish-Christian group such as the recipients of Hebrews for whom Israel’s cult was clearly important. To a community faced with its loss our author addresses his message: Do not despair. See in Christ’s death and heavenly exaltation the fulfillment of the cult’s purpose and the pilgrim’s goal. The land and the shrine were intended to be places of rendezvous with God. The destruction of the temple, the cessation of its sacrificial system, and the potential loss of the land do not mean, however, that access to God is no longer possible. It is. Jesus’ death, viewed in terms both of entry into the promised land and as the entry of the high priest into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, demonstrates that he has not only attained access to God but made redundant all previous means and mediators of access. Therefore, there is no longer any need to cling to these institutions of the past. Rather should they go forward unafraid, following where God will lead them in His future, in the assurance that Christ has gone ahead of them. Thus, the unnamed author of the Letter to the Hebrews, in his reinterpretation of Israel’s cultic and pilgrimage traditions, has pioneered this innovative theology of access to God, which was to be taken up by the later church. Several major objections to this suggestion vis-à-vis the original situation of the addressees are to be noted. The biblical texts utilized by our author refer to the wilderness tabernacle rather than the Jerusalem temple; he uses the present tense when referring to the cult, implying that it is still operative; and had Hebrews been written post-CE 70, given that the preacher wishes to claim that the cult was never intended to be God’s last word, he would surely

14

Introduction

have exploited the temple’s destruction in his argument. Yet against these objections several arguments need to be stated. First, the biblical texts Hebrews uses are drawn from the Pentateuch, which itself locates all of Israel’s cultic regulations in the Mosaic, i.e., presettlement, period. It was, of course, part of the tradition that the Jerusalem temple and its sacrifices replicated the pattern revealed to Moses. Therefore, in the first century, what was said of the wilderness tabernacle would have been thought to refer as well to the temple in Jerusalem. Second, for his own exhortatory purposes the author of Hebrews imaginatively places his audience in the “today” of the wilderness generation mentioned in the scriptures, not least to urge them to go forward rather than back. His present tense, therefore, tells us nothing about whether or not the Jerusalem temple was operative. Writing some twenty years after its destruction, Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 3.151-224) can equally use the present tense of its cult. Third, as to Hebrews’ failure to exploit the fact of the destruction of the temple in CE 70, that would only be significant if its author’s major purpose was polemical rather than consolatory. Even if it were the former, he was not to know that the temple and its cult would not be restored. After all, it would not have been the first time that such a disaster had occurred. The first temple, destroyed by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, had subsequently been restored (in 516 BCE). In CE 70 there was nothing to say that restoration could not happen again in the future. As far our author is concerned, however, the fate of the temple and its cult is now supremely irrelevant, since its purpose has been definitively fulfilled by Jesus, thereby making it redundant for all time. Genre and Structure In the Greco-Roman period, letters took various forms and performed a wide variety of tasks (see Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 158-82). As the New Testament bears witness, perhaps because of its flexibility, the “letter” became the most common literary genre in early Christianity. Given that this written form of communication was intended to function as the effective presence of the absent author, this is not surprising in a movement whose adherents were widely dispersed. The New Testament itself illustrates some of the diversity of the letter form. Some (e.g., 1 & 2 Tim, Titus, 2 & 3 John) are addressed to individuals, although only one, Philemon, could perhaps be classified as “private.” The rest were written either (as is the case with most of Paul’s letters) to a specific Christian congregation or (cf. Gal, Jas, 1 & 2 Pet) sent as circular letters to a group of

Introduction

15

such communities, and intended to be read aloud at a public gathering (see 1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16). Throughout this commentary I have used the words “epistle” and “letter” as synonyms, not least because I remain unconvinced by Adolph Deissmann’s attempt to distinguish between the two as distinct types of New Testament writing. For Deissmann, the “real” letter (in which category he placed most of the authentic writings of Paul) was a spontaneous missive addressed to a particular, restricted audience, whereas the “epistle” (among which he included Hebrews) was essentially a studied literary artifact, intended for a public readership. Most contemporary scholars would dispute that such a clear-cut distinction can be made between the various letters included in the New Testament. The Letter to the Romans, for example, displays elements of both Deissmann’s “letter” and his “epistle.” The same can be said of Hebrews, which is both occasional and yet has marked literary features. In its present form Hebrews is clearly a letter in that it was dispatched as a written communication. Hence an epistolary note has been appended at the end (13:22-25). Yet it lacks a letter’s traditional opening, which would have indicated the name of its author and his audience. Although the whole of the last chapter exhibits features that can be found at the end of other New Testament letters, such as the listing of final injunctions, a formal benediction, a personal greeting, and a closing brief benediction (see Filson, “‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13,” 22-25, who draws comparisons with the ending of Rom, Gal, 1 & 2 Thess, 2 Tim, and 1 Pet), Hebrews is better described as a sermon rather than a letter (see Lane, vol. 1, lxix-lxxv, et al.). In its appended epistolary note, the contents of Hebrews are described as “a word of exhortation,” a phrase used in Acts 13:22 to designate the sermon preached by the apostle Paul in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch. According to Acts, this sermon followed, and was presumably based upon, the reading of the Law and the prophets. For all recent attempts to reconstruct the form of the sermon of first-century Judaism and Christianity (see Bailey and Van der Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament, 191-95), it has to be admitted that there was probably not only one. What evidence we have of the sermon as a genre mostly dates from the second-century CE onward, and even that would seem to indicate that then, as now, it did not necessarily follow a uniform pattern. Nonetheless, there are certain features exhibited by Hebrews that would have been recognized as homiletic. Chief among these is the alternation between exposition and exhortation, whereby the preacher moves back and forth between explication of the scriptures and direct address to his audience in an attempt to relate the two and draw out its implications for their present

16

Introduction

situation. To this end our preacher captures the attention of his congregation by employing a variety of strategies. These include: identifying himself among their number by the use of “we” (2:1-4); addressing them as “brothers” (3:1, 12: 10:19; 13:22); and using the second person, “you” (e.g., 3:12-14; 5:11–6:12). The essential orality of the work is further signaled by its plethora of rhetorical questions (see 1:5, 13; 3:16-18; 9:14; 10:29; 11:32) and the use of alliteration (see 1:1; 11:28; 12:11) and anaphora (i.e., the repetition of the same word at the beginning of a section; see “by faith” [piste], which punctuates the whole of chapter 11) for aural effect. (For Hebrews’ rhetorical features see Spicq, vol. 1, 351-78.) According to the norms of ancient rhetoric, there were three types (see Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.2.1358b), each appropriate for a particular audience: (1) Juridical rhetoric, practiced in the law courts to prosecute or defend a case (2) Deliberative rhetoric, employed in the political arena to persuade or dissuade a proposed course of action (3) Epideictic rhetoric, often used in funeral orations to extol the virtues of the dead hero. Its purpose was to confirm what the audience already believed. Although undoubtedly employing rhetoric—the art of persuasion— Hebrews does not fall wholly into any of these three categories. Its rhetoric is not juridical, since it is neither apologetic nor polemical. Parts of its paraenetic sections could be classified as deliberative, since they are aimed at leading the readers to take some paths of action and to avoid others. In other respects, it conforms more closely to epideictic speech. Thus it alternates between praise (see 5:11–6:8) and blame (see 6:9-12) in its paraenetic sections, and in its exposition largely seeks to reinforce already established Christian convictions, notably, that Jesus’ death was the means of his enthronement in heaven as the son of God (see 1:1-4). Hebrews also uses a number of literary devices that act as a guide to its structure. Albert Vanhoye (Structure) has identified these as: • a preliminary announcement of the subject or theme about to be discussed (e.g., Jesus “the merciful and faithful” high priest introduced at 2:17-18 and dealt with in inverse order in 3:1–4:14 [“faithful”] and 4:15–5:10 [“merciful”]); • words that act as “hooks” binding one section to another (e.g., “angel,” which links 1:1-4 to 1:5–2:18);

Introduction

17

• the change of genre between exposition and exhortation, usually introduced by “therefore” or “since” (e.g., 2:2; 3:7; 10:19); • the use of distinctive vocabulary confined to one section (e.g., “rest” from Ps 95 expounded in 3:7–4:11); • inclusions, i.e., the repetition of a striking phrase or word to mark a unit or subunit’s beginning and end (e.g., “high priest” at 4:15 and 5:10), which are used extensively throughout. Although it is generally agreed that Hebrews is perhaps the most wellstructured of all the New Testament’s writings, there is no scholarly consensus as to exactly where one section ends and another begins. (For the various suggestions as to its structure see Lane, vol. 1, lxxxiv-xcviii.) This may well be a reflection of the work itself, which blends the complexity of its constituent parts into a harmonious whole. Any attempt to understand its theology cannot therefore concentrate exclusively upon either its expository or exhortatory sections but must take the interrelationship between the two as the preacher’s message. Put more simply, the texts and biblical themes our preacher chooses to expound are determined by the contemporary needs of his congregation. In turn, the situation he is addressing has colored what he sees in those texts and traditions. It is the interaction between the present of his addresses and the past of his inherited tradition that has created the distinctive message of Hebrews. The analysis of the text and its structure that follows, therefore, is based upon an integrative reading of the work as a whole.

Prologue: The Exaltation of Jesus, the Son of God (Hebrews 1:1–4)

Rather than an epistolary opening that identifies the work’s author and recipients, Hebrews 1:1-4 is a prologue that introduces some of the major themes of what is to follow. What most English translations present as several sentences is in the original one elaborate Greek period (cf. Heb 2:2-4; 3:1215; 5:1-3, 7-10) of a stylistic eloquence rare in the rest of the NT but typical of this particular writing. Its well-balanced clauses, not to mention the effective use of alliteration by the repetition of the letter “p” five times in the first verse, signal an author thoroughly at home both in the Greek language and its literary conventions. The unit itself has a broadly chiastic structure (Ellingworth, Hebrews 56) that begins and ends with the enthronement of the Son (a, a1), claims a creative role for him (b, b1), and establishes his relationship to God (c, c1). Thus the following pattern: a

a1

“the son whom he appointed the heir (klerono¯ mos) of all things” (v. 2ab) b “through whom he created the universe” (v. 2c) c “He reflects the glory of God” (v. 3a) c1 “and bears the very stamp of his nature” (v. 3b) 1 b “upholding the universe by his word of power” (v. 3c) [“when he had made purification for sins” (v. 3d)] “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high having inherited (kekle¯ronome¯ken) a name more excellent than theirs” (i.e., the angels) [vv. 3e-4].

Verses 1-2a sound the twin notes of comparison and contrast that are to recur throughout the rest of the homily. Here, a series of contrasts is drawn between plurality, diversity, and singularity; the past and “these last days”;

20

Prologue: Exaltation of Jesus, the Son of God

“the fathers” and “us”; and the prophets and a son. In each case there is an implicit claim to the superiority both of Jesus and his followers—he, since he is God’s definitive spokesman superseding all who have gone before, and they, since they are living “at the end of these days” (ep’ eschaton to¯ n hemero¯ n touto¯ n). This phrase, used in the LXX (e.g., Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; Jer 23:20) to translate a Hebrew temporal idiom for the future, came to be used in an eschatological sense (see Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1; Hos 3:5; Dan 10:14). The author of Hebrews claims that Christians are living in the eschatological age that immediately precedes the endtime (cf. Heb 9:28; 10:25, 36-39). Such contrasts do not preclude his equal insistence upon continuity between divine revelation and the people of God—past and present. For Hebrews, the genuine inspiration of the OT and its prophetic voice is axiomatic. Indeed, much of his appeal to scripture in what follows would make little sense apart from the assumption that it is the word of God. Reference to the multiplicity and diversity (polymero¯ s kai polytropo¯ s, RSV— “in many and various ways”) of revelation in the past should not, therefore, be understood as pejorative (contra NEB “in fragmentary and piecemeal fashion”). This language could have negative connotations, but equally can be used positively (e.g., Wis 7:22 where God’s spirit of wisdom is “manifold” [polymeres]; and Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 10.8.3 where God’s nature is “varied [poikile¯] and manifold [polytropo¯ s]”). Nonetheless, for our author, the word of God in the past has given way to its superior successor, i.e., the definitive word articulated in Jesus. Scripture is the word of God, but not God’s last word. Hence, as we shall see, it is binding only to the extent that it is amenable to a christological interpretation (see Isaacs, “Hebrews,” 15457). Thus the affirmation with which the unit begins and ends (a, a1) is that the plurality of God’s agents of revelation in the past has given way to the singularity of a son and heir. (The use of houios [son] here without the definite article [cf. 1:5; 3:6; 5:8] points to his unique status, not that he is merely one among many.) The language of son and heir echoes Psalm 2, which not only proclaims the Davidic king God’s son (Ps 2:7; cf. Heb 1:5) but as his heir (LXX, Ps 2:8, “And I will give the Gentiles for your inheritance [kle¯ronomia] and the ends of the earth for your possession”). To the son’s revelatory role is now added a creative one (b, b1, vv. 2c, 3c). Here terms and functions previously ascribed in Jewish tradition to God’s wisdom are transferred to Jesus. In both Hebrew (hokmah) and Greek . (sophia) “wisdom” is a feminine noun, and therefore, not surprisingly, when personified it is as God’s daughter rather than God’s son. In Prov 8:22-31 (a passage that poses a number of translation problems; see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 193-194) wisdom is the daughter of God, present at creation and delighting

Hebrews 1:1–4

21

in her Father’s handiwork. For Philo, she can be not only daughter but also mother: “And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the first-born mother of all things” (Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.97; cf. On Flight and Finding 109; On the Virtues 62). In Greek-speaking Judaism, wisdom plays a more active role than she does in Proverbs. She becomes not only creation’s witness, but also God’s associate (Wis 8:47) and artificer (Wis 7:22), actively engaged in bringing the world into being. We can find the same development in Philo, although he prefers to use the language of “word” (logos) rather than “wisdom” (sophia), perhaps because logos had currency in Hellenistic philosophy. (For an introduction to Philo’s use of logos see Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo, 103-43). For the Stoics, it was the divine principle of reason that permeates the world. Standing firmly within Jewish tradition, Philo was concerned to give that divine principle a transcendent origin and nature. For him, it was the ground plan that God had in mind from the very beginning, even before the universe was created. Philo’s logos is thus quite clearly sophia in another guise. Similarly Hebrews claims that Jesus is God’s firstborn (1:6 uses the synonym pro¯ totokos; cf. Col 1:15), “through whom also he created the universe.” The word translated as “universe” whether (as here) in the plural (hoi aio¯ nes) or in the singular can have either a temporal or a spatial meaning. It can refer to God’s creation of “the ages” (cf. Heb 6:5, 9:26 where it seems to have a temporal referent) or his creation of “the worlds” (cf. Heb 11:26, which seems to echo the Genesis account of the creation of the material world). Given that elsewhere in Hebrews the language of time and space happily jostle together, it is best understood here as referring to both (Buchanan, 6). Furthermore, just as in Jewish tradition wisdom “orders all things” (Wis 8:1) and the word is “the very sure and staunch prop . . . and bond” of the created order (Philo, On Noah’s Work as a Planter 8-9; cf. On Dreams 1.241), so in Hebrews the son’s role extends beyond that of agent in initial creation. He continues to order and sustain it. In c, c1 (v. 3ab) the relationship between Jesus and God, which in a, a1 (vv. 2b, 3e-4) is expressed in terms of Father and son/heir, is developed via the use of the language of resemblance—namely, “reflection” (apaugasma) and “stamp” (charakte¯r). Hellenistic Judaism has previously applied this vocabulary to God’s wisdom/word. Thus the Wisdom of Solomon (7:26) can say of wisdom: “She is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light, A spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image (eiko¯ n) of his goodness” (For the logos as the image of God see Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 97; On Dreams 2.45; On Special Laws 1.81). Philo similarly describes God’s word as his imprint or stamp (On Noah’s Work as a Planter 18). Apaugasma

22

Prologue: Exaltation of Jesus, the Son of God

can have either a passive (“reflection”) or active (“radiance”) meaning. Given that the phrase is better understood as synonymous rather than antithetical parallelism, like charakte¯r, which clearly means that which is imprinted, it too should be understood as passive. What is reflected/imprinted is God’s fundamental being (hypostasis). Our understanding of the use of hypostasis in this context should not be determined by its subsequent use in the later church’s Trinitarian formulations. If anything, its use here is closer to what subsequent creeds came to describe as ousia (substance). Hypostasis was originally a medical or scientific term used of the sediment left at the bottom of a flask. It was introduced into philosophy by the Stoics to denote underlying existence (see Koester, “Hypostasis,” 572-89). In Heb 11:1 faith is the underlying basis or ground (hypostasis) of hope. Here it conveys the notion of the essential being of God: the family likeness (see 4 Macc 15.4 for this use of charakte¯r) that the son bears to his Father. The author of Hebrews is not the only New Testament writer to appropriate Judaism’s wisdom motifs for his own christological purposes (see Matt 11:27-30 [cf. Ecclus 51:53-7]; John 1:1-18; 1 Cor 1:24, 30; 8:6; Col 1:1520. For wisdom in Jewish tradition and the NT’s use of it see Dunn, Christology, 163-212 ). Nowhere in Hebrews’ prologue, however, do we find either the term “wisdom” (unlike 1 Cor 1:24, 30) or logos (unlike John 1:118). The closest parallel is Colossians 1:15-20, where “the firstborn” not only has a cosmic function—in the initial act of creation and the world’s continuing governance, but also an eschatological one—in effecting salvation. It is possible that behind both passages may lie an existing Christian hymn or credal confession, although this and other parallels that are often cited in support of such a contention (e.g., Phil 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16) are insufficiently close to demand a common source. It is far too systematic (not to say simplistic) to detect behind these various NT passages that utilize Jewish wisdom motifs a common pattern of preexistence, incarnation, death, and exaltation (contra Fuller, The Foundation of New Testament Christology, 22021; J. T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns), not least because not every feature in the supposed pattern is present in each “hymn” (see Isaacs Sacred Space, 188-90). Yet whether or not it alludes to a well-known Christian hymn, Hebrews’ prologue clearly affirms what is established Christian belief. Thus its rhetorical style is typically epideictic; i.e., it is intended principally for effect or display rather than to convince the audience of something they do not already believe. (For the different kinds of rhetoric employed in Hebrews, see the Introduction.) The appeal here is to what is already common ground between the speaker and his audience. There is nothing to suggest that this opening is either proposing or opposing

Hebrews 1:1–4

23

a contentious thesis that is to be defended or rebutted in what follows. Rather it begins with a statement of what the readers already believe, utilizing wisdom motifs with which they are already familiar. The one new element distinctive of this epistle is the analogy drawn between the death and exaltation of Jesus and the role of the high priest in the Day of Atonement ceremonies. As yet, this is only hinted at in the phrase, “when he had made purification for sins” (v. 3d). Before introducing his audience to the new, our author sounds well-known bells, not least Psalm LXX 109[MT 110]:1—“The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’.” This is alluded to in the climax of the prologue: “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The first verse of this psalm is one of the most widely used OT texts in the NT (Matt 22:4-6 // Mark 12:35-37 // Luke 20:41-44; Matt 26:64 // Mark 14:62 // Luke 22:69; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; 2:5; Col 3:21; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21), although not always to the same purpose (see Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, 45-47). Most New Testament authors, however, like the author of Hebrews, focus on the psalm’s theme of session and see therein an affirmation of Jesus’ post-resurrection state of heavenly exaltation. This royal psalm originally extolled Israel’s king as God’s vice-regent on earth. His session at God’s right hand was symbolic of his authority and power. His rule was one exercised on behalf of God upon whose sovereignty his own kingship was wholly dependent. For Hebrews, Jesus’ ascension is nothing less than his enthronement as the son of God. Both from his allusion to LXX Ps 109:1 and from the scriptural texts he uses in the unit that follows (1:5-13), it is evident that he draws upon a messianism modeled upon Davidic royal ideology. Yet he does not describe Jesus as “Son of David,” nor is the name he inherits that of “Lord” (cf. Phil 2:11). Hence, neither here nor at any other point where he uses Ps LXX 109:1 (see 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2) does he refer to its opening, “The Lord says to my lord.” In Mark 12:35-37 this phrase plays an essential part in the argument as to the appropriateness or otherwise of using the title “Son of David” for Jesus. There is nothing to suggest that the question of this title was a particular issue for either our author or his audience. His concern is to appeal to what they already accept: that Jesus has been enthroned in heaven as son of God (cf. 4:14; 7:13). The son’s exaltation, therefore, rather than his preexistence, is the major theme of this prologue. The latter may logically be implied in our author’s appropriation of wisdom’s creating and sustaining functions, but this is neither his starting nor his main point. It is therefore misleading to read

24

Prologue: Exaltation of Jesus, the Son of God

Hebrews in terms of the Fourth Gospel’s incarnate logos (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 198-204; contra Williamson, “The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews,” 4-8 et al.). Unlike John 1:1-18, which locates the logos “in the beginning”—i.e., before creation, spatial and temporal—Hebrews begins in time and space with a son through whom God has spoken. Jesus is not identified as the preexistent Word of God, but as the son who articulates that word. If the principal movement in John’s prologue is one of descent, that in Hebrews is one of ascent. Much of the rest of the homily (especially 4:14–10:18) is an exposition of how an earthly event, namely the death of Jesus, may be seen as the means whereby his heavenly exaltation is attained rather than regained. “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high” (v. 3de). Verse 4 picks up the theme of the son’s preeminence and announces the first major unit of this discourse, the son’s superiority to angels (1:5–2:18).

Jesus Excels the Very Angels (Hebrews 1:5–2:18)

This section is clearly delineated both by its theme and by its structure (see Vanhoye, La Structure littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux, 69-74). The topic of Christ’s superiority to the angels initially arises from the homily’s opening affirmation: Jesus has been exalted to heaven. Where does that, therefore, place him in relation to heaven’s other occupants, i.e., the angels? Two rhetorical questions that contain the word “angels” form a framing inclusion to the unit: “For to which angels did he (i.e., God) ever say . . .” (1:5); and “For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned . . .” (2:16). 2:17-18 acts as a bridge between this and the following unit. 1:5–2:18 falls into three subunits, the first and third of which are expository in character, and the second of which is paraenetic: (1:5-14) scriptural confirmation of the son’s incomparability (2:1-4) a warning “aside” to heed the Christian message (2:5-18) the sovereignty and solidarity of the Son of Man Confirmation of the Son’s Incomparable Status (1:5-14) Seven Old Testament texts are cited by way of confirmation of Jesus’ superior status. The argument is advanced by way of three contrasts, each introduced by a biblical citation formula: “For to which of the angels did he ever say“ (v. 5) introduces 1:5-6, Jesus’ status as son, which is the grounds for his supremacy over all—angels included; “Concerning the angels he says” (v. 7), which moves to 1:7-12, the mutability of angels contrasted with the eternal sovereignty of the Son; and “But to which of the angels has he ever said” (v. 13), which once more affirms 1:13-14, the enthronement of the Son of God, with vv. 5 and 13 forming an inclusion. Verse 14 acts as both a

26

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

conclusion to the subunit and an introduction to the paraenetic interlude (2:1- 4) that follows. Jesus as the Son of God (1:5-6)

Verse 5 brings together in a chiastic pattern the twin testimonies of Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam (LXX 2 Kgdms) 7:14/1 Chron 17:13 by way of confirmation: a a1

“You are my son . . . b Today I have begotten you.” (Ps 2:7) b1 “I will be his father . . . and he shall be my son.” (2 Sam 7:14/1 Chron 17:13)

In Jewish tradition, “son” can designate either Israel in general or the wise and righteous among its number in particular (see Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, 21-22, 42-45). It can also be used of angels (Gen 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29[LXX 28]:1; 82[LXX 81]:6; 89[88]:7), although the Septuagintal translators of the book of Job prefer to translate the MT’s “sons” as “angels.” Like its ancient Near Eastern neighbours, Israel also hailed its Davidic kings as “sons of God.” This is reflected in Ps 2:7, a psalm that was probably composed for the occasion of a coronation when Israel’s monarch was enthroned as God’s ruler on earth (see Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 61-64). Long after Davidic monarchy had ceased, this psalm came to be interpreted eschatologically as referring to the hoped-for future Davidic king who would once more reign on God’s behalf (see Psalms of Solomon 17:26 and 1QSa 2.11, first century CE Jewish texts that interpret Ps 2 messianically). In the Synoptic Gospels this text lies behind the words at Jesus’ baptism (Matt 3:17 // Mark 1:11 // Luke 3:22 [western text]) and his transfiguration (Matt 17:5 // Mark 9:7 // Luke 9:35; cf. 2 Pet 1:17). In Acts 13:33 it is applied to Christ’s resurrection (cf. Rom 1:4). It is in this latter tradition, which uses the psalm of Christ’s post-resurrection heavenly exaltation, that Hebrews stands. The “today” when the Davidic king became God’s son for the psalmist was clearly the day of his coronation. But when was the “today” of the “begetting” of great David’s greater son? This question exercised some of the later fathers of the church, and their answers clearly reflect the doctrinal disputes of their own day. Thus for Augustine, the psalm’s “today” refers to Christ’s eternal generation before all worlds, “the day of an unchangeable eternity” (Enchiridion 49); whereas

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

27

for Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 88.3.8) and Hilary (On the Trinity 8.25), it is the occasion of Jesus’ baptism. For Theodore of Mopsuestia and Chrysostom, on the other hand, it refers to Christ’s incarnation. The author of Hebrews has a different agenda from these later commentators, however. He is concerned to depict Jesus’ ascension as the enthronement of the Son of God. Therefore, here the “today” of the psalm refers neither to his preexistence nor to a moment in his earthly life but to his present heavenly status (see Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 55-56 et al.). The source of the second of these twin testimonies to Jesus’ sonship (v. 5b) is uncertain. It is probably to be found in 2 Sam 7:14, Nathan’s prophecy that David would found an everlasting dynasty (cf. 4Q Florilegia, which similarly brings together Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14). On the other hand, it could have been taken from 1 Chron 17:13 (preferred by Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 114-16), which sees the prophecy’s fulfillment in David’s successor and Jerusalem’s temple builder, Solomon. Either way, here a Davidic text is used in support of our author’s contention that Jesus is indeed the messianic Son of God. The apostle Paul appealed to 2 Sam 2:14 to claim divine sonship for all members of the church (2 Cor 6:18; cf. Rev 21:7). The author of Hebrews, however, although keen later in his homily to stress the solidarity between the one son and “many sons” (see Heb 2:10), here (v. 6a) claims the title as evidence of Jesus’ supremacy. Hence, he is God’s “firstborn” (pro¯ totokos; cf. Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Rev 1:5 where Christ is the firstborn of a new creation). Although this term could be applied to Israel (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; cf. Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 46, which uses the synonym pro¯ togonos), in v. 6 we have echoes of LXX Ps 88[MT 89]:27: “I will make him my firstborn (pro¯ totokos), higher than the kings of the earth,” a psalm that was addressed to a Davidic king. “And again” does not refer to a second coming of Christ (contra Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 113), but should be taken with “he (i.e., God) says.” Just as we have seen that the “today” of the son’s begetting in v. 5 refers to his heavenly exaltation rather than his incarnation, so “when he brings the firstborn into the world (oikoumene¯)” in v. 6a is to be read as a reference not to Jesus’ birth (contra Spicq, vol. 2, 17; Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 56) but to his heavenly glorification (see Vanhoye, “L’oikoumene dans l’ Épître aux Hébreux,” 248-53). The LXX usually uses the word oikoumene¯ of the earth’s habitable land (e.g., Exod 16:35). Our author, however, uses it of heaven, “the world to come (oikoumene¯n te¯n mellousan)” (2:5; cf. 6:5, “the age to come”; 13:4, “the city to come”), i.e., that sphere of divine sovereignty that has yet to be established “on earth as it is in heaven.” As one who has

28

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

been enthroned as God’s vice-regent, it is he who receives the angels’ homage. This is confirmed by the scripture, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (v. 6b). This is not to be found in the MT. It is, however, in the LXX version of Deut 32:43. Yet even here only one extant Greek manuscript reads “angels” (angeloi); all the rest have “sons” (houioi). Thus in 4Q Deuteronomy we have, “and prostrate yourselves before him, all you gods.” It would seem that our author’s text (whether in Hebrew or Greek) had “angels” rather than “sons” or “gods,” however (cf. LXX Ps 96:7, “Worship him, all you his angels”; the MT (Ps 97:7) reads, “All you gods bow down before him”), and this fits his purpose admirably. Although part of the heavenly council (see 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Isa 6:6-7), in Jewish tradition angels are not themselves the recipients of worship, but rather God’s ministers (see Jubilees 30:18; 1 Enoch 71; Philo, On the Virtues 74; Testament of Levi 3:3) and worshippers. This point is to be picked up at v. 14. In the original “Song of Moses” it was God who was to be the recipient of heaven’s worship. Hebrews now shifts the text’s referent to Jesus, the Son seated at God’s right hand. In the Life of Adam and Eve 13–14 (probably a late first-century Jewish work; see M. D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” in Charlesworth, 249-95), we find a tradition according to which angels were summoned to worship Adam at his birth. Only Satan refused. There is nothing to suggest, however, that Hebrews is here drawing either upon this text or Paul’s interpretation of Christ as the last Adam (cf. Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:20-23, 45-49; Phil 2:611). Earthly worshippers believed that they were adding their praise to that of the angels in heaven (see Isa 6:3; 1 Enoch 39:10-13; Jubilees 2:2, 18; 15:27; 31:14; 1QSb 4.25-6). On the evidence of Col 2:18 and Rev 19:10 and 22:8, in some circles solidarity with the angels in worship had gone further to become worship of the angels themselves. Nothing in this epistle, however, would lead us to believe that its author is addressing the problem of angel worship (contra Manson, “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 1-17; Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5-13), nor attempting to refute a belief that Christ was an angel (contra Bakker, “Was Christ an Angel?,” 255-65). That issue was to be discussed by later Christian authors (e.g., Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 34.2; Hermas, Similitude 8.36.3; 9.12.7-8; Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 6). The contrasts drawn between Jesus and the angels in this unit, however, have a positive rather than a negative purpose. They are used to demonstrate that he is Son rather than to show that he is not an angel.

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

29

Instability of Angels vs. Sovereignty of Jesus (1:7-12)

Using (v. 7) the LXX of Ps 103:4, “Who makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire,” Hebrews can claim that scripture shows angels are so unstable that God, if He so chooses, can reduce them to the elemental forces of wind and fire. We meet a similar understanding of the mutability of angels in 4 Ezra 8:21: “Before whom (heaven’s) hosts stand trembling And at your word change to wind and fire.” (For the instability of angels in rabbinical tradition see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zur Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 3, 678.) The MT of this text, on the other hand, conveys something quite different: “Who makes the winds your messengers, flames of fire your servants” (Ps 104:4) means that God is so transcendent that He can use the very winds and flames as personal envoys (cf. Exodus Rabbah 25.86a: “They sit and stand at his will, and appear in the form of a man or a woman, or even as wind and fire”). By way of contrast with the son, two further texts are cited to demonstrate his eternity as opposed to their transience: LXX Ps 44[MT 45]:6-7 in vv. 8-9 and LXX Ps 101:26-28 (MT 102:25-27) in vv. 10-12. As its opening “I address my verse to the king” indicates, Psalm 44 was originally composed as an encomium to Israel’s monarch, probably on the occasion of a royal wedding. Both in its Hebrew original and the Greek version we find here, v. 6, “Ho thronos sou ho theos eis to¯ n aio¯ na tou aio¯ nos” is amenable to more than one translation. Hence the RSV translates Ps 45:6, “Thy divine throne is for ever and ever,” taking “God” as adjectival, presumably on the assumption that no Davidic king would have been addressed as “God.” It relegates the alternative, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (which reads “God” as vocative) to the margin. Strikingly, there is an aboutturn when the RSV comes to the self-same text in Heb 1:8. Now its translators prefer the latter interpretation, presumably because they think it is more likely that Jesus would have been called “God” by a first-century Christian author (so Brown, “Does the NT Call Jesus God?,” 545-73 who includes Heb 1:8-9 along with John 1:1; 20:28 in the affirmative) than a Davidic king would have been addressed as “God” in Jewish tradition. Alternatively, the phrase can be translated with God as the subject as, “God is your throne forever” (so Wycliffe, Tyndale, Moffatt, Westcott et al.), or with God as the predicate as, “Your throne is a throne of God” (Buchanan, 20), in which case Jesus is not called “God” in this text. It is not inconceivable that a Davidic king could have been addressed as “god,” since in Israel’s tradition, while Yahweh alone is God, His delegates

30

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

are occasionally called “gods,” although more often “sons of God.” Thus in Exodus 7:1 Moses is assured that Yahweh will present him to Pharaoh “as a god.” Although Ps 82[LXX 81]:6, “You are gods, sons of the Most High,” probably originally referred to angelic beings, in Jewish tradition these words later came to be interpreted as addressed to Israel at Sinai; made holy as a consequence of receiving the Law, reversing the judgment of death upon Adam, and thereby becoming a new creation (see Neyrey, “I said ‘You Are Gods’: Psalm 82:.6 and John 10,” 647-63). In John 10:34-36 where this particular text is used to rebut charges of blasphemy leveled against Jesus, it seems to be understood in this sense; as scripture testifies, the title “god” or “son of God” can be conferred by God upon His delegates. If LXX Ps 44[MT 45]:6 is to be translated “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” then not only Moses, the angels, and Israel at Sinai but also David and his successors were designated “god” (theos). In this case both the psalmist and his Christian interpreter are prepared to designate the Lord’s “anointed” (see v. 9) theos, although not in the absolute sense of ho theos. That title is reserved for the One who does the anointing (“Therefore God [ho theos] your God has anointed you,” v. 9; cf. Isa 61:1). Hebrews, therefore, here (as throughout the whole catena of OT texts cited in this chapter) depicts Jesus as a royal messiah, whose reign on God’s behalf is characterized by righteousness and peace, and whose anointing surpasses that of his “comrades,” i.e., the angels. Above all, the emphasis here is upon the immutability (“for ever and ever,” v. 8) of the son’s reign in the kingdom of God. LXX Ps 101:26-28 (MT 102:25-27), cited in vv. 10-12, provides further evidence of the eternity of the son’s rule. Unlike the LXX, our author brings “You” to the beginning of the sentence by way of emphasis; turns the future tense “You will remain” into a present “You remain”; and, again by way of emphasis, adds “like a garment” (v. 12). In spite of these differences, the text of the psalm in Hebrews is closer to the LXX than the MT. Like the LXXB, it has the verb “to roll up” (helissein) rather than the MT’s “to change” (allassein; also found in LXXA and in some manuscripts of Heb 1:12). More importantly, in its Hebrew form this psalm of lament is addressed by the supplicant to God throughout. In his distress the speaker moves from a realization of his own mortality and finitude to an affirmation of the Creator’s eternity. This in turn leads him to praise the God in whose hands the future of His people can safely be entrusted. In the LXX, however, from v. 23 onward the speaker is God, addressing another as “Lord,” and assuring him that, although not now, the time will shortly come when the fortunes of His people will be restored. The Greek translators seem to have read the Hebrew ‘inna¯ h (“he humbled”) as `ana¯ h (“he answered”). Presumably they

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

31

understood these verses either as God addressing Wisdom, His agent in creation, and/or speaking to an Israelite monarch, assuring him of the permanence of his dynasty. There is little or no evidence that this psalm was interpreted messianically by the rabbis. Nonetheless, the LXX provides an opportunity for the author of Hebrews to do so. He sees in it a reference to Jesus, the Son of God, addressed as “Lord,” (“Jesus is Lord” seems to have been one of the earliest confessions in the church; see Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 195-237) and claims for him both a role in creation (see v. 2) and a permanent sovereignty over the whole created order, including not only the earth but also heaven and its angelic occupants (see Gen 1:8; 14:19; Ps 121:2 for heaven as part of God’s creation). Thus (LXX) Psalms 103, 44, and 101 demonstrate the permanence, stability, and eternity of the son’s messianic rule as opposed to the mutability of angels. This is evidence of the son’s superior status. Enthronement of the Son of God (1:13-14)

This catena of OT quotations concludes with the citation of LXX Ps 109[MT 110]:1, a text that was alluded to in the prologue (v. 3b) and to which our author will return (8:1; 10:12; 12:2). The first verse of the psalm is used throughout this epistle to claim that, by virtue of his death and resurrection, Jesus is now enthroned in heaven. In Jewish tradition, to be “seated at the right hand ” is to be in the position of highest esteem (see 1 Kgs 2:19; Ecclus 12:2). Hence the righteous will have their thrones near God (4 Maccabees 17:5; 1 Enoch 108.12), and more particularly the martyrs will have thrones at God’s right hand (Apocalypse of Elijah 37.3-4). Wisdom is she who sits beside God’s throne (Wis 9:4; 18:15). The Qumran Covenanters expected the messiah, “the branch of David,” in the last days to occupy “a throne of glory” (4Q Florilegium 1.10-11). Ps 110 was accepted as referring to a future messiah not only in Christian but also in some first-century Jewish circles. Hence in Mark 12:3537 it is common ground between Jesus and the scribes that it has a messianic referent. (For its messianic interpretation in rabbinical literature see Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 4, 452-65.) We have already noted (see v. 3) that Ps 110:1 is one of the most commonly cited Old Testament texts in the New Testament. Hebrews, however, is the only New Testament author to use the psalm’s fourth verse: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek’” (quoted in 5:6; 6:20; 7:17 and alluded to in 4:14; 5:10; 7:3, 11, 21, 24; 8:1), which he does

32

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

in his depiction of the death and ascension of Jesus as a priestly act. Strikingly, apart from Hebrews, it is not until Justin Martyr in the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 32.6; 33; 118;1-2) that we find it in any other Christian writing. It is evident that this psalm, originally addressed as an oracular blessing to an Israelite king, bringing together as it does the themes of sonship, sovereignty, priesthood, and enthronement, is the single most important text used by the author of Hebrews. For G. W. Buchanan (xii-xxii), the whole of the letter is a homiletic midrash (i.e., biblical interpretation) on Ps 110. Important as this psalm is, however, it is impossible to claim it (contra Buchanan ) as the preacher’s one text. At least three other OT passages (Ps 8:4-6; Ps 95:7-11; and Jer 31:31-34) are also treated at length and could each lay claim to be the sermon’s “text.” Richard Longenecker (164-67) has identified no less than thirty-eight citations and fifty-five allusions to the OT in Hebrews. Ps 110, therefore, is one—albeit an important one—among a number of texts explicated by our author. Using the psalm as scriptural “proof ” of the son’s exalted position, this must mean that Jesus outranks the angels. This exegetical comment on the text takes the form of a rhetorical question, “Are they (i.e., the angels) not all ministering spirits sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” (v. 14), expecting the answer, “Yes.” The phrase “ministering spirits” (leitourgika pneumata) picks up the servant status of angels from LXX Ps 103:4 (pneumata / leitourgoi) cited in v. 7. In the LXX “minister” (leitourgos) is predominantly used within a cultic context of those who serve God in His sanctuary (see Isa 61:6; Ecclus 7:30; 2 Esdras 20:40). It can also be used noncultically (see 2 Kgdms 13:18; 3 Kgdms 10:5). In v. 14 the thought progresses from the angels’ ministering role in heaven to their function of service (diakonia) on earth. Philo of Alexandria describes the angels as a type of those disembodied souls who “are consecrated and devoted to the service of the Father and Creator whose wont is to employ them as ministers and servants (diakonoi), to have charge and care of mortal men” (On the Giants 12). Hebrews will go on to show (2:5-18) that these heavenly beings, far from being sovereign, are but God’s envoys, sent to serve “those who are to inherit salvation,” namely, humanity. It is possible that the seven OT texts we find here used to demonstrate the son’s incomparable status may have already been brought together in a Christian testimonia (so Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures, 3.). The Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q Testimonia and 4Q Florilegia) provide evidence of such collections of messianic prooftexts within Judaism in the first century. Similarities between Heb 1:5-14 and 1 Clement 36:1-6 would also lend credence to the

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

33

suggestion that Hebrews was drawing upon a common Christian testimonia, but only if it could be demonstrated that 1 Clement (a work usually dated c. CE 96) was independent of Hebrews. It is more likely, however, that the author of 1 Clement is here using Hebrews, rather than that they were both drawing upon an independent source (see Lane, vol. 1, 23-24). Therefore, we cannot be sure that the list we find here is one that our author has inherited. He may have brought it together himself. He clearly assumes, however, that his audience is familiar with these texts, which he appeals to not so much to prove a new argument as to reaffirm what is already accepted Christian belief. In his understanding of Jesus’ sonship the author of Hebrews is largely indebted to a royal Davidic messianism. Hence he draws upon passages, many of which in their original context addressed a Davidic king and/or had been given a messianic interpretation in Jewish and Christian circles of the first century. In the face of this, G. W. Buchanan’s contention (15) that there is no evidence that the author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as Davidic messiah seems wholly untenable. It is precisely because Hebrews accepts that Jesus was “descended from Judah” (7:14) that the author obliged to establish a non-Levitical model for Jesus’ priesthood. In Jewish tradition it was impossible to be a member of more than one tribe. Therefore, if Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, he could not simultaneously be of the priestly tribe of Levi (see 8:4). Since our author stands in the mainstream tradition that believed in Jesus’ Davidic descent (contra Buchanan), he could not at the same time claim for him Levitical priesthood. From the second century BC onward, Israel’s monarchs were Levitical priests rather than Davidic kings, although from the time of Aristobolus 1 (104/3 BC) they claimed the title “king” as well as high priest. No doubt they used Ps 110 (which most OT scholars think was originally written of a Davidic king), which addresses the monarch as a priest (albeit it “after the order of Melchizedek”) to defend their own claims to the title “king.” Nonetheless, the Hasmoneans were principally Levitical priest-kings rather than Davidic king-priests. Given Hebrews’ appeal to Davidic texts as the basis for Jesus’ sonship and his insistence upon his Melchizedekian, i.e., non- Levitical priesthood, it is impossible to believe that Hebrews’ principal model for Jesus’ sonship is that of the Hasmonean high priesthood rather than Davidic kingship. As Heb 1:5–2:28 demonstrates, Son of God rather than high priest (whether Levitical or Melchizedekian) is the supreme title claimed for Jesus, which exalts him not only (as in this unit) above the angels, but also above Moses and the Levitical high priesthood (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 178).

34

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

A Warning “Aside” (2:1-4) This paraenetic “interlude” is the first of a number where our author interrupts his exposition in order to address his audience directly and to confront them with the implications of what he has been saying (see 3:12-14; 4:1-11; 5:11–6:20; 10:19-39; 12:1-4, 12-29). In each case the exhortation is integral to what immediately precedes and follows it. Thus here the theme of “ministering spirits” (1:14)/“angels” (2:5) frames the subunit. 2:1-4 picks up from 1:14 the angels’ role as God’s messengers on earth. Most of chapter 1 has concentrated upon their status vis-à-vis the Son of God in heaven. Having established the Son’s sovereignty there, 2:5-18 will go on to claim his sovereignty over angels on earth as well. In the meanwhile, Hebrews spells out a major implication of what has been said to date: “Because of this” (dia touto) (2:1). “This” (touto) clearly refers to more than the immediately preceding verse. It includes all that the preacher has said to date, namely, that God’s definitive word has been spoken through His Son in “these last days” (1:2), and that by virtue of his exaltation as Son he is superior to heaven’s other occupants, the angels. 2:1-4 takes the form of a statement (v. 1), its justification (vv. 2-3a), and its validation (vv. 3b-4). A Command to Heed the Christian Message (2:1)

The audience is commanded to pay the “closest” possible attention to what they have heard, i.e., the message of God’s salvation proclaimed by Jesus (v. 3). The comparative “closer” (perissotero¯ s) here is better understood (as is frequently the case in koine¯ Greek) as a superlative. At this stage in the homily there is nothing to suggest that what is being demanded is a closer attention to the Christian gospel as opposed to Mosaic Torah. As the prologue clearly shows (1:1), for Hebrews, what the church subsequently came to call the “Old Testament” is the inspired word of God. Hence he introduces his biblical citations by “He (God) said” (1:5; 4:3, 4; 5:5; 6:16; 8:5; 10:30; 12:26; 13:5) or “says” (1:6, 7; 5:6; 8:8; cf. 3:7, “The Holy Spirit says”). Not only has our author just appealed to these scriptures to confirm the sovereign sonship of Jesus, but in what follows he also will use the OT in the conviction that it is the vehicle of divine revelation. Nonetheless, for the author of Hebrews, God’s last word is that which has been articulated by His son (v. 3, “salvation which has been spoken by the Lord”). Like the angels, scripture is thus subordinated rather than denigrated. Therefore, “What we

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

35

have heard” (v. 1) may include the scriptural prooftexts just cited; but above all, it refers to the Christian gospel. Whatever may have been the occasion of this homily, in such paraenetic “asides” we may detect its author’s strong pastoral motivation. Above all, he seems concerned that his audience should not abandon their Christian faith. We cannot be certain as to what specifically led to their crisis of faith, not least because what the author of Hebrews has to say about their situation can and has given rise to numerous supposed scenarios (see Introduction). Our author uses a variety of images of the danger he thinks they face. Here it is “drifting.” The verb “to drift” (para[r]rein) literally means “to flow by.” Clearly here it is used in its metaphorical sense, “to slip away” (cf. Plato, Laws 781a where it is used of something that slips the memory). The same verb is used in the LXX of Prov 3:21 where we find a similar exhortation not to let God’s counsel “slip away.” Yet, although Prov 3:11-2 is quoted in Heb 12:5-6, we cannot assume on the basis of this one verb that here we have an allusion to Prov 3:21. Some commentators (e.g., Lane, vol. 1, 35) interpret this as a nautical metaphor, of a ship driven off course (cf. Heb 6:19, which describes hope as “the sure and steadfast anchor of the soul”). More likely, however, is it that here we have one of a number of general images used to convey the notion of losing direction or otherwise giving up. Hence in 3:12 the recipients of this letter are warned of the dangers of “falling away” (apiste¯mi) from the living God; in 4:1 of “falling short” (hysterene¯in) of reaching the promised land; and in 4:11 of “falling” (piptein) as a result of their disobedience. This is a group of people who need to be encouraged to “hold fast” to their confession (4:14); to persevere (12:1) and not give up hope (10:35). To achieve this end, Hebrews alternates between employing the carrot and the stick. Justification for the Command (2:2-3a)

The justification for the command to heed the Christian message takes the form of a rhetorical question, “For if . . . how shall we escape?” which encapsulates an a fortiori (“How much more?” cf. Heb 2:2-4; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:15) argument. This is not only an established rhetorical device; the appeal from the smaller to the greater (Qal va-.ho¯ mer = “light and heavy”) is also an exegetical principle well known among the rabbis (see Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis,” 130-32). In this case the lesser is “the word (logos) spoken through (dia) the angels” (v. 2); the greater, “(the word of ) salvation that was spoken through (dia) the Lord” (v. 3). [For “Lord” as a name for

36

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

Jesus see 7:14; 13:20.] Although in the latter case the word is one of salvation, the contrast drawn here is not so much between the messages as the messengers. Whether through angels or the Lord, it is God who speaks (see the passive voice of the verb “to speak” [lalein] in both v. 2 and v. 3). The claim, therefore, is that Jesus is the superior (but not sole) mediator of God’s word. Unlike John 1:1-18, in Hebrews the son is depicted not as the word incarnate but as the word’s mouthpiece (see 1:1-4). Dia is therefore better translated as “through” since it denotes agency. This discussion of the relative status of the Lord and the angels as God’s spokesmen seems to reflect a tradition that had grown up whereby angels were thought to be not only mediators of God’s word in general, but of Mosaic Torah in particular. Although they do not figure in the Exodus (19–20) account of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, Deut 33:2, “The Lord came from Sinai . . . he came from ten thousands of his holy ones” (cf. Ps 68:17), seems to have been interpreted as indicating their presence by the LXX, which adds “and angels were with him at his right hand.” It is but a short step from the angels’ presence on the occasion of the giving of the Law to their mediating it. In the book of Jubilees (a second century BCE work) angels have a revelatory role. This work takes the form of an account of what God revealed to Moses during the forty days he was on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:18). Chapters 2–50 constitute the content of this revelation, transmitted through “the angel of the Presence” (Jubilees 1:27). Although this apocalypse begins with the history of God’s dealings with his people from the time of creation and broadly surveys some of the events covered by Genesis 1–Exodus 12, it is by no means limited either in scope or content to the Pentateuch. Hence, part of the angel’s revelation concerns the future yet to come (Jubilees 23:9-32). “The book of the first laws” in 6:22 is almost certainly a reference to the Torah, but Jubilees is more by way of a presentation of a second book of law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 38). It is for this, his own interpretation of the Law of Moses, that its author claims angelic mediation. The New Testament provides the first unequivocal evidence of a belief in angels as mediators of the Law at Sinai (see Acts 7:35, 38; Gal 3:19), which we find in later rabbinical writings (e.g., Midrash on Ps 68:10 and Pesiqta Rabbati 21). Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (13.136) is frequently cited in support of such a tradition, although this passage is also problematic. In the Loeb edition of Josephus’ works (vol. 8, 66 n.a) Ralph Marcus maintains that angeloi here should be translated “messengers,” since it refers to the law’s transmission by priests and/or prophets (cf. LXX Mal 2:7) rather than by heavenly beings. Moreover, while in keeping with a general trend in postexilic Judaism, angels play a part in

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

37

Philo’s theology, they are not afforded by him a role in the mediation of the Torah. That honour is reserved for Moses. By and large the same can be said of the writers of the New Testament, Hebrews included (see 3:1-6) Here, however, there seems to be an allusion to the tradition of the angels’ role in the process, as is evidenced by our author’s use of juridical language, which would suggest that here “the word spoken through the angels” refers to the Law. Since it has “legal validity” (bebaios; cf. v. 3 “was validated” [ebebaio¯ the¯]), its infringement incurs “just retribution” (endikon misthapodosian) (v. 2). The word misthapodosia (found in the NT only in Hebrews and nowhere in the LXX) can have either a positive sense of “reward” (as in 10:35; 11:26) or, as here, a negative one. In 11:5 God is the “rewarder” (misthapodote¯s). Legal terminology is also to be found in v. 4 with the verb “to give corroborative testimony” (synepimarturein; common in secular Greek but found nowhere else either in the LXX or the NT). Validation of the Command (2:3b-4)

In vv. 3b-4 appeal is made to that which validates or confirms the word of salvation that had its origin (arche¯) in the proclamation of Jesus. These are: (i) the testimony of “those who heard him” (the author neither here nor elsewhere in this epistle claims to be one of the original disciples of Jesus) which is (ii) corroborated by God through (iii) “signs, wonders, and miracles” (mighty acts, dunameis). The phrase should be taken as referring to the saving acts of God in general, rather than understood as designating three separate types of activity. “Signs and wonders” is a phrase that is commonly understood in this sense in the Bible (cf. Deut. 4:34; 6:27; Ps 135:9; Jer 32:20; Neh 9:10; Matt 24:28; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12). The triple formula, which includes “miracles,” is found in Acts 2:22 and 2 Cor 12:12. In John 5:36 God and the “works” (erga) that Jesus perform are cited as two independent witnesses to the truth that he is, in fact, the one sent from God. Here, however, the thought is not of these as two separate guarantors. Rather the “signs, wonders, and various miracles” are the means whereby God corroborates the truth of the definitive word spoken through His Son. Furthermore, mighty works are not alone as testators; they are joined by other “distributions (merismoi) of the Holy Spirit.” Like the apostle Paul, our author attributes not only miracle-working (cf. Rom 15:19; Gal 3:5; 2 Thess 2:9) to the power of God’s Spirit, but also a whole diversity of gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-12) now bestowed upon the Christian community (cf. Heb 6:4 where the Holy Spirit is a heavenly gift granted to

38

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

the believer). Elsewhere in Hebrews the emphasis is not so much upon the Spirit’s role in empowering Christian action upon it as the source of scripture’s inspiration (see 3:7, 9; 9:8; 10:15). Here, however, the deeds that it empowers are appealed to by way of justifying our author’s claim that the word spoken through Jesus is supreme and therefore must above all be heeded. Thus the verbal testimony of those who originally heard Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel and the Spirit-inspired deeds of his contemporary followers validate the truth of his message. The Sovereignty and Solidarity of the Son of Man (2:5-18) This section resumes the scriptural exposition of 1:5-14 with its aim of demonstrating that Jesus excels the angels, as is evident from the inclusion “not angels” in vv. 5 and 16 that frames the section. Verses 17-18 act as a bridge passage that at once concludes the topic of angels (hereafter, angels have but a passing reference; cf. 12:22 and 13:2) and introduces the theme of Jesus as “a merciful and faithful high priest.” 2:5-18 falls into two main parts: vv. 5-9, which are concerned with the sovereignty of the Son of Man; and vv. 10-18, which affirm his solidarity with his followers. In each case, scripture is cited by way of substantiation. Clearly the particular texts have been selected for the preacher’s purpose. Equally clearly, they are interpreted by him in such a way as to back up what he already believes. In this Hebrews is not unique. The author’s Jewish and Christian contemporaries similarly appealed to scripture to confirm and reinforce their teaching. Yet, unlike the Jewish midrashists of the rabbinical period (see Alexander, “Midrash,” 452-59), his starting point is not scripture but his Christian faith. It can therefore be misleading to classify Hebrews as “midrash” (= interpretation of scripture), since neither in 1:5–2:18 nor elsewhere in the homily is the OT the “text” from which its author deduces faith. Rather, his beliefs about Jesus are the “text” through whose prism he reads scripture (see Introduction). This is evident from the way Hebrews introduces Ps 8:4-6 (MT, vv. 5-7), “Someone has solemnly testified somewhere” (v. 6). This signals neither ignorance of the biblical source he is using nor indifference to its authority. Philo, in his treatise On Drunkenness (61), can introduce Genesis 20:12 with the formula, “For it is said somewhere.” Like Hebrews, this is written in a context where a whole plethora of biblical texts (in Philo’s case from the Pentateuch) are cited. Similarly, in Hebrews, Psalm 8 is one of a number of OT passages used. In keeping with our author’s usual practice, he does not overtly identify the source of this

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

39

particular biblical quotation. Nonetheless, he clearly regards the OT as the inspired word of God that witnesses (“solemnly testifies”) to the truth of the Christian gospel. The Sovereignty of the Son of Man (2:5-9)

As is the case with most of the citations in Hebrews, Psalm 8:4-6 in vv. 6-8a follows the LXX rather than the MT. “And set him over the works of his hands,” found in both the Hebrew and the Greek versions, is omitted (although it is added by a number of manuscripts at the end of v. 7, probably as a result of Christian copyists assimilating to the LXX of Ps 8:7, where the phrase completes the couplet). In the MT the psalmist marvels at the exalted status given by God to humankind at creation (cf. Gen 1:26-30). God has created man/the Son of man with a sovereignty over the cosmos scarcely less than His own. “You have made him little less than Elohim,” i.e., God (so the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and most modern commentators). Hebrews, however, following the LXX, takes elohim here as a reference to the angels (cf. the Targums, the Vulgate, the Syriac versions, and the AV). Since the psalm is about the stature of humankind vis-à-vis God (MT) or the angels (LXX), brachu ti in the LXX is best translated “a little lower.” It can also signify duration, however, and therefore mean “a little while” or “ a short time.” It is in this latter sense that the author of Hebrews interprets the psalm. He may be concerned to discuss the relative status of Jesus and the angels, but nowhere does he concede that the son’s position is lower or even “a little lower” than theirs. He therefore sees in the psalm affirmation of: a

Man’s temporary subordination (v. 7a) b His enthronement (v. 7b) c His sovereignty (v. 8a)

By way of emphasizing the sovereignty theme, in his comments upon the psalm he takes the last first. Thus we have the following structure: a1 b1

c1 His sovereignty (v. 8b) His temporary subordination (vv. 8c-9a) His enthronement (v. 9b)

40

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

As the repetition of the verb “to subject” (hypotasserein) in vv. 5, 8a, and 8b shows, “Who rules?” is the implied question. From Ps 8 our author claims that the answer is clearly, “Man (= Adam), not the angels.” In the beginning it was human and not heavenly beings who were granted the authority to rule over the created order on God’s behalf. Hebrews’ main concern, however, is not with protology but eschatology. He is speaking of “the world to come” (v. 5; cf. 6:5, “the age to come”; 13:4, “the city to come”), i.e., new creation, which as yet lies in the future. That “world” (oikoumene¯ ; cf. 1:6), more often described in Hebrews as “heaven,” is the eschatological goal of the people of God (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 205-19) that has yet to be realized (see 4:1-11; 9:11; 10:1) except by Jesus who alone has attained it. “Putting everything in subjection under his feet” (v. 8) picks up the theme of subjugation from Ps 110:1, “until I make your enemies your footstool ” (cited at 1:13), and extends that sovereignty to “everything” (see 1 Cor 15:25-7 and Eph 1:20, 22 where Pss 110 and 8 are combined to make the same point). This is glossed by the exegetical comment, “He left nothing outside his control.” As all his comments upon the psalm make clear, Hebrews sees in the exaltation of one man, Jesus, the fulfillment of God’s intention for all humanity. Yet, much as the NRSV translation “human beings”/“mortals” brings out this corporate emphasis, it obscures the fact that it is precisely because the text of the psalm has the singular “man,” “son of man” that our author is able to apply it to Jesus. However else it is used in other New Testament writings, in Hebrews “son of man” is not used as a title for Jesus (contra Buchanan, 35-51). As in Ps 8, here we find a son of man rather than the Son of Man. There is much scholarly debate about the significance of this phrase, both in Jewish and Christian sources (for a brief summary of the main issues and the secondary literature, see Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 73-74). In the Synoptic Gospels “the son of man” is a phrase found on the lips of Jesus (e.g., Matt 8:20 // Luke 9:58; Matt 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:24; Matt 10:23; 16:27-8; Matt 17:9// Mark 9:9, etc.), although it is not always clear whether it refers to Jesus himself or some other figure. Did he in fact use the phrase ? And if so, did he always use it in the same sense? Was it a messianic title in pre-Christian Judaism, or did it become so as a result of Christian interpretation? Most scholars agree that in first century CE Jewish sources it is not used as a messianic title. Hebrews would seem to lend support to this contention. Hence, unlike the OT texts cited in 1:5-14, many of which were understood messianically and accordingly employed there to stress Jesus’ unique status, here the “man”/”son of man” of Ps 8 is used to emphasize his solidarity with his followers (cf. 2:11). In this respect Hebrews is closer to the Adamic overtones of the psalmist.

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

41

Unlike the apostle Paul (e.g., 1 Cor 15:21-2; cf. Rom 6:2-21), however, the author of Hebrews does not overtly develop the notion of Christ as the last Adam. Understanding the psalm’s phrase “a little less” as “for a little while,” verses 8b-9a interpret this temporal referent as applying to two brief intervals: that between Jesus’ heavenly enthronement and his exercise of sovereignty on earth, and that between his death and exaltation. In v. 8b, “As it is we do not yet see everything in subjection to him,” it is not clear to whom “him” refers. It could mean either humankind in general, in which case this would be the author’s comment to the effect that, in spite of the psalmist’s claims, we as yet see no evidence of humanity’s command of the world; or Jesus, whose reign on earth has yet to be established. If we have to choose, given that the author of Hebrews identifies the “man” of the psalm with Jesus, the second seems more likely. Yet, since the solidarity between Jesus and his followers is the topic that is taken up immediately in what follows (vv. 10-18), it is not so much a case of either/or as both/and. For the present time neither Jesus nor the humanity he represents has dominion over the created order. That must await his return (9:28). The period between now and then, however, is a short one. In v. 9a, “But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, because he suffered death crowned with glory and honor,” the death of Jesus is presented as a brief interlude between his earthly life and heavenly exaltation. Thus, far from indicating his inferiority to the angels, it was the necessary route to his enthronement. How this is so will be explicated in the major section of the homily (4:14–10:18) that draws upon Israel’s Day of Atonement rites. In these, sacrifice is the essential prerequisite for the entry of the high priest into the Holy of Holies. With this analogy in mind, if Jesus’ entry into heaven may be likened to the entry of the high priest into the inner shrine, then the time between the sacrifice and the high priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies is short. Jesus’ death is thus but the brief prelude to his exaltation. Some manuscripts have “so that apart from God (cho¯ ris theou) he might taste death for everyone” at v. 9b, rather than the better attested translation “by the grace of God (chariti theou).” This reading was accepted by some of the early fathers and has found favor with some modern commentators, although they are not of one mind as to its meaning (see Hughes, 94-97). Hence “cho¯ ris theou” has been translated as: (i) “God being excepted” from the “everyone” for whom Christ died (so Origin and Theodoret); (ii) “his divine nature apart,” i.e., only Jesus’ humanity not his divinity experienced death (so Ambrose and Theodore of Mopsuestia); and (iii) “when he was separated from God.” This takes the phrase as a reference

42

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

to Jesus’ sense of desertion on the cross (cf. Mark 15:34; so J. K. Elliott, “When Jesus was Apart from God,” 339-41 et al.). More likely, however, on both the external and internal evidence, is the reading “by the grace of God.” This portrays the death of Jesus as God’s gracious act (cf. 10:29) whereby His original intention for all humanity has been fulfilled in the exaltation of one man. The Solidarity of the Son of Man with His Followers (2:10-18)

The representative nature of the son of man of Ps 8 is now taken up, and the thought turns from Jesus’ sovereignty over the created order to his solidarity with his fellows. Although the universalistic note of the psalm is not wholly abandoned, the main focus now is upon Jesus’ bond with the believer. Hence, the “everyone” of v. 9 gives way to the “many sons” of v. 10. God not only leads the son to his appointed end (= “make perfect”; see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 101-108, and Heb 5:8 for further discussion of the language of perfection in Hebrews) of heavenly exaltation; through his death, He (i.e., God, who is clearly the subject of v. 10) leads “many sons” to the “glory” promised by the psalmist (cf. v. 7), which our author interprets as unhampered access to God. As the “leader” or “pioneer” (arche¯gos, cf. 12:2; Acts 3:15; 5:31), Jesus is first and foremost but by no means alone on this journey. Commentators are divided as to whether arche¯gos should be translated as leader, ruler, (Davidic) prince, instigator, or pioneer (see Attridge, 87-88). William Lane (vol. 1, 62-63) prefers “champion,” since in both pagan and Jewish writings the word was used of divine heroes (see Knox, “The Divine Hero Christology of the NT,” 229-49). Thus it described supposed founders and defenders of cities such as Aeneas of Rome or the goddess Athena of Athens (Plato, Timaeus 21E). Josephus (Against Apion 1.130) describes Moses as the arche¯gos of the Hebrew nation. Preeminently, in the OT it is Yahweh who champions Israel against its enemies (e.g., Isa 42:13; 49:24-6). Given that Hebrews goes on to explore the “salvation” of which Jesus is the arche¯gos in terms of entry into the promised land, entry into the shrine’s Holy of Holies, and entry into heaven, the term here probably carries with it a whole complex of associations, not least that of the “forerunner” (prodromos, 6:20), who goes ahead of his followers into the presence of God. The means whereby this is achieved is his death, depicted in the main section of the homily as the sacrifice that removes the barrier of sin and that consecrates the offerer to the service of God. Both leader and follower, sanctifier and sanctified are united in the one family of God (v. 11, ex henos

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

43

pantes, RSV “have all one origin”). Although Hebrews goes on to appeal to a common humanity as the basis of the unity between Jesus and his followers (cf. vv. 14-16), here it is neither Adam, the “father” of the human race, nor Abraham, the “father” of the Jewish people who is the “one” from whom both Jesus and his followers derive their origin, but God, the Father of both Jesus and those who are counted among his family. This solidarity is confirmed by three OT citations: LXX Ps 21[MT 22]:22 in v. 12; LXX Isa 8:17 (“I will put my trust in him”; cf. MT, “I will look for him”) in v. 13a; and Isa 8:18 in v. 13b. The first two are used to demonstrate that Jesus is one with the assembled (cf. v. 12, ekkle¯sia) people of God in praising and trusting Him. All other NT authors who cite Ps 22 use the lament section of its opening (cf. Mark 15:34, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” = Ps 22:1). Hebrews, however, draws upon its concluding praise. Clearly this psalm is chosen by our author because of its phrase “my brethren,” which he wishes to identify with the Christian community (ekkle¯sia). The second OT text is chosen because it emphasizes one of the important themes of this homily: trust and fidelity (cf. 2:17; 3:1–4:13; 10:19–12:29). The third text, Isa 8:18, like the first, with its reference to “the children whom God [MT, “the Lord”] has given me,” reinforces the claim to an affinity between Jesus and the rest of humanity. At this point (vv. 14-15), in drawing inferences from the texts he has just cited for the benefit of his audience, our author goes beyond claiming a bond between Jesus and the community of faith alone to a more inclusive one; Jesus is one with us because he shares our common humanity. Not least, that includes mortality. “Flesh and blood” was an established phrase that signified not only human nature but also the change, decay, and death which that entails. So Ben Sira writes: “Like flourishing leaves on a spreading tree which shed some and put forth others, so are the generations of flesh and blood: one dies and another is born” (Ecclus 14:18). Unlike the more usual order “flesh and blood” (cf. Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16, etc.), in verse 14 we find “ blood and flesh” (so also in Eph 6:12). This inversion of the more normal word order may be for stylistic reasons, but more likely the emphasis upon the word “blood” reflects Hebrews’ preoccupation with the death of Christ (see the repetition of the word “death” three times in vv. 1415), viewed as a sacrificial offering to God. For Jesus to be portrayed not only as the offering but also as the offerer, it is essential for our author to establish his genuine humanity. Only if he were human would he be subject to death, and only if he were human could he act as a high priest who offers the sacrifice on behalf of the people, since that demands that he be part of what he represents (v. 17; cf. 5:1-3). There is nothing to suggest that

44

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

Hebrews is here refuting any suggestion that Jesus was not really human. Rather at this point in his homily the author is laying the foundations for his analogy between the death and ascension of Christ and the high priest’s role in Judaism’s Day of Atonement ceremonies. In some respects, however, the thought of vv. 14a-15 is atypical of the rest of the epistle. Whereas there it is sin that is the barrier removed by the sacrifice of Jesus, here it is death or “the fear of death” that is the enemy that has been overcome. The theme of the enslaving power of fear in general and the fear of death in particular is one that recurs in Greco-Roman literature. Seneca observed (Epistle 30.17) that the thought of death is often more dreaded than death itself. The first century BCE poet and philosopher Lucretius wrote a treatise (On the Way Things Happen) that is almost entirely devoted to an attempt to dispel such fear. He did it by trying to persuade his readers that, since the soul dies with the body, there is no “beyond” to fear. This is not the solution of the author of Hebrews. He believed not only in life beyond death, but also in God’s judgment (cf. 12:25-29). His message is that neither death nor the judgment it brings need be feared by the believer. And that because Jesus has defeated both fear and death. William Lane (vol. 1, 61) may be right in suggesting that here our author may be drawing upon the legend of Hercules who was thought similarly to have fought and conquered death on humankind’s behalf (cf. Homer, Iliad 5.394-400; Euripedes, Alcestis 11.76, 843-4). In which case it may pick up the divine champion resonances of Jesus the arche¯gos from v. 10. The association of death with the devil or Satan, however, comes from Jewish tradition. This is particularly evident in the interpretations of the “fall” narrative of Genesis 3 that grew up. We find one such example in the Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24a: “For God created man for incorruption and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world.” A similar idea is found in Romans 5:12 where death comes into the world as a result of sin, and in 1 Corinthians 15:26 where it is the last enemy that will be overcome at the eschaton. Jewish apocalyptic writers can also look forward to the defeat of demonic forces by God’s messianic agent (cf. Assumption of Moses 10:1; 1 Enoch 10:13; 1QH 6:29, etc.), although death is not here included among the demons. In later rabbinical writings we meet “the angel of death” who comes to carry out God’s sentence of mortality (Mekilta 72a on Exodus 20:20; cf. 2 Tim 1:10 where the devil has the power of death), but only in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra 16a) do we find the angel of death (together with the evil inclination in humankind) identified with Satan. Hebrews, however, merely touches upon the idea of death as the demonic enemy whose power has been

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

45

nullified by the death and exaltation of Jesus. Christ as vanquisher of the demonic is not this homily’s theme, and therefore, it is not developed further. Verse 16, “not with angels . . . but the descendants of Abraham,” picks up the theme begun at v. 5, “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come,” reaffirming that it is human rather than angelic beings who are to exercise sovereignty over the creation on God’s behalf. There may be here an allusion to the tradition that God has assigned a guardian angel to each nation (cf. Dan 10:13; 1 Enoch 10:5; Jubilees 15:31-2; Genesis Rabbah 7.23). In LXX Deuteronomy 32:8 we read: “He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God [MT, “the sons of God”].” Deuteronomy 32 is obviously a passage with which our author is familiar, since he quotes it in other parts of his homily (Deut 32:43 is cited in 1:6 and Deut 32:35-6 in 10:30). In which case the claim here may be that the present world may be under the guardianship of angels, but the future world will be entrusted to humans. Be that as it may, the verb used in v. 16 is epilambanetai, which means literally “he takes hold of ” (cf. Matt 14:31; Luke 9:47; 14:4; 23:26; Acts 9:27; 16:19; 17:19, etc.). In this particular context commentators are divided both as to its meaning and its subject. The principal suggestions are: (i) “Christ assumes human (rather than angelic) nature”; (ii) “God prefers the descendants of Abraham (rather than angels)”; and (iii) “comes to the aid of.” Until the seventeenth century, commentators (including Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Aquinas, Erasmus, and Calvin) understood the verse in the first sense (see Hughes, 115-19). In spite of the fact that it has its twentieth-century supporters (e.g., Spicq, vol. 2, 45-46; Hughes, 118), this reading is unlikely for several reasons: there is no evidence elsewhere of the verb being used in this sense; the tense of the verb is present, indicating an ongoing activity (were it to refer to Christ’s incarnation, we would expect it to be in the past); and “the descendants (sperma) of Abraham” is a phrase that designates God’s covenant people rather than “human nature.” Even the apostle Paul, in claiming the title “sons of Abraham” for Gentile Christians (Gal 36-9; cf. Rom 9:6-7), was not thereby using it as a synonym for the whole of humanity. For him, the descendants of Abraham are the faithful, the heirs of the promise made to the patriarch (cf. Gal 4:21-8), namely, the Christian church, which includes both Gentiles and Jews. Hebrews is clearly written to a very different situation from that which evoked Paul’s letters. Not least, here there is nothing to suggest that his Christian audience was other than Jewish in origin. Unlike Paul “the apostle to the Gentiles,” there-

46

Jesus Excels the Very Angels

fore, he has no need to make Abraham a figure of faith in general (including that of the Gentiles), rather than “father” of the covenant people in particular, and exemplar of the obedience and fidelity of Israel (cf. 6:13-5; 7:1-10; 11:8-10; 11:17-9) that culminates in Jesus himself (12:2). Thus in Hebrews Abraham is the “father” of the elect of Israel (cf. Acts 13:26) G. W. Buchanan suggests that v. 16 be translated as, “God prefers the descendants of Abraham (rather than angels)” (To the Hebrews, 35-36). He appeals to LXX Isaiah 41:8-9: “But you Israel are my son (pais), Jacob whom I chose: the seed (sperma) of Abraham whom I have loved, whom I took (antelabome¯n) from the ends of the earth.” Yet, not only is a different verb used in our passage from that found in the Greek translations of Isaiah, but also in the Isaianic text the verb clearly does not mean “to prefer” but “to take.” Other commentators (e.g., more recently Lane, vol. 1, 64; Ellingworth, Epistle, 176) have seen in v. 16 an allusion to Isa 41:8-9, although not in order to claim that the verb here means “to prefer,” but to see the author of Hebrews evoking the passage in order to assure his audience that they too are the faithful descendants of the faith of Abraham, whom God will not desert. Most twentieth-century commentators, however, opt to translate the verse as “come to the aid of ” (so Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commenatary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 37-38; Bruce, 56; Michel, 162; Lane, vol. 1, 63-64, et al.; cf. NRSV, “come to help”; REV, “ he helps”). They appeal to LXX Jer 38[MT 31]:32: “. . . when I took hold of their hand (epilabomenou mou te¯s cheiros autou) to bring them out of the land of Egypt,” a passage cited in Heb 8:9. Perhaps more pertinent is Ecclus 4:11: “Wisdom exalts her sons (houious) and takes hold of (epilambanetai) those who seek her” (cf. 1 Enoch 71:3), which similarly uses the verb of those who would pursue the path to heaven. Given the importance of the pilgrimage motif in this homily (cf. 3:1–4:13; 10:19–12:29), it is probable that here epilambanetai means “takes” in order to exalt. That would make sense, whether its subject is God or Christ, since Jesus also is to be counted among his “brethren” (v. 11) one of “the children of God” (v. 13), “the descendants of Abraham” (v. 16), whose destiny is nothing less than sovereignty. The difference is that he has already achieved what they have as yet to achieve. Most of what follows is an explication of how Jesus attained his heavenly exaltation, together with an exhortation to the readers to believe that they too will similarly be exalted if they remain faithful. Verses 17-18 act as both a conclusion to the first major unit and an announcement of the one to follow. Above all they reaffirm the genuine humanity of Jesus, “made like his brothers in every respect (kata tois

Hebrews 1:5–2:18

47

adelphois homoio¯ the¯nai)”—a theme that is to be picked up at 4:15, “one who in every respect as we are (kata kath’ homoiote¯ta).” Why this is so essential for the rest of the homily’s thesis is summarized in vv. 17a-18. Because priesthood is essentially representative in character, in order for Jesus to have a priestly role, he has to be part of the people he represents. In Hebrews Jesus can be described as “priest” (4:17, 21: 5:6; 7:11,15; 8:4), “great priest” (10:21) or, more often, as here, “high priest” (3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5-10; 6:10; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). It is the high priest’s part in the Day of Atonement ceremonies that is our author’s major concern, and this clearly influences his use of priestly language vis-à-vis Jesus. His concern is evident on this, the first occasion on which he refers to Jesus as high priest. His function is “to make a sacrifice of atonement (hilaskesthai) for the sins of the people” (NRSV). To enter into the Holy of Holies, there to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice for the people’s sin upon the lid of the ark, (see the “mercy seat” [hilate¯rion] at 9:5; and “the throne of grace” at 4:16, which have the same referent) was the prerogative of the high priest alone on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:15). Since he himself experienced suffering, Jesus is able to succor those who similarly face life’s trials. The verb peirazein here is better understood as “to put to the test” (as in 11:17; cf. LXX Ps 25[MT 26]:2; 2 Cor 13:5, etc.) rather than “to tempt” (Gal 6:1; James 1:13a, etc.). Thus it depicts Jesus as the one who through his own sufferings remained faithful (pistos) in the face of testing, and is thus able to sustain those among his “brethren” whose faith is even now being put to the test. Jesus “the merciful” will be picked up at 4:14. In the major unit that follows, our author first develops the theme of Jesus “the faithful.”

Jesus the Faithful Son (Hebrews 3:1–4:14)

The literary device that bounds this unit is the inclusion 3:1-2a: “. . . consider the apostle and high priest (archierea) of our confession (homologias), Jesus who was faithful (piston) . . .”/4:14 “Since therefore we have a great high priest (archierea megan) . . . Jesus . . . let us hold fast our confession (homologias).” (So Vanhoye, La Structure littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux, 38-39, although he and others would extend the unit to 5:10.) As its contents show, however, its main theme is not that of Jesus’ high priesthood, but his faithfulness as the son of God. Our author picks up the word “faithful” (pistos) from 2:17, “a merciful and faithful high priest.” “Jesus the high priest” is the topic of the following major thought unit (4:15–10:18); however, not this one. Here the focus is upon “fidelity” or “trustworthiness.” Principally, in this section of the homily the preacher appeals to the trustworthiness of Jesus in order to encourage his congregation to remain steadfast and not to give up hope. It begins with a presentation of Jesus and Moses—the one the faithful son, the other the faithful servant (3:1-6); moves on to a warning example from scripture of the faithlessness of the wilderness generation (3:7-11); and concludes with the lessons that his readers should learn from this (3:12–4:14). Like 1:5–2:18, 3:1–4:14 uses the established rhetorical device of comparison (synkrisis), together with scriptural texts interpreted to support its claims. In the previous major unit this device was used to maintain the supremacy of Christ and his “kin” (“brothers”) over the angels. Here it is to claim his superiority to Moses. The dominant use of comparison here, however, is not with reference to Moses but to Israel’s wilderness generation (with whom Moses, far from being compared, is contrasted). It is not Moses as opposed to Jesus, which is our author’s major theme, but fidelity as opposed to infidelity. Moses, like Jesus, exhibited the former. The recipients of this letter need to be challenged by a negative example of the latter. Hence the contrast drawn from 3:7 onwards is not between Jesus and Moses, but

50

Jesus the Faithful Son

his Christian audience and the people of God in the wilderness. Hence in this section paraenesis is more prominent than in 1:5–2:18. Jesus the Faithful Son and Moses the Faithful Servant (3:1-6) The author’s strong pastoral concern is signaled both at the beginning (v. 1a) and end (v. 6b) of this subunit. In v. 1a he directly addresses his readers as “holy brothers” (adelphoi hagioi), “participants” (metachoi) with Christ (cf. 3:14) and one another (cf. 6:4, “sharers of the holy spirit”) in God’s “heavenly” (epouranios, cf. 6:4; 8:5; 9:23; 11:16; 12:22) calling. This is the language of kinship. Like “sons,” and “children” in chapter 2, “brothers” (itself picked up from 2:12) includes both women and men (cf. Rom 11:25; 12:1; 1 Cor 5:11; 12:1; 14:26; 15:1; Phil 1:14; 1 Thess 2:1; 4:1; 5:1; 1 John 2:9-10, etc.) in the family of faith, who together are embarked upon a “heavenly” journey. Here the thought is not so much of heaven as the origin of the Christian’s vocation as heaven as his or her destination. In Hebrews, “heaven,” whether as the promised land ( 3:1–4:13) or the cult place (4:1416), is invariably the goal of the people of God. In v. 6b the addressees are exhorted as the “household” (oikos) of God (note the emphatic “whose house we are”) to remain steadfast. To this end the content of 3:1-6 is structured in the following manner: (1) a comparison between Jesus and Moses (vv. 1-2); (2) an assertion of the supremacy of Jesus (v. 3); (3) a justification for this claim (vv. 4-6). A Comparison Between Jesus and Moses (3:1-2)

The claim made here is not that “the fidelity of Christ is superior to that of Moses” (contra Spicq, vol. 2, 63), but that they are both “faithful” (pistos). In its active sense the word pistos means “trusting” or “believing.” Given what follows, here it is more likely used in its passive sense of “trustworthy,” “dependable,” or “loyal.” Thus both Jesus and Moses are worthy of God’s trust. In v. 1 Jesus is called both “apostle” (apostolos) and “high priest,” titles given to him by no other NT author. Such language is found in hellenistic Jewish sources applied to Moses. Clearly in Hebrews Jesus is not an “apostle” in the sense that we find the word used in the Gospels, i.e., as a designation

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

51

of one of the twelve. Here it is better translated “envoy” or “messenger” (cf. LXX 3 Kgdms [MT 1 Kgs]14:6; John 13:16; Phil 2:25). Similarly we find the verb “to send” (apostellein) used of Moses as God’s envoy (see LXX Exod 3:10, “I will send you to Pharaoh, king of Egypt . . .”). Although of the tribe of Levi (Exod 2:1-10) and sometimes depicted as exercising priestly duties (Exod 24:4-8), only in Psalm 99:6 do we find Moses called a “priest” in the OT. Philo, however, extols Judaism’s supreme hero as “high priest” (see Life of Moses 2.66-168, which depicts his character and work in high-priestly terms; cf. On Rewards and Punishments 52-55). It is not as high priest that we meet Moses in Hebrews, however. In 11:23-29 it is his role in leading Israel out of Egypt that is dwelt upon. Here it is Moses in the wilderness, whose loyalty to God (as opposed to the disloyalty of his people) is compared to that of Jesus. Significantly, it is Jesus who is the touchstone, rather than Moses. The same can be said for all the comparisons our author makes. Whether it is with the prophets (1:1-2), the angels (1:5–2:18), the Levitical high priest (4:15–10:18), or Melchizedek (7:3), Jesus the Son of God is always the benchmark against which the others are judged. He, not Moses, is the subject of the Christian’s “confession” (homologias). By “confession” is meant neither an expression of penitence nor a formal creed, but the content of what is professed (cf. 4:14; 10:23; for the verb see 11:13; 13:15). The subject matter of faith for the author of Hebrews and the community he addresses is Jesus. In comparing Moses with Jesus, Hebrews alludes to Num 12:1-8, a passage that claims for Moses an unparalleled access to God by virtue of which he is the agent of divine revelation par excellence. All other prophets only know God indirectly via visions and dreams (Num 12:6). But: “Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly and not in dark speech; And he beholds the form of the Lord” (Num 12:7-8). (Similar claims are to be found in Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; Eccl 45:5. Exod 33:23, on the other hand, denies that Moses spoke with God “face to face.”) The Greek translation of Num 12:7 has “who are faithful (pistos) in all my house (oikos)” rather than the MT’s “who is entrusted with all my house.” It is the Septuagintal form of the verse that we find in vv. 2a (where some manuscripts omit “all”) and 5b. This version enables Hebrews’ author to stress not (as does the MT) that Moses was supreme among the people of God, but that he alone of all the wilderness generation remained faithful. It also prepares the way for what is to follow, namely, the claim that it is Jesus, not Moses, who is the supreme leader of God’s “house(hold)” (oikos). “House” in the sense of “household” is an established metaphor for the people of God (see Heb 8:8, which cites LXX

52

Jesus the Faithful Son

Jer 38[MT 31]:31 where oikos is used in this sense; Exod 16:31; Jer 12:7; Hos 9:15; Matt 10:6; 15:24; Acts 2:36; the Targum on Num 12:7 has “my people”). Once more, therefore, we find the language of kinship applied to the community of faith. Some scholars (e.g., M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 65-95) claim that v. 2 is an allusion, not to Num 12:7, but to LXX 1 Chron 17:14—Nathan’s oracle confirming that the dynasty of David would reign in perpetuity: “I will confirm (pisto¯ so¯ ) him in my house (oikos) and in my kingdom for ever.” In support of this suggestion we have the Septuagint’s associative pisto¯ so¯ (I will establish/confirm), and the Targum on 1 Chron 7:14, which assumes the text has a Davidic reference: “I will maintain him (i.e., David’s son) faithful among my people and in my house forever.” In which case in Heb 3:2 the comparison is between Jesus the Davidic son and Moses the faithful servant. As many of the prooftexts in 1:5-14 show, for our author, Jesus indeed fulfills the hopes of a Davidic messianism, and therefore there could well be echoes here of 1 Chron 7:14 (cf. 1:5, which possibly alludes to 1 Chron 17:13). Nevertheless, at this point in the homily the principal figure compared with Jesus is Moses, not David. Therefore (contra Lane, vol. 1, 76) it is Num 12:7 and not 1 Chron 7:14 that is the primary referent in vv. 2a and 5b. Mary Rose D’Angelo has suggested that in Heb 3:2 we also find an allusion to LXX 1 Kgdms (MT 1 Sam) 2:35; “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest (hierea piston) . . . and I will build him a faithful house (oikon piston)”—an oracular blessing that the sons of Eli would be replaced by a trustworthy priesthood descended from Zadok. She believes that in Jewish interpretative tradition this oracle had already been brought together with the Nathan oracle of 1 Chron 7:14 to function as a twin testimony to a Davidic son and a Levitical priest coalescing in one salvific figure. Whether or not this is true of these particular texts, among the Qumran writings we find one that looks forward to the coming of “the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9.10). Scholars are divided, however, as to whether this envisages a diumvirate, composed of a priest and a king ruling in tandem (on the Joshua-Zerubbabel model [see Zech 3:1-4:14]) or (as D’Angelo suggests is the case here) one figure who exercises both royal and priestly functions (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 156-61). That Hebrews draws upon a priestly model for Jesus is evident from the central section of the homily. Yet at this stage it is not Jesus’ cultic role that is under discussion but his trustworthy leadership of a people whose faith is being put to the test. Therefore it is unlikely that in Heb 3:2 we find an oracle whose theme is that of priesthood. The word “house” (oikos) can be used of Israel’s shrine (cf. 3 Kgdms [MT 1 Kgs] 3:2;

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

53

6:1–7:50; 8:1 ,16-18; Acts 7:47), and other NT authors can depict the Christian community as a “temple” (1 Cor 3:16; 16:15-20; Eph 2:18-22; 1 Pet 2:3-6), but there is nothing to suggest that here we have the image of Jesus the high priest officiating in his shrine, i.e., among the people of God. In fact, nowhere in this letter is the church described as either a temple or a priesthood. At this point in his exposition our author firmly focuses upon the status of Jesus vis-à-vis Moses as pilgrimage leader rather than priest of the people of God. An Assertion of the Supremacy of Jesus (3:3)

If LXX Num 12:7 has furnished our author’s point of comparison between Moses and Jesus, namely, that they are both “trustworthy” (pistos), its following verse provides him with the language of “glory” (doxa): “and he (Moses) saw the glory of the Lord” (LXX Num 12:8; cf. MT “and he beholds the form of the Lord”), which he uses to claim Jesus’ superiority over Moses. He does not deny that Moses saw the glory of God. Rather, he attributes Jesus with possessing incomparably more glory than Moses (cf. 2:9 where the exalted son is “crowned with glory and honor”; at 1:3 a different point is made—Jesus reflects the glory of God). The analogy with the builder who is superior to his building was an established commonplace in the ancient world. According to Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 20), it goes back to the fourth century BCE comic playwrite Menander. We certainly find it in Philo (cf. On the Migration of Abraham 193, “that which has made is superior to the thing made”). Too much should not be read into it therefore; neither should it be forced into an allegory, where every word symbolizes something else. Jesus need not be identified with “the builder” (contra Spicq, vol. 2, 67-68 et al.) nor the “house” understood as representing the church (contra Moffatt, 42). Those who do so tend to read v. 4 as a qualifying “rider” to the effect that God is, of course, the ultimate creator of everything. It is true that 1:2 has ascribed to the son the work of God’s agent in creation, but there is nothing to suggest that in this unit Jesus’ creative activity is in view. Here we have no more than an analogy, triggered by the word “house,” which is now taken up in its literal sense and used in the service of an a fortiori argument for Jesus’ supremacy over Moses.

54

Jesus the Faithful Son

A Justification of Jesus’ Supremacy (3:4-6)

Some English translations (e.g. RSV, NRSV) put v. 4 in brackets, thereby indicating that it is an “aside.” Upon closer analysis, however, it is evident that, far from being a parenthesis, it is part of the substance of the argument (see Lane, vol. 1, 72-73). It acts both as an amplification of the analogy of the builder and the building in the previous verse and as an introduction to the reasons given for Jesus’ supremacy. The argument proceeds thus: Like a builder has to his building, so Jesus has more glory than Moses (v. 3), just as God, the creator of the universe, has more glory than His creation (v. 4). Within the household of faith Jesus occupies the position of God’s son, whereas Moses is servant (vv. 5-6a). Moses is not here relegated to the status of “slave” (doulos) but given the honoured title of family “servant” (therapo¯ n; cf. Exod 4:10; 14:31; Num 11:1; Deut 3:21, etc.). Nonetheless, his status is lower than that of “son.” The self-same reason has been given for Jesus’ superiority to the prophets (1:1-2) and the angels (1:5-14). Moses is a faithful member of or “in” (en) the household. Jesus, on the other hand, has authority “over” (epi) it (v. 6a). The function of Moses was to act as witness, “to testify to the things that were to be spoken later” (v. 5b). Hence in 11:23-28 Moses will be included among the heroes and heroines of the past who have been driven forward by their faith in God’s future. They had not themselves received that inheritance, but Moses, like them, “looked to the reward” (11:26) that lay ahead and that was to culminate in Christ (12:2). He was privileged to be granted a vision of the Christ who was to come (11:26-7). The way the author of Hebrews treats the figure of Moses both in chapters 3 and 11 epitomizes the way he approaches scripture. Both are faithful and trustworthy witnesses to Jesus. Both, however, are subject to him, since he is the subject of their revelation. Our author’s treatment of Moses needs to be put within the context of first-century Judaism’s estimate of him. Here we find Moses extolled as “the noblest Hebrew of them all” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.229), God’s supreme agent of revelation who, according to Philo, held “the offices of king, legislator, prophet and high priest” (On Rewards and Punishments 53; cf. The Life of Moses, which treats his role under three heads: legislative [2.165], high-priestly [2.66-180], and prophetic [2.181-287]). While denying that Moses was divine (Life of Moses 1.155), Philo claims that his unparalleled vision of God makes it appropriate for Exod 4:16 and 7:1 to call him “a god” (LXX theos). Like Elijah, he did not suffer an ordinary mortal’s death but was translated to heaven (Life of Moses 2.288-91). Although according to

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

55

Josephus Moses had a normal death (Jewish Antiquities 4.326), his birth was another thing. It was predicted by priests (Jewish Antiquities 2.205) and miraculously free of labour pains (Jewish Antiquities 2.288). Like the Diaspora, Jewish apologists before them who extolled Moses as the father of all culture, both Greek and Egyptian (e.g., Aristobulus quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7.12; 13:12), Philo and Josephus were principally concerned via their portrayal of Moses to lay claim to the supremacy of Judaism over all other religions and philosophies. Within Palestinian Judaism, among the Qumran Covenanters Moses seems to have provided a model for the eschatological agent of God whose advent they expected in the imminent future. Thus alongside “the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” is mentioned also “the prophet” who is to come (1QS 9.10). Most scholars agree that the Covenanters envisaged “the prophet” either as Moses redivivus or as a prophet in the same mould as Moses, who would come in fulfillment of the prophecy: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me among you” (Deut 18:15), a passage that also features in their Testimonia. In the Manual of Discipline (1QS 9.10) it is not clear whether this prophet is to be the forerunner of the messianic king/(and) priest or whether he is to form part of a triumvirate of prophet, priest, and king. In some Jewish traditions the eschatological prophet is identified as Elijah rather than Moses (Mal 3:1; 4:5) and acts as the forerunner who will announce the impending Day of the Lord. Thus in Matt 6:14-16 and Mark 11:7-15 John the Baptist is identified with Elijah (contra John 1:21 where the Baptist denies that he is either Elijah or the prophet [Moses]; according to Luke 9:8, some identified Jesus with Elijah redivivus). In John’s Gospel the figure of the prophet like Moses has evidently influenced the portrayal of Jesus. The verse that reads, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14) seems to allude to Deut 18:15 (cf. Acts 3:22-3; 7:37 where it is applied to Jesus). Albeit as the one who is greater than Moses (John 1:17-18; 6:32-35), in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of the hope of Moses’ return (see Meeks, The Prophet-King). Strikingly, we find no such depiction of Jesus as the second Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. Here it is not the model of prophet but that of son that best suits the claims he wishes to make for Jesus, and it is this that constitutes the grounds for his supremacy over Moses: “He was faithful over God’s house as a son.” The subunit concludes (v. 6b) with an assurance that his addressees are included among the household of faith and an implied warning that this is dependent upon (“if ”) their not giving up. They must “hold fast” (cf. 3:14;

56

Jesus the Faithful Son

10:23) their “confidence” (parre¯sia, a word that expresses an attitude of bold fearlessness with which the faithful can approach God; see 3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35; cf. Philo, Who are the Heirs of Good Things 5-7), taking pride (“boasting”) in the hope that is theirs (some manuscripts include “firm to the end”). This paves the way for the exhortation to perseverance that follows. A Warning: The Faithlessness of the Wilderness Generation (3:7-11) By way of contrast to the faithfulness of Moses, we are now presented with a picture of infidelity, notably that displayed by the exodus generation he sought to lead. The author of Hebrews now wishes to draw a parallel between the wilderness period in Israel’s past and the present situation of his readers. To give added weight to what he has to say, he moves from allusion to direct citation of scripture. The text he chooses is LXX Ps 94[MT 95]:711, a psalm that recalls Israel’s lack of trust in God’s promise of a land in which they could settle (“rest”) and the people’s resolve to go back to the bondage of Egypt rather than forward in faith into the land of Canaan. The psalmist also recounts God’s threat to disinherit Israel as punishment for its infidelity. Psalm 95 thus reflects the tradition of Israel’s rebellion against God and His servant Moses at Kadesh, which we find in Num 13–14. The psalm also alludes to another wilderness narrative, namely, that of Israel’s blaming God for lack of water (cf. Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:2-13), which in OT tradition was understood as putting God to the test. Hence the place at which this incident occurred was named in Hebrew Meribah (= strife/contention) and Massah (= proof/testing). The LXX, which Hebrews utilizes, rather than transliterating these Hebrew names, translates them as “rebellion” (parapikrasmos) and “testing” (peirasmos), so that they become “in the day of rebellion” and “on the day of testing” (Heb 3:8). Even before he gets to his overt “commentary” on the psalm (3:12–4:11), the author of Hebrews allows his interpretation to colour the way he cites the text. Thus, by introducing a “therefore” (dio) at v. 10 he effectively alters the punctuation to make the forty years refer to the preceding rather than the succeeding verse. It thereby becomes not (as in the MT and the LXX) a reference to the duration of God’s wrath, but the length of time during which Israel experienced God’s mighty works of salvation. (At 3:17 our author reverts to the more usual reading.) The effect of this is to heighten the ingratitude of Israel’s rebellion. In spite of the longevity of God’s mercy, Israel was unfaithful.

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

57

Hebrews is not the only NT author to use the fate of the wilderness generation as an exemplary warning to Christians. Paul does so (in 1 Cor 10:1-13), although by way of upholding a wholly different moral. Paul cites the miraculous provision of manna and water as a warning against the Corinthian Christians’ assuming that participation in the Lord’s Supper necessarily ensures their salvation. Hebrews addresses a wholly different concern; that the author’s congregation should remain steadfast and not give up on their journey of faith. Our author is well aware that under the leadership of Joshua Israel did in fact enter Canaan (see 4:8). Yet he omits any reference to Moses’ intercession that brought about a change of heart on God’s part, whereby Caleb, Joshua, and the younger generation were permitted to enter Canaan (Deut 1:34-9; Num 14:29-30), not least because here his purpose is to focus upon those who did not enter the promised land, as a warning to his contemporary audience. Ps 95 (LXX 94) is introduced with, “As the Holy Spirit says” (see 10:15, “as the Holy Spirit bears witness”; cf. Acts 28:25; 1 Clement 13:1; 16:2). The more usual biblical citation formula in Hebrews is either, “He (God) said” (1:5, 13; 4:3-4; 5:5; 6:14; 8:5; 10:30; 12:26; 13:5), or “He (God) says” (1:67; 5:6; 8:8). The use of the present tense indicates that, for our author, scripture is not simply revelation in the past; it is the present ongoing word of God. Hence, Hebrews claims divine inspiration not only for scripture, but also for his own interpretation of it (see 9:8, “By this the Holy Spirit indicates”; cf. Acts 13:2; 20:23). In this letter the Spirit is principally the Spirit of God that inspires scripture. Unlike the Fourth Gospel, it is not personalized or otherwise depicted as Jesus’ replacement or alter ego. Lessons from Psalm 95 (3:12–4:14) Alternation between exposition and exhortation is a feature of the style of the Letter to the Hebrews. We have already noted it in 1:5–2:18. There, however, a number of OT texts were strung together; here our author focuses upon one text—LXX Ps 94[MT 95]:7-11, which he cites (3:8-11) and explicates (3:12–4:1l) at length, and to which he repeatedly draws his readers’ attention (3:15; 4:3, 5, 7). Although not overtly cited, the events narrated in Num 13–14, concerning Israel’s loss of faith in God’s promise of a land in which that nation would be safe from its enemies, clearly form the backdrop for Hebrews’ author, as for the psalmist before him. According to this account, although Caleb, Joshua, and the other scouts reported that it was a bountiful land, they also confirmed that it was already inhabited by a

58

Jesus the Faithful Son

powerful people who would constitute a formidable opposition to Israel’s invasion of the land. In the face of this the people resolved to return to Egypt, whereupon God vowed that, far from inheriting the land of Canaan, they would die in the desert. The author of Hebrews parallels the situation of the people of God in the wilderness with that of his contemporary audience, both by way of comparison and contrast. Like the book of Deuteronomy, he “situates” his readers in the presettlement period in which their faith is being put to the test. Although on the very brink of entry (cf. Deut 12:9) they, too, have as yet to occupy the land of promise. Unlike the exodus generation, however, God’s promise still remains open (4:6) for them to accept or reject. They should therefore learn the lesson to be drawn from this incident in the history of the people of God. It is important not to interpret either this or any other part of Hebrews as portraying a polarization between two households, one Jewish and the other Christian. For our author there is but one people of God, composed of both the faithful and the faithless. There is certainly no simple correlation between these two categories and what subsequently became the two separate communities of faith. Our author was writing before such a “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity had taken place (see Introduction). For him the people of God in the past included both the faithful, such as Moses (3:1-6) and the heroes and heroines listed in chapter 11, and the faithless of the exodus generation (cf. 3:10) discussed here. Similarly, as is evident from the warnings he addresses to them, his contemporary Christian audience include among their number both the faithful and the faithless. This homiletic exposition may be divided into three sections: 3:12-18, 4:1-5, and 4:6-11, each delineated by an inclusion, and with a citation from Ps 95 at its centre (so Vanhoye, La Structure littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux, 95-101). The unit ends with 4:11-14, a coda in praise of the penetrative power of the word of God (4:11-13), and a concluding exhortation (4:14). Warning against Unbelief (3:12-18)

This section is bounded by the inclusion, “See to it (blepete) that there is no one among you with an unbelieving (apistian) heart . . .” / “So we see (blepomen) that they were not able to enter because of unbelief (apistian),” with a citation of LXX Ps 95[MT 95]:7, “Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,” in v. 15. Here, like the psalmist, the concern of Hebrews’ author is to use the story of the rebellion of the exodus generation as an

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

59

exemplary warning to his contemporaries. What the psalmist describes as “to harden” (skleranein”) or “to go astray” (planein; cf. 3:8) is interpreted as “lack of faith” (apistia). This particular word does not occur in the psalm, but our author may have been influenced by the LXX of Num 14:11, where God asks Moses, “How long do they refuse to believe me (ou pisteuousi moi)?” Clearly a failure to believe, both in Numbers and Hebrews, involves more than intellectual dissent: it is a willful act of disobedience. “Unbelieving” (apistia) here is allied with “falling away” (aposte¯nai) (v. 12; cf. the warning in LXX Num 14:9, “Do not turn away from (me¯ apostatai) the Lord ”). Like the metaphors “drifting” (pararrein) (cf. 2:1) and “falling short” (hysterein) (cf. 4:1), this language is vague and unspecific. It gives no indication of what exactly is the threat to the faith of Hebrews’ readers. “Apostasy” in modern parlance usually implies the abandonment of one faith for another. Hence it has been interpreted by commentators to signify that the audience was either a group of Gentiles in danger of reverting to paganism or Jews tempted to return to the synagogue (see Introduction). The most obvious concern of our author, however, is not with what his readers may be joining (or rejoining), but what they would be leaving. Therefore, “apostasy” in the sense of their transferring their allegiance to a rival group is not the issue. Hebrews is an exhortation to perseverance, an encouragement to remain within the community of faith and not to give up. To this end its author goes on to warn his audience that there is no coming back should they choose to leave (6:4-6; 10:26-7). In 10:23 he bases his call to fidelity upon the trustworthiness of God. The most we can infer from these paraenetic sections of the homily is that it is addressed to a community in danger of social disintegration (cf. 10:25). Just as he goes on to designate his own communication as “a word of encouragement (logos tou parakle¯so¯ s)” (13:22), so the author of Hebrews calls his readers to encourage (parakalein, v. 13) one another. Similarly, in using the language of “partners” (metochoi) (v. 14), whether (as is more likely) it indicates the Christian’s partnership with Christ in a common inheritance (cf. 3:1) or partnership with fellow Christians in Christ, our author appeals to a joint enterprise based on the fundamental reality (hypostasis; cf. 1:3; 11:1) of their initial faith. This needs to be maintained to the end. (For the various suggestions as to the meaning of the word hypostasis here see Attridge, Epistle, 117-19. He lists: “confidence,” “resolve,” “substance” before opting for “objective reality,” used here as a paraphrase for faith.) The “today” of the psalm is interpreted as the “now” of Hebrews’ audience (v. 13a). This will be further explicated at 14:7 where our author will claim that, since the psalmist was David (following Jewish tradition; cf. the

60

Jesus the Faithful Son

psalm’s superscription in the LXX, “The praise of a song of David”), the “today” must apply not only to the exodus generation but also to a later one. That “today,” warns the preacher, is not wholly open-ended, however (cf. v. 13, “as long as it is called today”). Its promise will not last forever. Thus the note of assurance coupled with warning sounded at 3:6, “We are his household if (ean) we hold fast,” is repeated here, only this time with a greater emphasis upon the conditional clause, “We have become partners of Christ, always provided that (eanper) . . .” (v. 14). In vv. 16-18 by way of three questions and their answers (which themselves take the form of rhetorical questions) the identity of the “unfaithful” of the psalm is spelled out. So we have: Question “Who (tines) heard and yet rebelled . . . ?” (v. 16a)

Answer “Was it not all who came out of Egypt?” (v. 16b)

“With whom was he provoked . . . ?” (v. 17a)

“Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?” (v. 17b)

“To whom did he swear . . . ?” (v. 18a)

“. . . if not to those who were disobedient?” (v. 18b)

Since in Greek the word tines can mean either “who” or “some,” it is possible that the first question in the series is not a question but a statement. In this case, v. 16 should be translated: “Some heard and rebelled, but not all who came out of Egypt,” and acts as a correction to Ps 95, not least to allow for the fidelity of Moses. Given the rhetorical structure of vv. 16-18, however, it is more likely that this constitutes the first in a series of questions and their accompanying answers, since “threes” are frequently used by rhetoricians for oratorical effect. In each case the answer specifically identifies the subject of Ps 95:7-11 with the exodus generation whose disaffection is narrated in Num 14. This is evident, not only from the explicit reference to the exodus from Egypt and the people’s sojourn in the wilderness, but also from their death in the desert (cf. Num 14:12). Later rabbinical tradition was divided as to whether or not that generation would share in the world to come. According to rabbi Aqiba, on the basis of the self-same texts used by the author of Hebrews (Ps 95 and Num 14), they will not. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (using Ps 150:5)

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

61

concludes that they will (Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 110b). In Hebrews the faithful among the exodus generation, although excluded in their lifetime from the terrestrial Canaan, will be included among the inhabitants of God’s celestial city, the new Jerusalem (cf. 12:18-24), which is the true promised land. Promise of God’s “Rest” (4:1-5)

Our author now turns his attention to what “entry” and “rest” in Ps 95 truly signify. He begins and ends this paragraph with an inclusion: “. . . entering into his rest” (eiselthein eis te¯n katapausin autou) (v. 1). “They shall never enter into my rest (ei eiseleusontai eis te¯n katapausin mou)” (v. 5), thereby drawing his audience’s attention to the next stage in his exegesis, which is to interpret LXX Ps 94[MT 95]:11, “As I swore in my wrath, They should never enter my rest” (cited in v. 3). In the biblical narratives the land is promised as a place of rest from Israel’s wanderings (Deut 3:20; Josh 1:13), and especially as a safe refuge from its enemies: “But when you go over the Jordan and live in the land which the Lord your God gives you to inherit, and when he gives you rest (LXX katapausei) from all your enemies round about, so that you live in safety” (Deut 12:10; cf. Deut 25:19; Josh 11:23; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). The land came to mean more than something merely geopolitical, however. It was thought of as a religious heritage. Certainly in the book of Deuteronomy the land is the most important factor in the state of redemption itself. As Gerhard von Rad has put it, “Deuteronomy has spoken of this land of Canaan almost as if it were paradise” (Deuteromony, 93). Locality and condition are not separated; the “place” and the “state” of salvation are brought together under the one rubric, “the land.” So deeply embedded in Jewish consciousness was the conviction that God had promised His people a land, that long after CE 135 (when the Jews were expelled from their territory by the Romans) it remains a tenet of their faith: “The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts; the Torah, the land of Israel, and the world to come” (Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 5a). Unlike this particular rabbinical teaching, the author of Hebrews overtly identifies “the land” with “the world to come.” He does this by relocating the promised land so that it is no longer situated on earth but in heaven. Israel did in fact go on to settle in Canaan, as our author is well aware (cf. 4:8), but that, he argues, should not be equated with the “real” content of God’s promise—the attainment of ultimate salvation. For the people of God, both

62

Jesus the Faithful Son

past and present, that still lies in the future. It is a promise that remains “outstanding.” “Whilst a promise of entering into his (God’s) rest remains open” (4:1) becomes the basis for the twin notes of promise and threat that sound throughout 4:1-14. Whether v. 1b constitutes more of a promise than a threat depends upon how the verbs are to be understood. If hysterein is translated as “to come too late” (cf. Ecclus 11:11; LXX Hab 2:3; Philo, Life of Moses 2.233) and dokein as “to think/suppose” (cf. Heb 10:29), it would read, “and none of you must think that he has come too late” (JB; cf. also Spicq, vol. 2, 80). In which case the author is correcting any notion they may have that they have “missed the boat,” reassuring them that there is still time, and encouraging them to appropriate the promise of God while that time remains. Yet given that v. 1 starts with the emphatic “Let us fear lest,” it is more likely that here we have a warning and that hysterein means “to stop/fall short of ” (see Heb 12:15; cf. John 2:3; 3:23; 1 Cor 1:7; 2 Cor 11:5) and dokein “to be found/judged” (cf. LXX Prov 17:28; 27:14). Hebrews’ audience should fear that they “might be judged/deemed to have fallen short of it (i.e., God’s rest)” (see Attridge, Epistle, 124). Exactly whose is the judgment, God’s or humanity’s, is not made clear. What is spelled out, however, is that the readers should take warning. There are numerous variants among the Greek manuscripts for v. 2b, which finally amount to two possible readings. The good news did not benefit them “because they did not share the faith of those who listened” (JB; cf. Lane, 73), i.e., Joshua, Caleb, and presumably those of “us” who do share it (v. 3, “We who have believed”); or, “because it did not meet with faith in the hearers” (RSV; cf. NEB; TEV), i.e., it was not received by the recipients. The first is better attested textually and would suit well the author’s use of not only the faithlessness of the majority but also the fidelity of the few among the wilderness generation, the one by way of warning and the other as encouragement to his current readers. Whichever reading is accepted, however, an analogy is drawn between the situation of Israel in the wilderness and that of his present addressees. Equally clearly, “faith” in this context is used eschatologically; it is trust in God’s future (cf. 6:12; 10:38-39; 11:1). For all that the verb “to enter” is in the present tense in v. 3, in Greek this conveys a continuous force. Hence the claim here is not that believers have already entered but that they are “in the process of entering.” As is evident both in this section and throughout the letter, Hebrews’ eschatology is imminentist rather than realized. Hence the warnings to the effect that his readers may be “on the way” and the goal may be very close, but they have

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

63

yet to make it into the promised land of God’s salvation. The only one who has entered that “rest” is Jesus. At this particular stage in his argument the author of Hebrews establishes what the psalmist means by “rest.” It is far more than the settlement of Israel in the land of Canaan. By picking up the “my rest” of the psalm he brings home to his audience that it is not theirs but God’s rest (cf. v. 1, “his rest”) that is the content of the divine promise. Within Jewish tradition we find the notion that God settled or rested among His people, hence LXX Deut 33:12, “He has taken up his rest (autou katepausen) among his people.” (The MT has “makes his dwelling between his [i.e., Benjamin’s] shoulders.”) In the second temple period God’s presence came to be located quintessentially in the Jerusalem temple (cf. Deut 12:11; cf. LXX Ps 131[MT 132]:4, which locates Zion as God’s place of rest [katapausis]. Isa 66:1, on the other hand, inveighs against those who would limit the presence of God to any one earthly place ). Num 10:33 depicts the ark (the symbol of the presence of God) as seeking a place of rest (LXX, anapausis) before finally finding it in the shrine (cf. 1 Chron 6:3). In Jewish tradition therefore, “rest,” understood as the presence of God, came to be used as a metaphor for salvation. Thus 2 Esdras (= 4 Ezra) 7:36, 37 portrays paradise as the place of rest destined for the righteous, over against the furnace of hell that awaits the wicked. As yet it remains in heaven, waiting to be realized on earth at the end of time (2 Esdras = 4 Ezra 7:75-76; cf. 1 Enoch 45:5-6; 2 Baruch 4:1-7. For evidence that the rabbis understood “rest” as symbolizing “the world to come” see Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 3, 687). Similarly, Hebrews’ author gives an eschatological interpretation to “rest” here. He does this in vv. 3-5 by linking the psalm’s noun “rest” (LXX katapausis) with the verb “to rest” (katapausein) in LXX Gen 2:2: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works” (cited in v. 4 with the introductory formula, “He [i.e., God] has said somewhere”; cf. 2:6). In the Hebrew text these words are wholly unrelated (Ps 95:11 has menu¯ hah . and Gen 2:2 shabba¯ ta), . but it is the LXX not the MT that is Hebrews’ text. Employing one of the accepted exegetical principles of his time, namely that of gezerah shavah (= similar injunction. For this and other hermeneutical rules subsequently compiled by rabbinical exegetes see D. Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Rabbinical Exegesis”), whereby a word in one text may be interpreted in the light of its occurrence elsewhere, he is able to move from the idea of salvation as the possession of the land of Canaan to its depiction as being in the presence of God in heaven itself. The same shift from an “earthly” to a “heavenly” location is evident not only in Hebrews’ treatment of the land but in the author’s subsequent

64

Jesus the Faithful Son

interpretation of Israel’s sanctuary (8:2–10:18) and Mount Zion, the site of the holy city (12:18-24). Thus the land, the cult place, and Jerusalem all become symbols of future salvation, epitomized by the image of heaven as the ultimate sacred territory where God “resides.” By interpreting Ps 95 in the light of Gen 2, our author is able to claim not only that the place of rest is to be located in heaven rather than Canaan, but that God’s rest, as a state of existence, was there long before the exodus generation. It goes back to the seventh day when God rested after completing His “works” of creation. This thought is developed in the third paragraph. Sabbath Celebration (4:6-11)

This section opens with “because of disobedience (di’ apeitheian)” and closes with “that no one may fall through such disobedience (pese¯ te¯s apeitheias),” forming an inclusion. The exhortatory purpose of the entire exegesis is clear, not least from LXX Ps 94[MT 95]:7, “Today, when you hear my voice, do not harden your hearts,” repeated in v. 7. Here the psalm is interpreted to bring home to the readers that the promise of God’s rest remains outstanding (v. 8). The author argues that had Canaan been what was promised, Joshua and the younger generation would not have entered into it. Yet David (traditionally the author of the psalm), long after the wilderness generation, spoke of “Today” (vv. 7-8). This could not have referred to the inheritance of the land, since that had already been achieved. It therefore proves that the “today” of God’s promise was not merely withheld from the disobedient of the exodus generation; it was not even fulfilled by Joshua and those who did in fact enter the land of Canaan. The homily will go on to claim that it was another Joshua, i.e., Jesus, who led the way into the true land—heaven. Neither here nor later does our author develop a Joshua-Jesus typology, however (contra Bruce, 71. Such a typology is subsequently exploited by the Epistle of Barnabas 6.8; and Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 113, 132 et al.). In vv. 9-10 the psalm is once more interpreted in the light of Gen 2, only this time not to give “rest” a protological dimension but to stress its eschatological character. Salvation, which is the “rest” promised to the faithful, like the rest of God, only comes after their labors have ceased. “There remains a sabbath celebration (sabbatismos) for the people of God” (v. 9). Most English versions translate sabbatismos as “sabbath rest,” thereby treating it as a synonym for katapausis (“rest”). By replacing the word “rest” from the psalm with the word for “sabbath celebration” from Genesis,

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

65

however, Hebrews does more than simply treat them as synonyms: its author brings together notions of God’s primordial rest and the rest of the age to come, and links both with the sabbath. The noun sabbatismos is not found in Greek literature before Hebrews. Apart from the LXX, the verb sabbatizein occurs in Plutarch (Concerning Superstition 3.[Moralia 166A]), where it means “to observe the sabbath.” In Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 23.3), Epiphanius (Against All Heresies 30.2.2), and the Apostolic Constitutions (2.36.2) it means “to celebrate the sabbath.” A similar emphasis upon the festive aspect of God’s eschatological sabbath may well be intended here (so Lane, vol. 1, 101-102). As a cultic institution, the sabbath was long established as a time of rest in biblical tradition (see Exod 20:11; 23:12; 35:2; Lev 23:3; 2 Macc 15:1, etc.). Our author, however, stands within that strand of Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinical thought wherein the sabbath becomes associated both with the idea of God’s primordial rest and the rest promised in the age to come. The Life of Adam and Eve (a late first century CE Jewish work; cf. M. D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 249-95), thus depicts the celebration of the sabbath as a sign of God’s future eschatological rest and associates it with His primordial rest: ”the seventh day is a sign of the resurrection, the rest of the coming age, and on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works” (The Life of Adam and Eve 51:2-3). Hebrews, therefore, is not unique in interpreting “rest” as a heavenly reality to be achieved in the future. Where our author does go beyond his non-Christian Jewish contemporaries is in claiming that, after his death, Jesus entered that “territory” (cf. v. 14), and that in this may be seen the unique and definitive fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. What is noticeably absent from Hebrews’ treatment of Gen 2:2 is any speculation as to what it means to say that God “rested” on the seventh day. (For such ideas see Attridge, Hebrews, 126-28). Philo, working within a background of hellenistic metaphysics, interprets this as signifying not God’s inactivity (cf. John 5:17) but God’s impassability: And therefore Moses often calls the sabbath, which means “rest,” God’s sabbath, not man’s, and thus he lays his finger on an essential fact in the nature of things. For in all truth there is but one thing in the universe which rests, that is God. But Moses did not give the name of rest to mere inactivity . . . it never ceases to work all that is best and most beautiful. God’s rest is rather a working with absolute ease, without trial and without suffering. (On the Cherubim 87)

66

Jesus the Faithful Son

Also, unlike Philo (cf. On the Posterity and Exile of Cain 64; Allegorical Interpretation 1.16), Hebrews displays no inclination to identify the heavenly realm in Middle-Platonic terms of that which is above sense perception (contra Thompson, Beginnings, 44-52). Much as he employs the language of “place,” a Platonic notion of two coexistent spheres, the one inferior and material as opposed to the other, unchangeable and immaterial, has not subsumed the more traditional Jewish depiction of two successive ages of now and the world to come (see R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 142-49). Thus, for all its use of spatial categories, Hebrews, like Jewish apocalyptic writings, still depicts “rest” as the goal of the future. Yet unlike the Jewish apocalyptists (e.g., 2 Esdras = 4 Ezra 13:36; cf. Rev 21:2, 10), in Hebrews there is no establishment of a heavenly land or city on earth. Our author does not (contra Buchanan, 65, 73-74) look forward either to the restoration of the land under a Davidic ruler or the foundation of a new Jerusalem on earth. Strikingly, he not only locates the rest promised to the people of God in the future; he relocates it in heaven. In later Gnostic sources God’s “rest” is identified with the highest aeon in the pleroma (= the godhead). In Gnostic mythology it was from such a state of “rest” that the soul fell and to which it journeys on its pilgrimage to salvation. Heaven, as the place of rest, is thus both humanity’s origin and destiny (cf. Gospel of Thomas 50; Acts of Thomas 10, et al.). Ernst Käsemann suggested that Hebrews is a Christian adaptation of such a Gnostic myth. Apart from the pilgrimage theme they have in common, he pointed out (Wandering People, 68) that in both Hebrews and Gnosticism “rest” is a purely heavenly blessing, whereas in Jewish apocalyptic writings it is to be established on earth. This is true. What is not pointed out by those who draw upon supposed Gnostic and Middle-Platonic parallels that uphold an antithesis between the immaterial and the material, however, is that in the Letter to the Hebrews we find no antipathy towards the material world per se (cf. 2:14; 10:5-7; 10:19-20; 13:3-4). An appeal to “heaven” as the fulfillment of God’s land promises to Israel does not signal a shift from Jewish eschatology to Platonic metaphysics but rather a relocation of the land, the holy city, and the cult place to another place and time. In terms of the land this will be picked up again in chapter 11, where the patriarchs’ true goal of faith is identified as a heavenly rather than an earthly homeland.

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

67

In Praise of the Word of God (4:12-14)

This homiletic exposition concludes with a poetic piece in praise of the word (logos) of God (vv. 12-13). Clearly this is not a reference to the Son as logos but to God who is speaking through the scriptures that our preacher has just been explicating. For him, what the church subsequently came to call the “Old” Testament is no dead letter of the past but is “living and active” in the present of his congregation. As such, its function is not only to articulate the promises of God, but also to act as a vehicle of divine judgment. The depiction of God’s judgment as a sword was traditional (e.g., Isa 34:5-6; 66:16). In Wisdom 18:14-16, God’s word is personified as a warrior who wields his sword of judgment (cf. Eph 5:17; Rev 1:16; 2:12) against the Egyptians at the exodus. In v. 12 “spirit and soul,” “joints and marrow,” and “thoughts and intentions” function not as pairs of opposites but as synonyms. In hellenistic Jewish writings, soul (psyche¯) and spirit (pneuma) could be used interchangeably (see Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit, 36-37). Here the three pairs conjure up the idea of what is ostensibly indivisible. God’s word has the ability to bring judgment even to the seemingly impenetrable. Embedded in this coda in praise of the word of God lies a warning: scripture can also act as judge; therefore, be responsive to its word. The last phrase of v. 13, “with whom (i.e., God) we have to reckon” (NEB) [pros hon he¯min ho logos] emphasizes human accountability before God (cf. 13:17). In pagan Greek sources logos can mean “account” or “reckoning” (see Moffatt, 58). In this particular context this is the more likely meaning rather than the suggestion that it refers to Jesus the ascended logos, interceding on behalf of believers in heaven (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 199201, contra R. Williamson, “The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews,” 7-8). The unit ends (4:14) as it began in 3:1 with a recall to the confession of Jesus as “high priest “ and “son of God.” Up until this point in the homily the focus has been upon Jesus as the son of God. Now our author moves to the theme that is to dominate 4:15–10:18—Jesus as high priest. Accordingly, the image now shifts from salvation as entry into the land to salvation as entry into the shrine’s inner sanctum (cf. 6:19-20; 8:1-2; 9:11, 24; 10:20). The phrase, “Who has passed through the heavens,” may indicate that our author envisaged heaven as having a number of compartments (cf. 9:11-12, 24). Unlike later Gnostic sources, however, he does not explore notions of the various celestial spheres or portray the Christian’s ascent to the highest realm as hindered by various hostile forces encountered enroute. In Jewish

68

Jesus the Faithful Son

apocalypses we find the notion of the various heavens through which the seer must pass in order to reach God, who is above them all. In these writings the number of heavens varies. They can be two (2 Enoch 7:1), three (2 Enoch 8:1; cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4), five (3 Baruch 11:1), seven (3 Enoch 1-2; 17:1-3) or ten (4 Enoch 20). The Letter to the Hebrews, however, neither takes the form of an apocalypse nor displays any particular interest in mystical ascent. Its author’s concern here is to depict heaven as a sacred shrine analogous to Israel’s wilderness tabernacle, which was divided into two areas: the holy place and the holy of holies (see diagram on page 103). “Great priest” is the usual designation of the Levitical high priest (cf. Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, 28: Zech 6:11. In Heb 10:21 this is used of Jesus.). Here Jesus is described as “the great high priest.” (Cf. 1 Macc 13:42 where Simon Maccabaeus is so described. In Philo this title is given to Melchizedek [On Abraham 30], and to the logos [On Dreams 1.214, 219; 2. 183] who has entered the inner sanctum, i.e., heaven.) This thought paves the way for the next major unit of the homily and acts as an introduction to it. This has led the majority of English translators and commentators to place v. 14 at the beginning of the next paragraph rather than at the conclusion of this one. Yet our author not infrequently announces the theme that is to follow as the conclusion of a subunit (e.g., 1:4; 2:17-8; 5:9-10). It is better therefore taken as the inclusion that ends the preceding section that began at 3:1 (see Vanhoye, Structure, 103). Excursus 1: Ancient Israel’s Priesthood

Israel’s priesthood had a long and varied history in the course of which its functions waxed and waned (see Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood). According to some OT sources, the priest had an oracular function (Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41), which expanded to include teaching (Deut 33:9-10). In others his task was to pronounce the divine blessing (Lev 9:22; Num 6:22; Ecclus 45:15). Priests probably originated as sanctuary attendants who had no monopoly on offering sacrifices (Cody, op. cit., 72). Hence the king also had priestly functions. Clad in the priestly ephod (2 Sam 6:14), David offered sacrifices (Sam 6:13, 17) and blessed the people (2 Sam 6:18). He also interceded for the nation (2 Sam 24:17). Similarly, his successor Solomon stood before the ark of the covenant and offered sacrifices on behalf of the people (2 Kgs 3:15; cf. 9:25). Jeremiah’s vision of a restored Israel includes the hope that once more the prince will be able to approach God on the nation’s behalf (Jer 30:21).

Hebrews 3:1–4:14

69

With the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem in the seventh century however, significant changes took place. Thereafter the defining and exclusive function of the priesthood became that of approaching the altar, on behalf of the offerer, with the blood of the sacrificial victim. Whatever their origins, in the postexilic period Israel’s priests were clearly a caste; male members of the tribe of Levi. Furthermore they were a hierarchy consisting of a high priest whose office was hereditary, the priests, and the Levites (probably the remnants of the priesthood of the various Yahwistic shrines that had existed before the centralization of the cult at Jerusalem, who had become absorbed into its structures as a lower cultic order). The role of the high priest emerged after the Babylonian exile when Israel ceased to be governed by Davidic kings. Now it is this model of leadership that predominates. Thus the covenant made by God with Levi becomes regarded as analogous with that made with Moses (Jer 33:14-26— a passage thought by most scholars to be a post-exilic interpolation). Like the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12-16), that made with Levi and his descendants is now also portrayed as permanent, “forever” (Num 25:11-15; Ecclus 45:621). From the time of the installation of the Hasmonaen high priesthood in the second century BCE, the dominance of the priestly model of leadership becomes even more pronounced. As part of Israel’s bid for political independence, Simon Maccabeaus (c. 140 BCE) claimed for himself and his heirs the title not only of “high priest” but also of “ethnarch” (1 Macc 14:41). In spite of the fact that they were of the tribe of Levi rather than Judah, from the time of Aristobolus 1 (104/3 BCE) the Hasmoneans adopted the title “king “ as well as “high priest” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13. 301). The Qumran Covenanters seem to have come into being not least by way of protest against the Hasmonean high priestly incumbents of the Jerusalem temple. Their protest was not against their claim to non-Davidic kingship, but to be true descendants of Zadok (David’s priest; cf. 2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 20:25; 1 Kgs 1:39). As members of the tribe of Levi, their priesthood was not in question. But since the Hasmoneans had not followed the rule of primogeniture, as far as the Covenanters were concerned, they were not valid high priests. The present incumbent was a “wicked priest” whose presence defiled the sanctuary (1QpHab 12:7-8; 10:10; CD 12:2). Part of the Qumran community’s eschatological hope, therefore, was that the Jerusalem temple would once more be restored under the leadership of a valid descendent of Zadok (see the War Scroll).This is wholly unlike Hebrews, which proclaims not a restoration of a legitimate high priesthood but the end of sacrifice, priesthood, and the earthly cult place (see Isaacs, “Priesthood,” 51-62). BCE,

70

Jesus the Faithful Son

“Priest” is one of the diverse “messianic” models to be found in firstcentury CE Judaism. In some texts it is the dominant one (Jubilees 31:12, 20; cf. Testament of Judah 21:29; 24:1-3 where the priest has preeminence over the Davidic king). In other sources the priest acts in tandem with a Davidic king (1QS 9.9b-10; cf. Zech 3:1–4:14). Sometimes it was thought that, like his historical predecessors, although not strictly a priest, this eschatological king would exercise priestly functions (cf. A. J. B. Higgins, “The Priestly Messiah,” 211-35, who interprets 1QS 9.9b-10, not as two figures, but as one Davidic king, performing priestly tasks). Nonetheless, in all these hopes for the future, the most fundamental distinction between Israel’s Davidic king and Aaronic priesthood remains: the former was a member of the tribe of Judah, whereas the latter are drawn from the tribe of Levi. As the author of Hebrews is well aware, in terms of any Jewish tradition, dissident or otherwise, Jesus did not qualify as a priest since he was of the tribe of Judah (7:14; 8;4). For all that preexilic kings are given cultic roles, and the post-exilic Hasmoneans high priests may have used the title “king,” only in Ps 110:4 is Israel’s Davidic king addressed as “priest,” and then with the qualification, “after the manner of Melchizedek,” i.e., of a non-Levitical type. Thus, having established that Jesus was a Davidic son (1:5-14), it is to the model of a non-Levitical priesthood found in Genesis 14:17-20 and the psalm that the author of Hebrews appeals for his presentation of Jesus’ death and exaltation as a priestly act. Hebrews will go on to compare and contrast these with the actions of Judaism’s Levitical high priest on the Day of Atonement. It is important to appreciate that Hebrews is not intended as a comprehensive treatment of Israel’s priesthood and cult. Our author makes a selective and limited use of what was a far more extensive and complex institution. He concentrates almost exclusively upon the role of the high priest, and even then only upon his role in the Day of Atonement ceremonies.

Jesus the High Priest (Hebrews 4:15–10:18)

The comparison and contrast between Jesus the Melchizedekian priest and Israel’s Aaronic high priest that lies at the heart of this homily is developed in 4:15–10:18. This section may be divided into four subunits: (1) 4:15–5:10, Jesus the merciful and compassionate priest; (2) 5:11–6:20, an exhortation to maturity, required of the audience if they are to understand the author’s presentation of Jesus as a high priest; (3) 7:1-28, Jesus, a priest “after the manner of Melchizedek”; and (4) 8:1–10:18, the sacrificial work of Christ. Jesus the Merciful and Compassionate Priest (4:15–5:10) Introduction (4:15-16)

Hebrews 4:15-16 functions as an introduction both to the subunit and to the section as a whole. The theme of Jesus’ high priesthood, hinted at in 1:13 and first stated in 2:17, “a merciful and faithful high priest,” is now developed. The author begins (v. 15) by reminding his audience of Jesus’ solidarity with us, a topic he has already discussed in 2:5-18. Since Jesus shares human weakness and has known what it is “to be put to the test” (contra RSV “tempted”; cf. 2:18), he is able to enter into the experience (“sympathize”) of others. Here the theme of testing is picked up from the preceding chapter (3:8) where it concerned the wilderness generation who had put God to the test and thereby had their own faith tested and were found wanting. Jesus similarly had been put to the test, only he had not failed (“yet without sin”).

72

Jesus the High Priest

This is the first time Jesus’ sinlessness is mentioned in Hebrews (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5). This theme will be picked up later when our author expands his topic of Christ as high priest and sacrificial victim. “Sinlessness,” in the sense of ritual purity, was an essential requirement of both. All sacrificial victims had to be without physical blemish (amo¯ mos = “spotless”) if they were to be acceptable to God (cf. Exod 29:1, 38; Num 19:3, etc.). The high priest also could only enter the holy of holies on behalf of the people if he had first offered an expiatory sacrifice for his own sins (Lev 16:11-4; cf. Lev 4:3-12; 9:7-14). In terms of the cult, “sinlessness” was thus the sine qua non of approach to God. This is clearly the context of the language of “sinlessness” used of Jesus in this homily. It is to Israel’s sacrificial system rather than any subsequent attempt of Christian apologetics to demonstrate Christ’s divinity based upon his moral perfection that we need to look if we would understand his “sinlessness” in Hebrews. Thus in 9:14 Jesus is depicted as the sacrificial victim who is (necessarily) without blemish (“spotless” = amo¯ mos). In 7:26 he is called the “blameless” and “unstained” high priest who is “separated from sinners.” In both cases our author goes further, however, to claim that Jesus not merely fulfills the cult’s requirements; he exceeds them. He is the superior sacrifice and high priest (see 9:11-14; 7:26-28). Yet, for all that the Jesus we meet in Hebrews is exalted above humanity, he is not divorced from it. Thus the reference to his “sinlessness” in 4:15 is clearly designed not to distance him from the rest of us, but to affirm that he possessed one of the essential qualifications for entry into the presence of God on our behalf. In affirming Jesus’ solidarity with those whom he represents, the author of Hebrews is wholly unlike Philo of Alexandria who, in his exposition of Lev 16, claims that on the Day of Atonement the high priest entered the holy of holies not only ritually pure, but also that while there his humanity was temporarily suspended, so that he was in a state midway between the human and the divine (Who is the Heir of Divine Things 84; On Dreams 2.189). At that moment he was immune from sin (On Special Laws 1.293), born of incorruptible parentage, with God as his father (On Flight and Finding 109-110). It would be wholly misleading, however, to interpret this as typical of first-century Judaism’s portrait of Jerusalem’s high priest. From 2 Maccabees onward Jewish literature emphasized (as here) not the ideal high priest’s distance from those he represented, but his human solidarity with and compassion for them (see Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 43-71). Philo, on the other hand, allegorizes the Aaronic figure so that he represents the logos, or principle of the divine that makes contact between God and the world possible (see note on

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

73

1:1-2a). Thus in Philo’s depiction Israel’s high priest becomes more a metaphysical abstraction than an earthly figure. This is unlike the presentation of Jesus, the sinless high priest, which we meet in Hebrews. He is not cut off from the rest of humanity. Unlike Philo, the author of Hebrews has not lost sight of the essentially representative character of the priestly role. This is precisely what he appeals to as the grounds for the exhortation to “confidence” (parre¯sia; cf. 3:6; 10:19) in v. 16. In Hellenistic Jewish writings this term of frank exchange between citizens came to be applied to the attitude with which the worshipper may approach God (cf. Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things 6-7; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.52; 5.38). “Throne of grace” (thronos tes charitos, v. 16) is a qualitative genitive, i.e., the throne characterized by grace; the place where mercy is dispensed. “Throne” is a periphrasis for God (see Michel, 208). In locating the throne in heaven our author pursues his analogy of heaven as the abode of God. Sometimes, as here, this is depicted as the throne room of a royal court (cf. Ps 11:5; Isa 66:1; Rev 4:2–5:2). This image dominates Hebrews’ use of the enthronement theme of Ps 110:1 in 1:4–2:18 (cf. 8:1, “seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high”). Sometimes heaven is portrayed as the inner sanctum of the shrine (cf. Ps 11:4; Heb 8:1-6; 9:1-7, 12). (For these, together with Hebrews’ images of heaven as a country and as a city/kingdom, see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 205-19.) Thus in 9:5 heaven’s holy of holies houses the “mercy seat” (hilaste¯rion), i.e., the ark where mercy is dispensed. In 4:16 images of heaven as a throne room and as a shrine happily coalesce. Hebrews 5:1-10 is broadly concentric in its structure: a

a1

The Aaronic high priest, as the people’s representative before God, effects expiation on their behalf (v. 1) b His compassion for and solidarity with the sinful (v. 2-3) c His divine appointment (v. 4) c1 Jesus’ divine appointment as Son and high priest (vv. 5-6 [10]) 1 b His solidarity with those who suffer (vv. 7-8) Jesus the Melchizedekian high priest who effects salvation (vv. 9-10).

Fulfillment of the Ideal (5:1-4)

A, b, and c set out the author’s ideal criteria for any high priest: (a) In order to act as the people’s representative before God, he must be part of what he

74

Jesus the High Priest

represents; i.e., he must be genuinely human. (b) It is precisely because he shares human weakness and has to offer expiatory sacrifice, not only for the people’s but also for his own sins, that he has a tolerant understanding of (v. 2 metriopathein, RSV “deal gently with”) those who sin through ignorance (RSV “the ignorant and the wayward”). In the Aristotelian tradition metriopathein meant “to moderate one’s feelings,” i.e., to avoid excess. In Hebrews, however, it means to moderate one’s attitude toward others so as to treat them with magnanimous compassion (see Hughes, 176). Like Num 15:27-31, our author distinguishes between those who sin “with a high hand,” i.e., deliberately, and those whose sin is unwitting. Only the latter’s sins could be expiated by sacrifice. Since sin “done with a high hand” was a refusal to accept God’s sovereign commandments, it was regarded as nothing less than a declaration of independence from God. The cult, therefore, could not effect reconciliation for those who chose to place themselves outside the covenant community. The author of Hebrews accepts this to be true not only for the sacrifices of Judaism but also for the sacrifice of Jesus (see 10:26). (c) His is not a human but a divine call and appointment. Obviously, our author is very selective in what he has to say about the function and character of the high priestly office, highlighting only those features that, for the purposes of this particular sermon, he wishes to parallel with the person and ministry of Jesus. At this point in the homily the preacher’s point is to establish a comparison between the work of Christ and that of the high priest. Later he will emphasize their differences by contrasting Jesus’ complete, permanent, and superior access to God with that of the Levitical high priest, which was flawed and partial. Here, however, he wants to stress that it is Jesus who fulfills Israel’s priestly ideal. In vv. 5-10, therefore, he deals with each “ideal” in inverse order (c1, b1, a1 ) to claim that Jesus has not only lived up to the very best expected of Israel’s high priest; he has excelled it. The Testimony of Scripture (5:5-6)

Hebrews here cites LXX Ps 2:7, the Davidic psalm with which he began his catena of scriptural “proofs” of Jesus’ divine sonship at 1:5. In both instances it is with reference to his exaltation. Now, however, that exaltation is not only understood as the enthronement of a king, but also as the entry of the high priest into the holy of holies. Hence our author now adds (v. 6) LXX Ps 109[MT 110]: 4, “You are a priest forever, after the manner (kata te¯n taxin) of Melchizedek” (a text that is quoted at 5:6; 6:20; 7:17 and alluded to at

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

75

4:14; 5:10; 7:3, 11, 21, 24 and 8:1). Taxis here is not used in the sense of a class (cf. Luke 1:8) or order within the priesthood. This is evident from what follows in chapter 7, where it is Jesus and not Melchizedek who is the model of supreme priesthood (7:3). Jesus is not presented as one in a line of Melchizedekian priests who hands over his office to others who follow him. To the contrary. By virtue of his resurrection, his is a perpetual priesthood (7:24), one that has no need of a successor. Taxis, therefore, is used in Hebrews to convey the notion of similarity (cf. 7:15, “according to the likeness [kata te¯n homoiote¯ta] of Melchizedek”) rather than succession. It is therefore better translated as “like” (see Ellingworth, “Just Like Melchizedek,” 236-39) or “after the manner of ” rather than “after the order of.” As we have noted (see 1:3d and 1:13), Ps 110:1 is one of the most widely used OT texts in the NT, where it is cited to confirm Christ’s exaltation in heaven. The author of Hebrews, however, is the only NT writer to appeal to Ps 110:4, which addresses a Davidic king as a “priest after the manner of Melchizedek.” In chapter 7 he will explicate this verse in such a way as to enable him to present Jesus’ exaltation in heaven as analogous to the entry of the high priest into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. In this Hebrews is wholly without precedent in early Christian tradition. Nowhere else before the second century (cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 32:6; 33; 118:1-2) do we find evidence of the depiction of Christ as a Melchizedekian priest or the citation of Ps 110:4. Jesus’ Solidarity with Humankind (5:7-8)

For all the exalted claims made for Jesus in this homily, no NT author is more insistent upon his genuine humanity. As in 2:10-18, so here the point is made that his sonship does not exempt him from suffering. “Although he was son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (v. 8, NRSV). Exactly what was the occasion of that suffering is not clear. That depends upon the meaning of v. 7: “Who in his earthly life offered up prayers and petitions, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and because of his reverence (apo te¯s eulabeias) he was heard”—a verse that poses a number of difficulties for translators and commentators. Is this an allusion to the story of Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane (Matt 26:36-46 // Mark 14:32-42 // Luke 22:40-46)? How is the phrase apo te¯s eulabeias to be translated? It can mean either: “from fear/anxiety,” or “because of reverence/godly fear.” Since both the noun and the preposition can be used

76

Jesus the High Priest

in either of these ways, from a linguistic point of view either is possible—in which case the determining factor must be its context. Those commentators who claim that Gethsemane is the context in which v. 7 should be understood (e.g., Moffatt, 66; Michel, 220; Bruce, 98110), are not thereby agreed as to whether the first or second translation above should be adopted, not least because that depends upon the supposed content of Jesus’ prayer, and in what sense God “heard” it. If it is Jesus’ petition, “Let this cup pass from me” (Mark 14:36), then evidently it was not “heard” in the sense of God preventing his death. This led A. von Harnack (“Zwei alte dogmatische Korrekturren im Hebräerbrief,” 245-47) to suggest a textual emendation: “Not” (ouk) should be inserted before “he was heard,” and “although he was son” (v. 8) taken as part of the previous phrase rather than as the opening of a new one, to read, “Although he was a son he was not heard.” Yet there is no manuscript evidence that would support adding “not” here. In their efforts to retain a Gethsemane referent, others have linked the phrase apo te¯ s eulogeias (understood as meaning “from fear”) with “from death” (ek thanatou ) (so Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 40). Thus the content of Jesus’ prayer is that he should be rescued not from death itself, but from the fear of death (cf. 2:15). Although vv. 7-10 in Greek constitutes one long, elaborate sentence (a piece of “festive prose,” Attridge, Hebrews, 148), the syntax does not lend itself naturally to this association of phrases so far apart. “From death,” therefore, is better taken as a reference to God, “The one who is able to save him from death” (cf. Hos 13:14; LXX Ps 32[MT 33]:19). It thus describes the character of God rather than specifies the content of Jesus’ prayer (so rightly Lane, vol. 1, 120). Others (e.g., Spicq, vol. 2, 115; Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 92) have attempted to deal with the problem by claiming that the Gethsemane prayer that Hebrews claims was answered was, “Yet not my will but yours” (Mark 14:36), i.e., that Jesus should be obedient to the will of his Father. Thus, in accepting the cross, his prayer was “heard,” or answered. Yet given both the context and language of v. 7, there is little evidence to commend the view that this alludes to Gethsemane. In the Gospel accounts there are no loud cries and tears, nor indeed, apart from the reference to Jesus praying, is there any other convincing link with this verse. Once freed from this particular Gospel context, many of the supposed problems of v. 7 disappear. Read within its own context it is vv. 6 and 10 that set the scene of Jesus’ prayer. This he offers in his role as Melchizedekian high priest. Eulabeia, therefore, describes, not Jesus’ fear in the face of impending death, but his religious “devotion” (REB) or “reverential submission” (NRSV) to

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

77

God. (This understanding lies behind the Vulgate’s translation, “exaudatus est pro sua reverentia” and is adopted in their commentaries by Moffatt, 65-66; Bruce, 101 et al.). This accords with Heb 12:28 (the only other place where the noun is used in the NT) where it refers to the attitude of piety with which the worshipper should approach God. (In 11:7 the verb refers to Noah’s religious circumspection in building the ark. In the rest of the NT the only other occurrences of a cognate are Luke 2:25; Acts 8:2; 22:12, where the adjective means “devout.”) Harold Attridge (“Heard Because of His Reverence [Heb 5.7],” 90-93) has drawn our attention to the fact that in hellenistic Jewish traditions of prayer, tears and loud cries could denote the ideal characteristics of the bold, frank approach of the righteous before God. He especially cites Philo’s commentary on Gen 15:2-18, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things, where Abraham’s prayer is characterized by the frank confidence (cf. parre¯sia, Heb 3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35) that is the proper attitude of the faithful servant before his master (Heir 1-9; cf. Heir 21 where Moses’ “frankness of speech is akin to friendship with God”): “those who speak, who have put their faith in the God-sent wisdom . . . (do so) not only with ordinary gentleness, but shout with a loud cry” (Heir 14). Such a man’s prayer is “wrung from him by real conviction and expressing true emotion” (Heir 19). Abraham, moreover, approached God in prayer not only with confidence but also with a pious awe or reverence (eulabeia; cf. Heir 22, 29). The prayer of Jesus is similarly depicted as the prayer of one who was both confident and reverentially obedient. Since it is offered in his capacity as superior high priest, it is not only a prayer for himself but also for those he represents. In Hebrews, therefore, his prayer accompanies the offering of the sacrifice on the people’s behalf. Given that in this epistle Jesus is both high priest and victim, it is the prayer that accompanies his own death, “offered” to God for the forgiveness of sin. (The verb “to offer” [prospherein] is a technical term in the cult for offering a sacrifice [cf. Heb 5:1.3]. By extension it came to be used of offering prayer to God [cf. Josephus, Jewish War 3.353; Testament of Levi 3:8; Testament of Gad 7:2]). Parallels may be found between some of the vocabulary of v. 7 and a number of psalms where God answers the cry of the supplicant (e.g., Ps 22:2, 5, 24; 31:22; 39:12), especially LXX Ps 114[MT 116]:8, “For he has delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.” Some scholars (e.g., Buchanan, 97-99) believe that v. 7 is an earlier Christian credal affirmation based upon Ps 116, which Hebrews here appropriates. Yet to read this verse against the background of Ps 116 is misleading. Apart from the fact that neither in its Hebrew nor Greek versions do we find

78

Jesus the High Priest

anything approximating to the crucial phrase apo te¯s eulabeias, in the psalm the supplicant is in anguish, threatened by the pangs of death (v. 3). His prayer is that his life should be spared (v. 4). Only a Gethsemane context would warrant claiming Hebrews’ dependence upon this psalm. Such a context however, as we have seen, is unlikely. Within the terms of Hebrews’ chosen model, i.e., the Day of Atonement, the death of Jesus as sacrificial victim was essential before, as high priest, he could enter the shrine’s inner sanctum. Since he was not only victim but also high priest, his death did not extinguish his life (cf. 2:14; 7:16) but was the necessary prelude to his entry into the presence of God, where his intercessory prayer (cf. 7:25) was “heard.” Our author only once uses the language of resurrection for Christ’s victory over death (13:20). Given the cultic model he employs, with its emphasis upon access to the presence of God, it is hardly surprising that we find a death/exaltation rather than a death/resurrection pattern in Hebrews. For its author the death of Jesus needs no explanation or justification in terms of lying witnesses, an unjust trial, and the execution of an innocent man, since “sinlessness” was the sine qua non of his role as both priest and victim and his death an essential prerequisite for entry into heaven (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 107-108). In this context, therefore, it is far more likely that Jesus’ prayer was for the acceptance of his death as an expiatory offering for others, rather than that he should be saved from it. Although the author of Hebrews stresses the solidarity of Jesus, the son, with his followers who are also sons, he nonetheless gives him a unique status (cf. 2:5-11). Thus, whereas in 12:5-11 human suffering is interpreted as God’s parental disciplining of His children—a sign that they are truly “sons”—in v. 8 a distinction is made between Jesus the son and the sonship of his followers. Unlike theirs, his suffering, since he was sinless (cf. 4:15), was neither punitive nor corrective, but an act of filial obedience. Corrective discipline is the expected lot of all sons of God, but not this son. Hence the phrase, “although he was son,” distinguishes his sufferings from those of the rest of humanity. The next phrase, “he learned obedience through what he suffered” (emathen aph ho¯ n epathen), reflects the classical Greek proverb, “By suffering, learning ” (cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 177). William Lane (vol. 1, 121) has suggested that what the author of Hebrews means by this is that Jesus learned from the scriptures (especially the Psalms) that he had to suffer, i.e., die. Scripture may, in fact, have been the source of Jesus’ own awareness of his destiny. This, however, is not spelled out in v. 8 where the point the author is making is that Jesus learned from the experience of suffering itself rather than from his knowledge of his fate gained from the scriptures. There may here be an echo of the martyrdom traditions that emerged from the

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

79

time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes IV in the second century BCE, in which the death of those who refused to renege on their faith was interpreted, not as punishment for their sins, but as educative training (cf. 2 Macc 6:12-16; 4 Macc 10:10-11). Like Luke (2:52), the author of Hebrews is not afraid to suggest that Jesus’ life was one of learning and development. Unlike the Gospels, however, Hebrews is a homily, not a narrative of the life of Christ. Nor is it a piece of systematic theology. Its preacher confines himself to the subject of this central part of his sermon, which is Jesus’ death and ascension seen in terms of Judaism’s Day of Atonement ceremonies. He therefore makes no reference either to Christ’s sufferings and/or learning prior to and apart from his passion. Whatever suffering Jesus may have experienced in his lifetime, here the reference is to his death. The Melchizedekian Priest Who Effects Salvation (5:9-10)

The language of “perfection” (teleio¯ sis; cf. 7:11), “perfecter” (teleio¯ te¯s; cf. 12:2) and “to make perfect” (teleioun), whether applied to Jesus or his followers, in Hebrews always conveys the sense of achieving an intended end or goal (telos). (For a summary of the various suggested meanings of this vocabulary in Hebrews see Peterson, Perfection, 3-20.) Given that for our author that “end” is nothing less than being in the presence of God, Jesus “having been made perfect” (teleio¯ theis) is here a reference to his exaltation in heaven. Not surprisingly, therefore, is it closely linked to the means whereby that end was achieved, i.e., his suffering/death (v. 8) viewed as the expiatory sacrifice offered by a new priestly order (v. 10). The “perfecting” of Jesus, therefore, has nothing to do with his moral perfectibility, but refers to the process whereby he fulfilled his vocational qualifications of Melchizedekian priesthood (see Peterson, Perfection, 96-103), which is the topic of vv. 5-10. “To fill the hands” (teleioun tas cheiras) is a phrase used in the LXX in the technical sense of “to consecrate as priest” (cf. Exod 29:9; Lev 4:5; 8:33; 16:32; Num 3:3). (For a discussion of what the original Hebrew expression meant see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 346-47 who suggests that what “filled the hands” may have been the priest’s initial payment upon taking office.) The verb alone rather than the whole phrase is never used in this sense, however, and it is unnecessary to force it to do so here in order to make “having been made perfect” refer to Jesus’ consecration to Melchizedekian high priesthood (see Peterson, 26-30, 46-47). Far from being confined to one moment, in Hebrews Christ was “made perfect” as the culmination of a whole process, including his life, but especially through his death, seen as the means

80

Jesus the High Priest

whereby he attained “heaven” not only for himself but for others. Thereby “he became the cause of eternal salvation” for those who are obedient to him (v. 9). The unit ends with a paraphrase of LXX Ps 109[MT 110]:4. Now the psalm’s “priest after the manner of Melchizedek” has been glossed to become “high priest after the manner of Melchizedek” (in Gen 14:17 Melchizedek is not “high priest,” but “priest of God Most High”) in preparation for the exposition of Jesus as superior high priest, which is to follow in 7:1–10:18. An Exhortatory “Aside” (5:11–6:20) The change from exposition to paraenesis in 5:11 signals a new subunit. Scholars have furnished various definitions of paraenesis as a literary genre. Broadly the term can be used of an exhortation addressed directly to the audience, advising that something should either be pursued or avoided and thus how life should or should not be lived (see Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 124-29). The Letter to the Hebrews abounds in such advice (see 2:1-4; 4:1-11; 10:19-39; 12:1-29). Indeed at 13:22 its author classifies his own work as “a word of exhortation” (logos te¯s parakle¯so¯ s). This is one of the features that would suggest Hebrews is primarily a homily (see Introduction). So closely does our author integrate theological exposition with paraenesis that he moves easily back and forth between the two with each informing the other. Sometimes (e.g., 2:1-4), as here, the paraenetic sections are discrete asides. They should not be regarded as digressions, however, since they are always related to what precedes and/or follows them. Hence v. 11, “about which,” refers back to v. 10, “a high priest after the manner of Melchizedek,” and forward to chapter 7 where Melchizedekian priesthood is discussed. This section falls into two parts: (1) an exhortation to Christian maturity, 5:11–6:12, which is bounded by the inclusion, “since you have become sluggish (no¯ throi) in hearing ” (5:11) / “so that you may not be sluggish (no¯ throi),” (6:12); and (2)the grounds for hope in God’s promises, 6:13-20. An Exhortation to Maturity (5:11–6:12)

In this preamble to his exposition of Jesus as Melchizedekian priest, our author warns his readers that what he is about to say is “difficult to explain”; “solid food . . . for the adult (teleios)” [5:14]; requiring “maturity” (teleiote¯s)

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

81

on the part of the hearer (6:1). This would strongly suggest that at this point in his sermon, the preacher is not appealing (as he has done so far) to traditional, established teaching about Jesus, but is about to embark upon something new—the model of Christ as Melchizedekian priest—which we find nowhere else in first-century Christianity. He therefore prepares his audience for what they may find difficult, and assures them that, in spite of its intrinsic difficulty, he will press on (6:3). (5:11b-14) An Indictment. The readers are accused of lacking the maturity essential for understanding what the author has to say. They are “sluggish in (or hard of ) hearing” (v. 11); in need of being taught “the ABC of God’s oracles” (NEB) [ta stoicheia te¯s arche¯s to¯ n logio¯ n tou theou. For the use of stoicheia to refer to the letters of the alphabet see Philo, On Mating with Preliminary Studies 149-50]; as yet unweaned, and therefore in need of milk rather than solid foods (5:12). Philo uses “milk” to designate the elementary stage (encyclia) of hellenistic education that served as a preparation for the more advanced study of philosophy and ethics (see Philo, On Mating with Preliminary Studies 19; On Husbandry 9). This may throw light on v. 13, “For everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness.” The meaning of the phrase “unskilled in the word of righteousness” (apeiros logou dikaiosune¯s) is made evident in v. 14, where we find the definition of its obverse: the righteous are “those who have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil.” This also was the aim of the Stoic ideal of advanced education. Similarly, the “word of righteousness,” which Hebrews’ addressees lack, is the ability to understand what is expected of those who are adults in the faith. Paul similarly calls the Corinthians “babes in Christ.” Unlike our author, however, the apostle claims to have fed them “milk rather than solid food” (1 Cor 3:1-3). In deeply ironic tones he calls them “mature” (1 Cor 2:6). Given that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews is about to embark upon an innovative, “advanced” interpretation of the death and exaltation of Christ, his tone is less biting and more exhortatory than Paul’s writing to the Corinthians. Nonetheless, since his addressees are no new converts to Christianity (see 6:9-10), he castigates them for being slow learners (5:11; cf. 2:1; 3:7b-8a, 15; 4:1-2, 7b where “to hear” carries with it not only the notion of intellectual assent but also an obligation to obey what is heard), who by now should be teachers rather than pupils (5:12). His principal concern, however, is educational and pastoral rather than polemical. The recipients are clearly not apostates (For a discussion of what may be inferred about the situation of Hebrews’ audience see the Introduction); they are accused of immaturity and not desertion.

82

Jesus the High Priest

(6:1-3) An Exhortation. 6:1-3 exhorts the recipients of the message to move beyond their current level of understanding. In vv. 1-2 the basics of Christian belief, which they already accept, are listed. Repentance from Deeds that Lead to Death. Unlike the writings of the apostle Paul, the contrast here is not between justification by works of the Law as opposed to justification by faith in Christ (contra Jewett, 95-96). Although both authors appeal to Habakkuk 2:4b, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38), they do so to very different ends. For Paul it is to maintain the supremacy of faith in the work of Christ over that of Mosaic Torah to effect salvation. For the author of Hebrews, on the other hand, the Habakkuk text affirms the importance of remaining steadfast while awaiting Jesus’ imminent return. “Works” here therefore refer, not to the Mosaic Law viewed as the means of salvation apart from Christ, but to sinful deeds that, if not renounced, will lead to God’s judgment of death. Faith in God. This is no mere intellectual assent to a proposition, but a way of life that is characterized by fidelity, trustworthiness, and endurance (see 3:1–4:14). It is to live the life of a pilgrim who believes in the promises of God and their ultimate attainment (see 10:19–12:29). Teaching Concerning Ritual Washings. Most English versions translate the word “washings” (baptismoi, 6:2) as “baptisms” on the assumption that it refers to the Christian rite of initiation into the church. This is unlikely, however, since in the NT the word for baptism is always neuter (baptisma) rather than, as here, masculine. It is true that the masculine is found in the variant at Col 2:12 and is used by Josephus in his discussion of the baptism of John the Baptist (Jewish Antiquities 18.117). Yet this is hardly conclusive evidence that Christian baptism is meant in Heb 6:2, not least because here the word is in the plural. In the rest of NT tradition it is always in the singular. More likely, therefore, is the suggestion that here we have a reference to ritual ablutions in general, rather than Christian baptism in particular. Within Jewish tradition water played a significant role, not least as the medium for ritual purification of things and people. Thus the priests were required to wash both their bodies and their clothes before approaching the altar of sacrifice (Lev 8:6; 16:4; Num 19:7-8). Anyone deemed ritually impure, whether by virtue of disease or as a result of contact with someone or something ritually unclean, could effect the necessary purification by washing (Lev 14:8; 15:5; 17:15; Num 19:19). John the Baptist’s call to repentance was also accompanied by a call to undergo ritual bathing (Matt 3:5-11; Mark 1:4-8; Luke 3:2-17). According to Josephus, the washing John

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

83

practiced was not itself an absolution of sins, but an act of consecration to God that followed repentance: “They must not employ it (baptism) to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body, implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by their behaviour” (Jewish Antiquities 18.117). The Qumran Covenanters also used ritual washings as a symbol of the inner purity demanded of its members (see 1QS 3.4-9). Water therefore was well established in first-century Judaism as symbolic of both purification and consecration. It is probably against this background that our author’s reference to “teaching about washings” is best understood. Laying on of Hands. In biblical tradition this action is associated with the transference of power and the bestowal of blessing (see E. Lohse, “Cheir,” TDNT 9, 424-34). Thus it was used in healing (e.g., Mark 6:5; 8:23; Luke 4:4; 13:13; Acts 9:17), blessing (Matt 19:13, 15), commissioning (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9; Acts 13:3) and authorizing for a special task or office (Acts 6:6; 8:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6). Here however it probably refers to the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 8:17; 19:6). The Resurrection of the Dead. A belief in the general resurrection of the dead, rare in the OT (cf. Dan 12:2), was one that both the early church and the Pharisaic party shared (see Mark 12:26; Luke 20:35; Acts 4:2; 17:32; 24:21). Paul overtly linked a belief in the general resurrection with Christian faith in the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:12-20). Heb 6:2 makes no reference to Jesus’ resurrection, however. In fact, throughout the entire epistle only in 13:20 do we find it mentioned. In 11:19 Hebrews claims that Isaac’s restoration to his father Abraham could be compared to his receiving him back from the dead, although our author stresses that this language is intended to be understood metaphorically (en parabole¯), since Isaac was not in fact sacrificed. Given that Hebrews employs the language of exaltation rather than resurrection in describing Christ’s present status, what we have in 6:2 is more likely to be a reference to the general resurrection (cf. 11:35) rather than to Jesus’ resurrection in particular. This interpretation is confirmed by the last of Hebrews’ Christian “basics.” Judgment of the Age to Come. Like the resurrection of the dead, God’s judgment is a feature of the future age (aio¯ nios) in which His purposes will be consummated. In what sense is this list of basic beliefs “the word of Christ” (6:1, logos tou Christou)? J. C. Adams (“Exegesis of Heb 6:1ff,” 378-85) has suggested that “of Christ” should be understood as a subjective genitive, in which case it is the teaching that goes back to Jesus himself. Not least, this would account

84

Jesus the High Priest

for its Jewish provenance. Yet on this reading the author of Hebrews would be urging his readers to move beyond the original teaching of Jesus to a more advanced understanding that he himself is about to expand, namely, a priestly interpretation of Christ’s death and heavenly exaltation. Such a distinction between the teaching of the historical Jesus and its subsequent development in the church is one that is made by modern biblical scholars. New Testament authors, on the other hand, claimed authority for their interpretations by attributing them to Jesus rather than by distinguishing their teachings from his—let alone by asserting that theirs was more advanced. Therefore the word “of Christ” in 6:1 is better understood as an objective genitive; it is teaching about Christ. Some scholars (e.g., Attridge, 162-63) reject this proposal on the grounds that the summary of beliefs that follow lacks any explicit christological elements. For our author, however, writing as he was before the subsequent parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity, the tenets of Judaism and its scriptures were not those of a separate religion, but the basic beliefs shared by the Christian community. Therefore, far from being abandoned, they were accepted as foundational for the church, not least because Christians believed that the OT contained teaching “about Christ.” The author of Hebrews will go on to rebuke his readers for their failure to see that the scriptures themselves testify to Jesus as a priest like Melchizedek, and hence have not found in those scriptures the encouragement they need. He addresses them as a group of sluggish pupils who have not only lost their initial enthusiasm and diligence (see 10:25) but also are in imminent danger of giving up all together. (6:4-8) A Warning. 6:4-8 takes the form of a solemn warning of the consequences should they abandon their Christian faith. Verses 4-5 define the Christian community as those who have had a foretaste of “the age to come” (cf. 2:5, “the world to come”; 13:4, “the city to come”); i.e., they have experienced the power of God’s Spirit operative in the present. A number of images are used to express this. First, Christians are called “the enlightened.” Although this vocabulary later came to be used as a synonym for the baptized (see Justin, Apology 1.61,65; Dialogue with Trypho 1-2; cf. the Syriac Peshitta, which at Heb 6:4 and 10:32 translates “enlightened” as “baptized”), here it is used more broadly as a metaphor for Christian conversion, depicted as spiritual illumination (cf. 10:26, “We have received knowledge of the truth”; See Spicq, vol. 2, 150-52). Next, the Christians are labeled as those who have “tasted the heavenly gifts.” This is further explicated as “partakers of the Holy Spirit,” i.e., “the powers of the (future) age.” As such they are “the land which has drunk the rain,” i.e., intended to bring forth useful

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

85

crops (v. 7). What lies behind all these images is the church’s claim to have received the Spirit of God. To defect (v. 6 parapiptein = to fall away) from such a community has dire consequences. Just as the repudiation of the Mosaic covenant and its community ensues in exclusion from its benefits, so, our author claims, it is for those who would repudiate the new covenant inaugurated by the death of Christ (see 8:6–9:22). To abandon this community of faith is to ally oneself to the rejection that brought about Jesus’ crucifixion and to “hold him up to contempt” just as surely as those who originally rejected him. The rigorism of this passage (cf. Heb 10:26-31) has created problems for commentators, ancient and modern. Whereas the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 5.7; Mandate 4.3.16) allowed the possibility of a second repentance, albeit for one postbaptismal sin only (Vision 2.2.2; 5.7.3; 6.1.4; 6.2.3), the third-century father Tertullian (On Chastity 20) cited Hebrews to support his view that none was possible. In his earlier pre-Montanist writings he did allow the possibility of a second repentance (see On Penitence 7.2; 7.14; 8.), but in his later writings he resolutely denied that “the lapsed” could be readmitted into the church. What constituted “lapse” for Tertullian, however, is clearly sexual sin (adultery and fornication). For the author of Hebrews, on the other hand, it is not one specific sin or category of sins that places one beyond the forgiveness of God. Rather, it is the deliberate choice to give up discipleship and thus to place oneself outside the new covenant community. Here Hebrews is closer to the Qumran Covenanters, for whom perpetual exclusion from the group was the penalty, not for individual sins (for which a whole plethora of disciplinary measures were prescribed), but for deliberately placing oneself beyond the authority of the community: “Whoever has murmured against the authority of the community shall be expelled and not return” (1QS 7.23). More importantly, to do so is to reject the authority of God: “But as for him who has sinned deliberately (cf. Heb 10:26) he shall never return” (1QS 9.3). This reference to “deliberate” sin echoes the “sin done with a high hand” for which there is no restoration: But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken his commandments, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. (Num 15:30-31) To “sin with a high hand,” i.e., “deliberately,” is to declare one’s independence from God’s jurisdiction, thereby denying the covenant relationship.

86

Jesus the High Priest

Judaism’s sacrificial system was one of the principal mechanisms whereby that relationship between God and His people could be maintained. It could not, however, expiate deliberate, witting sins, since such were tantamount to a refusal to accept the sovereign commandments of God. The author of Hebrews accepts this as axiomatic not only for the Jewish cult but also for the sacrifice of Christ (see Heb 10:26-31). Jesus’ death, viewed as an antitype of the expiatory rite of the Day of Atonement, can no more deal with “sin done with a high hand” than could its type. More importantly for our author’s analogy between the death of Christ and that of the expiatory victim, like the latter, Jesus could only die once. His death therefore cannot be repeated. (This will later become part of our author’s claim to the superiority of Jesus’ death over against the cult’s sacrifices; precisely because it was uniquely effective it needs no repetition [7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:12]). The author’s stance on the impossibility of a second repentance for those who abandon the Christian faith has posed problems for pastoral practice within the Christian church over the subsequent centuries, not least because all too often the content of the letter to the Hebrews has been divorced from its own context (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 93-97). Read within that context it may be seen as the natural outcome of the sacrificial model chosen by its author for his particular homiletic purposes. His comparison of Christ’s death with Judaism’s Day of Atonement rites leads him to conclude, not only positively—that Jesus has thereby gained access to God on our behalf, but also negatively—that when viewed as a sacrifice, there are limits to the efficacy of the death of Christ, since it cannot be repeated. He therefore warns his readers of this in order to encourage them not to give up but rather to persevere in their life of Christian discipleship. It is evident that the recipients of Hebrews have not as yet taken the irrevocable step of leaving the Christian community (see Introduction). Hence the solemn warning of vv. 4-8 quickly gives way to the assurance of vv. 9-12. Addressing his readers as “beloved” (agape¯toi), the author expresses his firm conviction (v. 9, pepeismetha, RSV “we feel sure”) that they may look forward to the future, confident that God will reward their previous work and the ongoing love they have shown their fellow believers, “and still do” (v. 10). He exhorts them to maintain that self-same zeal; not to lose hope in God’s future (v. 11) nor to “be sluggish” (v. 12), but to “imitate” (mime¯tai) those who previously went forward in faith. (This theme of the heroes and heroines of old who went forward rather than back, trusting in God’s promises, will be expounded in 11:1–12:2).

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

87

Basis for Hope in God’s Promises (6:13-20)

The unit concludes with the assurance that God keeps His word. To this end the author distinguishes between: God’s promise and God’s oath. Each, as “two unchangeable things” (RSV) (duo pragmato¯ n ametatheto¯ n, v. 18), is to be trusted; but the two together constitute an irrevocable, definitive word, addressed not only to the past but also to the present community of faith; the “heirs of the promise” (v. 17; cf. v. 12, “those . . . who inherit”). (6:13-18) Heirs of God’s Promises. By way of example, he cites Abraham. (For Christians as heirs of the promise given to Abraham see also Rom 4:13, 16.) The author of this letter, however, appeals not to God’s initial promise that Abraham would be the father of a great nation whose progeny would inherit the land of Canaan (cf. Gen 12:1-4; 13:14-17; 15:5-7; 17:1-8), but to God’s emphatic renewal of that promise—by the taking of an oath—in response to the patriarch’s willingness to sacrifice his only son, Isaac (Gen 22:16-18). Genesis 22:17 (LXX) is partially cited in v. 14, but with the omission of any reference to the promise of the land. The “your seed” of the LXX is also changed to become “you.” Unlike Heb 11:8-20, here the emphasis is upon the faithfulness of God to His promises rather than upon the faith of Abraham in trusting in them. Hence there is no overt reference to the story of the aqedah, i.e., the “binding” of Isaac. The terminology of vv. 13-18 is redolent of the law courts (see Lane, vol. 1, 149). Thus we have “to swear” (omnuein, vv. 13, 16) an “oath” (horkos, vv. 16, 17) in a “legal dispute” (antilogia, v. 16); “to provide a guarantee” (mesiteuein) or “give proof ” (epideiknumi) that is legally “binding” (ametathetos, v. 17). In appealing to the twofold character of the word of God as promise and oath, the author of Hebrews does not enter into a discussion as to the permissibility or otherwise of oath-taking. (For such a discussion in Judaism and early Christianity see the note on James 5:12.) Neither, unlike Jewish exegetes such as Philo, does he confront the issue of how or why, if an oath is calling upon God to verify the truth of one’s testimony, God Himself should need to take an oath. In his Allegorical Commentary (3.203-208) Philo also comments on Gen 22:16-17, acknowledging the problem of why, since all His words are true, God needs to swear an oath at all. He concludes that an oath is “His own most sure guarantee” (208), designed to assist faith (204, 207). (In Philo’s work on The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, 91-96, he concedes that such language is anthropomorphic, but explains that this is God’s concession to human weakness.] In common with the tradition

88

Jesus the High Priest

reflected in Heb 6:13 that “since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,” Philo also adds that the oath taken was “an oath befitting God; you mark that God swears not by some other thing, for nothing is higher than He, but by Himself, who is best of all things” (Allegorical Commentary 3.203). Hebrews, on the other hand, appeals to God’s oath, both here and in the next chapter (7:20-21), in order to highlight those parts of scripture that he believes have an ongoing validity. Since it is his Christian faith that determines our author’s use of scripture rather than vice versa, it is his beliefs about Jesus that dictate that texts he regards as operative in the present. Clearly, for him some are now redundant. In fact, he finds in parts of the Torah itself seeds of other parts’ redundancy. God’s oath, however, is used to emphasize that the promise to Abraham is still operative for the community of faith. On the other hand, in 7:20-21 the oath that accompanied the acclamation of a Davidic king as Melchizedekian priest (Ps 110:4) will be used to demonstrate its definitive character, over against the promise (not accompanied by an oath) that inaugurated the Aaronic high priesthood. (6:19-20) Hope. Verses 19-20 act as both a conclusion to this unit and as an introduction to the next. It picks up from v. 18 the “hope,” i.e., the goal “which lies before us” (cf. Rom 8:24; Col 1:5; Tit 2:13) in terms of life’s (contra the RSV, psyche¯ here is better translated “life” rather than “soul”; cf. Gen 35:18; 3 Kdms (= 1 Kgs) 17:21; Wis 16:14; Acts 20:10, etc.) anchor. Although not found in the LXX, “anchor” (agkura) is commonly used in Greek sources (see Attridge, 183, n. 69) as a metaphor for that which is firm or reliable (bebaios; v. 19; cf. 2:2; 3:6, 14; 9:17). For the author of Hebrews, that hope consists of the faith that believers are on the brink of entering the presence of God, following Jesus, the “forerunner” (prodromos, v. 20; cf. 2:10; 12:2, which uses the synonym “pioneer” [arche¯gos]) who has preceded them. The unit ends with the cultic referents with which it began (cf. 4:1516)—with the entry of Jesus into heaven compared to that of the high priest into the holy of holies. “Behind the curtain” (v. 19) alludes to the tapestry that separated the holy place from the innermost shrine, behind which the high priest alone was permitted go on the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16:2, 12, 15). It introduces the theme of the next unit—Jesus the high priest like (“after the order of ”) Melchizedek.

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

89

Jesus, the Melchizedekian High Priest (7:1-28) Chapter 7 establishes that, although not of the Levitical order, Jesus may nonetheless be regarded as a priest—in the words of Psalm 110:4 picked up from 6:20—“after the manner of Melchizedek.” Furthermore, it is not only in the psalm but also in the narrative of Genesis 14:17-20 that our author finds evidence of the superiority of this type of priesthood. Structurally the unit falls into two sections (see Vanhoye, Structure, 125-36): (1) 7:1-10, which concerns Melchizedek and Abraham, and is bounded by the inclusion “Melchizedek... met (synante¯sas) Abraham” (v. 1) / “When Melchizedek met (sune¯nte¯sen) him (v. 10); and (2) 7:11-28, which demonstrates that Jesus’ is a superior priesthood. This is marked by the inclusio “perfection” (teleio¯ sis) in v. 11 and “he has been made perfect” (teleio¯ menon) in v. 28. Melchizedek and Abraham (7:1-10)

Although Ps 110:4 is the principal text used by the author of Hebrews to claim the title of “priest” for Jesus, here he turns to Gen 14:17-20—the only other scriptural passage that mentions Melchizedek. This section displays a broadly chiastic structure (see Lane, vol. 1, 160). Thus we have: a

a1

The meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek (v. 1a) b The blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek (v. 1b) c The tithe paid by Abraham to Melchizedek (v. 2), expounded in vv. 4-10 in inverse order: c1 The tithe (v. 4) b1 The blessing (v. 6) The meeting (v. 10).

This schema is by no means absolute. For example, it does not take into account the fact that vv. 8-9 revert to the topic of tithes. It does, however, highlight our author’s particular use of and interest in this text, which is to demonstrate that although he was of the tribe of Judah rather than Levi (7:14; cf. 8:4), it is appropriate to see Jesus’ death and heavenly exaltation as a priestly act; and that his priesthood is of a “type” superior to that exercised by the descendants of Aaron. His use of scripture, directed as it is wholly to

90

Jesus the High Priest

this end, is therefore selective and partial. To describe 7:1-10 as a “homiletic midrash” (midrash = investigation), as many contemporary scholars do, can be misleading if that is to suggest that the author’s point of departure is scripture. It is not. (For this form of biblical exegesis among the rabbis see Alexander, “Midrash,” 452-59.) Unlike non-Christian Jewish exegetes, the author of Hebrews’ starting point is his faith in Jesus as the articulation of God’s last word (see 1:1-2); Jesus is the norm by which all scripture is to be evaluated (see Introduction). Hence in vv. 1-2 we have a highly selective paraphrase of the Genesis account that omits everything that is not germane to our author’s specific purpose. Whereas in Gen 14:17 it is the king of Sodom who is spoken of as having “met” with Abraham, Hebrews focuses upon the figure of Melchizedek, (merely one of a group of kings in the narrative) and brings him to the forefront. For our author’s purposes, it is above all his meeting with Abraham that is significant. In the MT there is an ambiguity as to who blesses whom, resolved by the LXX (which Hebrews follows), which makes it clear that it is Melchizedek rather than Abraham who does the blessing. Our author, however, omits the words of the blessing, no doubt because they add nothing to the point he is trying to make. Neither is the part of the narrative that tells of Melchizedek providing the patriarch with “bread and wine” (see Gen 14:18) explored. This is very different from the Alexandrian rabbi, Philo, who contrasts Melchizedek’s provision of bread and wine with the refusal of the Ammonites and Moabites to supply so much as bread and water to the starving Israelites in the wilderness (Allegorical Commentary 3.82). For a Christian author to fail to exploit such a text would be surprising were he steeped in eucharistic traditions. There is nothing either here or in the rest of the homily, however, that would suggest the Letter to the Hebrews displays any such interest or preoccupation (see Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 300-312; Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9-16 Revisited”). The author is obviously aware of other traditions concerning Melchizedek—not least the supposed etymologies of his name and city current among first-century Jewish exegetes. Thus, like Philo (Allegorical Commentary 3.79-82), Hebrews (v. 2) understands his name to mean “king of righteousness,” on the assumption that Zedek comes from the Hebrew word sedeq (= righteous/ness) and that Salem comes from shâlo¯ m and therefore means “peace.” In fact, Zedek may well have been the name of the Canaanite deity served by Melchizedek (cf. Joshua 10:1 where the name of the pre-Israelite king of Jerusalem was Adonizedek = “The Lord is Zedek”). In which case Melchizedek’s name may have originally meant “Zedek’s king”

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

91

(see Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 44). This would lend support to the hypothesis that originally the Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was a Canaanite priest-king. Whatever his historical origins, for the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, he was a priest of God “Most High” (v. 1, hupsistos; for this as a title for Yahweh see LXX Num 24:16; Deut 32; 8; Ps 57:3; 76:56). In some Jewish traditions Salem came to be identified with Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:2; Genesis Apocryphon 22.14-5 [an Aramaic paraphrase of the book of Genesis found at Qumran]; Josephus [Jewish Antiquities 1.10] describes him as the founder of that city). The author of Hebrews, however, neither makes this identification nor pursues the homiletic possibilities of these “etymologies.” His concern is to show that Genesis 14:17-20 substantiates two things: that Melchizedek is of a non-Levitical type of priesthood and that such a priesthood is superior to its Levitical counterpart. To this end he uses the story of Melchizedek’s meeting with Abraham to prove that the blessing bestowed by Melchizedek and the tithe received by him clearly indicate his superiority to Abraham, the patriarch (ho patriarche¯s is placed in the emphatic position at the end of the sentence in v. 4). Melchizedek of Non-Levitical Descent. As we have observed, in Genesis Melchizedek is not presented as an Israelite—let alone of the priestly tribe of Levi. Nonetheless, he is the first character to be designated “priest” in the Torah. The author of Hebrews quickly establishes the point, fundamental to his argument, that he is not of the tribe of Levi : “This man has not their genealogy” (v. 6a); “he is without father or mother or genealogy” (v. 3). Given the context, this is obviously not a claim that Melchizedek was without parents (human or otherwise), but that his lineage was unknown, and therefore he could not claim to be of the priestly caste recognized by Judaism. Here, Hebrews appeals to scripture’s silence, an exegetical device well established in Jewish tradition (cf. Philo, On the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better 178; for rabbinical sources that employ the principle that “What is not in Torah is not in the world” see Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 3, 694-97). Since there is no mention in the biblical account of either Melchizedek’s origins or his final end, it may be inferred that he had neither. He has “neither beginning of days nor the end of life” (v. 3). (The implications of “nor end of life” in terms of Jesus as a “priest forever” will be picked up in vv. 23-25.) It was initially, no doubt, precisely because this enigmatic figure plays such a small but tantalizing part in the OT narrative that he fascinated Jewish and Christian exegetes alike. This speculation was subsequently fueled by Hebrews’ use of Melchizedek as a “type” (for Hebrews’ use of typology see

92

Jesus the High Priest

Introduction) of Christ. (For evidence of such speculations found in Jewish and Christian sources from the second century CE onwards see Horton, 97151. See also Pearson, Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 19-85 for the Gnostic tractate Melchizedek, not included by Horton.) Philo’s interest in Melchizedek, unlike our author’s, is clearly allegorical rather than historical. Both infer from scripture’s silence that he lacked antecedents. Unlike Hebrews, however, Philo does not deduce from this a divinely ordained “type” of priesthood that supersedes the Levitical order. For him, Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy indicates that he represents not mere sense perception, but divine reason (logos) with which God feeds the soul (Allegorical Commentary, 3.79-82). The Qumran Covenanters were also interested in the person of Melchizedek. In cave eleven have been found thirteen fragments of a document (11Q Melchizedek) in which Melchizedek is depicted as a heavenly, eschatological figure who will come in the final jubilee year to act as God’s agent of judgment, delivering the faithful and defeating the demonic forces of Belial. Significantly, in the catena of OT quotations cited and commented upon in 11Q Melch (Lev 25:13; Deut 15:2; Isa 61:1; Lev 25:10; Ps 82:1; 7:7-8; 82:2; Isa 52:7; Lev 25:9) is found neither Gen 14:17-20 nor Ps 110:4—our author’s principal texts. The most obvious reason for this exclusion is that, unlike the author of Hebrews, the Covenanters were not especially interested in Melchizedek’s priestly role. They envisaged him as an eschatological judge rather than as a priest. It was in his capacity as a judge that they believed he acted on God’s behalf. Hence he is referred to as – ‘Elo¯ hîm (in the words of Ps 82:1) and E l (in the words of Ps 7:7-8)—both names for God. This is not to claim that Melchizedek is God, but that he acts as God’s judge. In a number of respects his role for the Covenanters parallels that traditionally ascribed to the archangel Michael (whose name means “Who is like El (God)”; cf. Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; 1 Enoch 9:1; 90:21; Rev 12:7; see de Jonge and van der Woude, “11Q Melchizedek and the NT,” 305), which is not to conclude (contra Vermes, Qumran in Perspective, 184 et al.) that in this first-century text Melchizedek is overtly identified with Michael. He is not. Evidence for such an identification is not to be found prior to two medieval rabbinical texts (see Horton, 81). Unlike the Covenanters, Hebrews’ sole interest in Mechizedek is as a priest, not as a judge. Thus when Jesus, the Melchizedekian high priest, returns it will be “not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly awaiting him” (9:21). More importantly, there is nothing in the epistle that would suggest its author was aware of any tradition that made Melchizedek an angel. Had this been the case, it is inconceivable that he would have

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

93

claimed Melchizedek as a “type” of Jesus’ priesthood, given that this homily has already argued that Jesus excels the angels (see 1:5–2:18). It is therefore wholly improbable that here he would draw upon a tradition according to which this figure from Genesis 14 was understood to be an angelic being. In later Christian writings Melchizedek is sometimes interpreted as an angel or a theophany of the Holy Spirit or the Logos. Among some Gnostics he became the pattern of Christ rather than vice versa (see Hughes, 279-345, who cites church fathers such as Epiphanius, Hippolytus, and Jerome, who refuted such views)—the exact inverse of what we find in the Letter to the Hebrews. For our author, it is Jesus rather than Melchizedek who is the model of a superior priesthood. Hence in v. 3 it is he rather than Melchizedek who is its “type.” James Moffatt (93) has suggested that apho¯ moio¯ mens (RSV “resembling”) should be taken as a strict passive. In which case it conveys the force of, “but he (i.e., Melchizedek), being made (in scripture) to resemble the son of God . . . .” This brings home the salient fact that at this point in his homily he is working within the narrative framework of Genesis 14. His claim is that within that text may be seen the resemblance of the priesthood of Melchizedek to Jesus, the son of God—not the other way around. It is yet another illustration of the fact that for Hebrews, although the scriptures may witness to Christ, it is christology that controls scripture and not vice versa. Melchizedekian Priesthood is Superior to the Levitical Priesthood. It is evident from the use he makes of the Genesis story in vv. 4-10 that the author of Hebrews wishes to demonstrate Melchizedek’s supremacy not only over Abraham but also principally over Levi—the eponymous founder of Judaism’s priestly tribe who came to the forefront in this role from the second century BCE onward (cf. Ecclus 45:6; Jubilees 31:16-17; 32:1-5). As we have already observed, Hebrews’ interest in Melchizedek is as a type of non-Levitical priesthood, which will enable him to depict Jesus’ work in priestly terms. He anticipates the objection that a story about Abraham cannot possibly demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek over Levi since the latter was not yet born by arguing that Levi was nonetheless seminally present “in the loins of ” (v. 10) his great-grandfather, Abraham. Therefore, not only Abraham but also the unborn Levi acknowledged his inferior status by receiving a blessing and paying Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils. According to Num 18:21-26 and Neh 10:38, it was the Levites, the postexilic priesthood’s cultic subordinates (cf. Ezek 44:6-31; Num 18:1-7; see de Vaux, 358-71), rather than the priests, who had the duty of collecting the tithes from the people. Verse 9 reflects the fact that by the first century,

94

Jesus the High Priest

however, this task seems to have been taken over by the priests (see W. Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSNT 19 [1983], 50). Nowhere in Hebrews do we find a reference to Levites. By “the descendants of Levi” (v. 5) is clearly meant the priesthood; i.e., those of “the order of Aaron ” (v. 12, see Num 3:4; 16:40; 18:1-2 where a clear distinction is made between “the sons of Aaron” and their subordinates, the Levites). The Superiority of Christ’s Priesthood (7:11-28)

The language of “perfection” (teleio¯ sis), which begins (v. 11) and ends (v. 28, “has been made perfect,” teteleio¯ menon) this section, draws our attention to the purpose of the cult and its priesthood, which was to gain access to God on behalf of the worshiper. That goal, our author claims, was not achieved under the old order; and that (as becomes clear in 8:1–10:18) because Jesus alone had entered the true holy of holies, which is heaven, of which the earthly shrine in contrast is but a shadowy copy (cf. 10:1). It is not the Levitical priesthood but Jesus who has introduced the “better hope . . . through which we draw near to God” (v. 19). That appointed end (telos) of entry into the presence of God has, as yet, been achieved by Jesus alone. For the people of God it remains to be attained in the future (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 101-103). Whereas in vv. 1-10, Genesis 14:17-20 has been explicated, in vv. 11-28 it is Ps 110:4. In fact this psalm, which speaks of a priesthood “like/after the manner of Melchizedek,” is the underlying text for the whole chapter. It now comes to the fore and is cited overtly in vv. 17 and 21. Its exposition falls into two parts: (1) vv. 11-19, which claim that the Levitical order has been superseded; and (2) vv. 20-28, which seek to demonstrate that in Jesus may be seen a superior priesthood. From this point onward the historical figure of Melchizedek falls into the background. Hence we find no speculation as to whether or not he has an ongoing function. From the point of view of the author of Hebrews he has served his purpose, which is to act as a type of non-Levitical priesthood. (7:11-19) The Levitical Order Superseded. Here the author of Hebrews seeks to show that the very mention by the psalmist of “another” or “different kind” (v. 11, heteros) of priest from that of Aaron is evidence that

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

95

the previous priesthood was inadequate. He is well aware that to abrogate the Aaronic office is effectively to overthrow the Mosaic Law that legislated for its provision. Unlike the apostle Paul, however, the author of Hebrews is not principally concerned with the issue of the status of the Torah for the Christian community. Apart from one brief mention at 10:1 he does not pursue further the question of the Law per se. While recognizing here that a change of priesthood inevitably has ramifications for the Law as a whole, he confines his discussion to the cult and its priesthood. These institutions, he asserts, were weak and useless (v. 18), unable to bring about the access to God that was their divinely intended goal (v. 19, “made nothing perfect”). For Hebrews, the mention by the psalmist of another priest proves that a change was necessary (cf. 8:7-13 where the self-same principle is applied; the mention of a “new” covenant by Jeremiah must mean that the old is inadequate). The former commandment, which established the Levitical priesthood, previously thought of as permanent (cf. Lev 29:9, “by a perpetual statute”), is now “set aside” (v. 18). It has been supplanted by a new “order,” i.e., that represented by Melchizedek, mentioned in Psalm 110. Modern scholarship is divided as to the relative dating of the Melchizedek story in Gen 14:17-20 and Ps 110 (see Horton, 18-23, 30-33). Our author, however, is working on the traditional assumption that the psalms were written by David and therefore later than the book of Genesis, which was written by Moses. He sees its mention of a Melchizedekian priest, not only as an address to a Davidic king of the past, but also as a prophecy about Jesus—the Messiah who was to come. It is Jesus, therefore, who is “another priest” (v. 11); the “one of whom these things were spoken” (v. 13), descended, like David the son of God before him (see 1:5-13), from the tribe of Judah (cf. Matt 1:2-3; 2:6; Luke 3:33; Acts 2:29-36; 12:23; Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5; 22:16) rather than from the tribe of Levi (vv. 13-14). This new priesthood, however, is neither inherited nor bequeathed. Jesus has become a priest “not through a legal requirement concerning physical (sarkinos) descent, but through the power of an indestructible (akatalutos) life” (vv. 16-7, NRSV). “Indestructible” does not mean that Jesus did not die, but that for him death was not the end. Akatalutos therefore here conveys the sense of “endless.” This becomes clear from Ps 110:4, “Thou art a priest forever” (eis ton aio¯ na), which is cited in the following verse (17) by way of confirmation. As vv. 23-25 will show, the “forever” of the psalm means a permanent priesthood. In v. 16 it is Christ’s resurrection that is claimed as the grounds for this.

96

Jesus the High Priest

(7:20-28) A Superior Priesthood. Having demonstrated that the blessing and the tithe of Genesis 14 confirm the supremacy of a Melchizedekian priesthood, the author of Hebrews now focuses upon the oath (vv. 20-22) of LXX Ps 109[MT 110]:4, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (v. 21). That this is the main topic of this section is signaled linguistically by the inclusion “sworn oath” (horko¯ mosia) with which it begins (v. 20) and ends (v. 28). Whereas the oath of Ps 110:4 was initially introduced to stress the permanence of Jesus’ priesthood (v. 17), now it is used to assert that Melchizedekian rather than Levitical priesthood is God’s final word. In 6:13-20 our author has argued that God’s initial promise to Abraham was reconfirmed and strengthened by an oath. Now, however, the reference to God’s oath is appealed to, not by way of confirmation, but of suppression; to prove that the type of priesthood exercised by Jesus has replaced rather than confirmed that of the Levitical order. This oath signals God’s definitive, last, superior word. It makes Jesus not only a superior priest but also the guarantor (enguos) of a better covenant (cf. 8:7-13; 9:15-20). In vv. 23-25 Hebrews picks up the “forever” (eis ton aio¯ na) of the psalm and seeks to use it to demonstrate that the priesthood of Jesus is “permanent” (aparabatos). Although most early Greek fathers understood aparabatos to mean “intransmissible” (see Hughes, 269), there is no evidence that it was used in this passive sense in first-century Greek to mean “without successor.” It is therefore better (contra TEV, Héring, Spicq, et al.) read actively as “permanent” or “unchangeable” (so RSV, NEB, Windisch [Die katholischen Briefe], Bruce et al.), which is not to say that for the author of Hebrews the priesthood of Jesus can be passed on. Clearly it cannot (see Isaacs, “Priesthood,” 58-60)—precisely because it “continues forever” (v. 24) and therefore needs no successor. Our author is well aware (see Exod 40:15) that the sons of Aaron were anointed with “a perpetual (LXX, eis ton aio¯ na) priesthood,” but this meant for the duration of their lifetime (“throughout their generations”). Hence their ministry terminated with their death. Jesus, on the other hand, since he has been raised from the dead (see vv. 3, 16), continues in his priestly office and therefore has no need of a successor. That ministry is no longer one of sacrifice—that was the means whereby he entered heaven’s sanctuary rather than its end—but of intercessory prayer (v. 25; cf. Rom 8:34). Advocacy before God on behalf of the people (cf. 9:24) in Israelite tradition was by no means confined to the priesthood. Patriarchs such as Abraham (Gen 18:22-23) and Moses (Exod 32:30-34), kings such as Solomon (2 Chron 6:12-21) and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:2-11), prophets such as Amos (Amos 7:2), Jeremiah (Jer 14:11), and Ezekiel (Ezek 9:8; 11:13), and angels (Job 5:1; 33:19-25; Zech 1:12)—all act as

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

97

intercessors before God. Among such ranks must also be included the priesthood, especially the high priest on the Day of Atonement, who then entered the holy of holies on behalf of the people (see Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement, pages 98-103). His vestments symbolized this: engraved upon each onyx stone attached to the shoulderpieces of his ephod were the names of six of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 28:5-14; 39:6-7); each of the twelve stones on his breastplate contained the names of one of the tribes (Exod 39:8-21), and these are described as “stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel” (Exod 28:11) that Aaron brings before the Lord. In depicting Jesus’ ongoing ministry as representative and intercessory, the author of Hebrews is drawing upon the model that dominates the central section of his homily, namely, that of the role of the Levitical high priest on the Day of Atonement. He argues, furthermore, not only for a permanent priesthood, but also for the permanence of its achievement. “Consequently he is able for all time (eis to panteles) to save those who draw near to God through him” (v. 25, RSV). Translators and commentators are divided in their understanding of the phrase eis to panteles. It can be taken temporally, to mean “for all time” (so RSV, TEV, NASB, the Vulgate, Syriac and Coptic versions), or qualitatively, to signify “completely” (NIV) or “utterly certainly” (JB). The NEB “absolutely” (so Michel, Hughes, Lane) combines both the temporal and the qualitative aspects. Whichever translation is adopted, the emphasis is upon the definitive character of what Jesus’ priesthood has achieved. The claims made for a Melchizedekian priesthood that surpasses that of Levi reaches its climax in the opening phrase of the chapter’s concluding sentence (vv. 26-28 in Greek constitute one sentence): “We have such a high priest.” Christ’s superiority is demonstrated in his sinlessness, the efficacy of his self-offering, and his singularity. Jesus not only fulfilled the laws of holiness required of all priests; he excelled them (vv. 26-7). Thus he was “devout” (RSV “holy”; hosios is the usual LXX translation of the Hebrew hâs¯ıd ; cf. Ps 12:1; 16:10; 18:26, etc.), i.e., one who was faithful to the covenant; “innocent” (RSV “ blameless”; akakos signifies one whose innocence is born of guilelessness; cf. Rom 16:18 where it means “simple-minded”); and “cultically pure” (amiantos, RSV “unstained”). Philo (On Special Laws 1.113) uses the word amiantos of that state of ritual purity demanded by the Law of the high priest by virtue of his office. To enter the holy of holies, and thereby to cross the divide between the profane and the sacred, it was essential for the high priest ritually to be “separated from sinners.”

98

Jesus the High Priest

According to our author, Jesus did all this—and more. His entry was not into an earthly shrine but into the presence of God (v. 26, “exalted above the heavens”). Moreover, he did so not only as one who was, like all priests, ritually pure, but also as one who was sinless. Other high priests were obliged to offer a sacrifice for the expiation of their own sins before they could present the sacrifice on behalf of the people (see 5:1-3). Hence, on the Day of Atonement the high priest made two entries into the holy of holies, not one; the first with the blood of the bull on behalf of the priesthood, and the second with the blood of the goat on behalf of the people (see Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement). Jesus, on the other hand, needed to offer but one sacrifice. The implications of this statement is not (contra Buchanan, 12931) that Jesus’ death was for his own as well as the people’s sins, but that only one was needed since Jesus was personally sinless. This goes far beyond any claims made for the Levitical priesthood by Judaism in the first century (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 110-14). Jesus’ self-offering was more efficacious than that of the Levitical priesthood because it was singular and definitive—“once for all time” (v. 27, hephapax ; cf. 9:12; 10:10; for the singular “once” [hapax] death / offering of Christ see 9:26, 27, 28), and needed no repetition (cf. 10:1-18). Here (v. 27) the one sacrifice of Christ is contrasted with the daily morning and evening sacrifices offered by the priesthood in general (see Exod 29:38-49; Num 28:3-10; Lev 6:9-23) and the high priest in particular (see Ecclus 45:14). The author of Hebrews’ interest, however, is not with Israel’s daily offerings but with the annual Day of Atonement rites. Hence, it is not so much to priests as to the high priest and his unique function on that special day that he draws our attention. Therefore he now picks up the title “high priest” (cf. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20) by way of introduction to the sacrificial work of Christ—the high priest and victim—expounded in 8:1–10:18. Just as the author of Hebrews has made appeal to the singularity of his offering, so he points to Jesus’ personal singularity; he is a (i.e., one ) son in contrast to numerous high priests. A similar comparison and contrast has already been made in 1:1-2 between the many prophets of the past and Jesus, the one, definitive spokesman. Here, however, it is not as God’s last prophet but as His final priest that Jesus is presented. In this latter capacity, through his obedience to his God-given calling (see 5:6-10), he has achieved its end (“he has been made perfect,” see 5:9).

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

99

Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement

The importance of the Day of Atonement for Judaism may be seen from the fact that the treatise in the Mishnah that deals with its regulations is called simply “The Day” (Yomah) without any further qualification. While now, as then, it continues to be observed by Jews as a day of solemn rest, penitence, and fasting, until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in CE 70, it also entailed the offering of animal sacrifices in accordance with the ordinances prescribed in Leviticus 16 (cf. Lev 23:26-32; Exod 30:10; Num 29:7-11). Not all of ancient Israel’s sacrifices were expiatory (for the various types of sacrifice see de Vaux, 415-23), but, as its name implies (Yôm Ha Kippurîm literally means “The Day of Coverings,” from the Hebrew verb kipper = to cover), those offered on the Day of Atonement were. Observed annually on the tenth day of the seventh month (i.e., the month of Tishri = September/October), this was the occasion when the year’s accumulated sins of both the priesthood and the people were expiated, and thus that state of purity, which was thought to be the essential precondition of and for the presence of God, restored once more. The Day of Atonement rites were intended not only to purify the worshippers of all contamination, but also the shrine and its furnishings. The cult place—whether in the desert or Jerusalem—was to be a place of rendezvous with God. Thus the wilderness tabernacle is called the “tent of meeting” (‘ohel mô ‘ed, see Exod 33:7); the place where God spoke to Moses “face to face” (Exod 33:11; cf. Num 12:8, “mouth to mouth”). In the P source of pentateuchal tradition the cloud, the symbol of God’s presence, covered the tent immediately when it was erected (Exod 40:34-35). For that presence to remain, however, both place and people had to be free of defilement. Jacob Milgrom (“Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly `Picture of Dorian Gray’,” 390-99) has likened the relationship between the sins of the people and the contamination of the sanctuary to “The Picture of Dorian Gray”: “On the analogy of Oscar Wilde’s novel, the priestly writers would claim: sin may not leave its mark on the face of the sinner, but it is certain to mark the face of the sanctuary, and unless it is quickly expunged, God’s presence will depart” (390). Since the defilement of the one is mirrored in the other, shrine and people both stand in need of purification. The Day of Atonement was the occasion par excellence when that took place. Thus the high priest “shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and all the people of the assembly” (Lev 16: 33).

100

Jesus the High Priest

Setting

Ostensibly, the original setting of the Day of Atonement ceremonies was Israel’s pre-settlement shrine of the desert. A description of this sanctuary and its contents is to be found in Exod 25–30; 35–40, where it is depicted as a portable tent. According to the earlier (JE) strand of the narrative, it was erected “outside the camp” (Exod 33:7; Num 11:24-30), i.e., apart from the place of normal human habitation. In this tradition it was thought of not so much as a place of God’s dwelling as of God’s appearing. The later priestly tradition, however, located the shrine in the center of Israel’s camp (Num 2:2, 17), where it is a sign of God’s presence “in their midst” (Exod 25:8). It is to this P source that we owe most of the lengthy and elaborate account of the tabernacle’s layout and furnishings. Although traditionally the subsequent temple in Jerusalem was thought to replicate the instructions given by God to Moses for the wilderness “tent of meeting,” it is more likely that it was the Jerusalem temple that influenced the pentateuchal account of the wilderness tabernacle rather than vice versa. Albeit in portable form and exactly half its size, it is in fact very much a replica of Solomon’s temple (see 1 Kgs 6-8; 2 Chron 2–4), with the same essential division between the open courtyard accessible to priests and people alike, and the shrine proper—itself divided into the Holy Place (Hebrew, hêka¯ l; LXX, ta hagia) where only the priests were permitted to go and the Holy of Holies (Hebrew, debir; LXX, hagia hagio¯ n)—strictly off-limits to all but the high priest, and even for him accessible only on the Day of Atonement. Ritual

This began in the courtyard of the front of the tabernacle. According to the dimensions given in Exodus (27:1-21; 38:1-7), this was an area of 75 feet wide by 150 feet long, surrounded on three sides by a linen screen approximately 7.5 feet high that acted as an enclosure inside which the “tent of meeting” was erected. Here the high priest prepared for the ceremony in several steps. First, he selected the bullock and the ram that were to be sacrificed on behalf of himself and the entire priesthood, the first as a “purification” offering (Hebrew, ha . t.ta’t; . RSV, “sin offering”), and the second as a holocaust (Hebrew, ‘olah; RSV, “burnt offering”). Second, he divested himself of his vestments, bathing and then robing himself in a simple linen tunic (Lev 16:4). He then selected the people’s victims, two goats (one of which was to be sacrificed as a purificatory offering) and a ram for a burnt offering (Lev 16:5). In fact, only one of the goats would be sacrificed. The

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

101

second, the “scapegoat,” since it was to have the sins of the people symbolically transferred to it by the high priest laying his hands upon its head, would thereby become defiled and hence could not be offered to God. It would be banished instead, led out into the wilderness (Lev 16:20-22). At this point in the ceremony both goats were the potential victims, however. Which one would be the expiatory offering to God was determined by the high priest casting lots (Lev 16:7-8). These preparations having been completed, the high priest sacrificed the bull for the purification of himself and the priesthood and entered the holy place with some of the victim’s blood. Taking live coals from the altar of incense, he placed them in a censer together with two handfuls of incense, and, with the incense forming a cloud of smoke to prevent his sight of the Divine Presence, entered the holy of holies (Lev 12:12-13). There he sprinkled the blood seven times on and in front of the “mercy seat” (Hebrew, kapporet; . LXX, hilaste¯rion; cf. Heb 9:5), i.e., the covering of the ark; the place where God’s mercy was dispensed (cf. Heb 4:16 “throne of grace”)(Lev 16:11-14). If the penitent was an individual, the blood of an expiatory sacrifice was poured either at the base of the altar of sacrifice/burnt offerings situated outside the entrance to the holy place. If the penance was on behalf of the nation, it was taken by the priest into the holy place and there smeared on the horns of the altar of incense. If the penitent was a priest, it was poured on the curtain that separated the holy place from the holy of holies, however. On the Day of Atonement alone was it taken by the high priest into the holy of holies. The priest then returned to the vestibule in front of the sanctuary and there killed the goat, the expiatory offering for both the people and the cult place (Lev 16:15-16, 19). He then reentered the holy place, taking with him the blood of the goat, which he proceeded to pour on and around the altar of incense (Lev 16:18-19), as he had previously done with the bull’s blood. The second time the high priest entered the holy of holies it was with the blood of the goat, which he sprinkled on and in front of the “mercy seat” seven times (Lev 16:15). The high priest then returned to the forecourt of the sanctuary to lay his hands upon the head of the live goat, confessing over it the nation’s sins. The goat was then led out into the wilderness, symbolizing the expulsion of sin (Lev 16:21-22). Although not a sacrifice, the purpose of this ritual was clearly also expiatory (see Lev 16:21). In the Hebrew text the goat is described as “for Azazel” (Lev 16:10); Azazel presumably being the person or place to ( see vv. 10, 26) whom or which it is consigned. In both the Greek

102

Jesus the High Priest

(LXX, eis te¯n apopompe¯n) and Latin (Vulgate, caper emissarius) versions, on the other hand, “Azazel” is understood descriptively of the goat as the one “sent out.” Most scholars, however, think that Azazel was a proper name, which is how it is interpreted in the Targum and the Syriac versions (see de Vaux, 509). In 1 Enoch, Azazel is the name of the leader of the fallen angels (see Gen 6:1-4) who, it is claimed, led the people astray by introducing them to certain forbidden crafts, namely, the manufacture of weapons, the use of precious metals and stone for ornamentation, and making cosmetics (1 Enoch 6; 8:1-2). This Prometheus-like character is accordingly punished by first being bound and then cast out into the desert (1 Enoch 10:4). In later Jewish, Christian, and Islamic tradition he became identified with Satan. In popular religion the wilderness was traditionally thought of as the home of demons (Isa 13:21; 34:11-14; cf. Matt 12:43). In the final act of the ritual the high priest entered the holy place where he divested himself of his linen garment, bathed, and in clean vestments reemerged before the people to sacrifice the two rams as holocausts (one for the priesthood and one for the people) upon the altar of burnt offerings outside the entrance to the shrine (Lev 16:23-24). There not only the carcasses of the animals but also their fat was burned, since, like blood, it was thought to be the source of life and therefore belonged to God alone (see Lev 3:16-17). Unlike most of ancient Israel’s sacrifices, no part of the victims offered on the Day of Atonement was eaten, either by the priests or the worshippers. Communion offerings (zebah. ˇselamîm, RSV “peace offerings”) were shared by priest and worshippers in a fellowship meal. The carcasses of expiatory sacrifices offered by individuals were not eaten by the penitent, but by the priests, except when the penitent was himself a priest, in which case it became a holocaust. On the Day of Atonement, however, no one ate the meat of the sacrificial victims. Furthermore, although wholly burned, unlike other holocausts, the bodies of the bull and the goat were not burned on the altar of burnt offerings but disposed of “outside the camp” (Lev 16:27; cf. Heb 13:11), i.e., away from sacred territory altogether. Although in the book of Leviticus the Day of Atonement is portrayed as a cultic rite that goes back to the time of Israel’s presettlement period, most scholars believe that it is one of Israel’s later religious festivals (see de Vaux, 507-509)—one that probably belonged to the second temple period. We find no reference to it in any preexilic writings. Ezekiel 45:18-20 describes a spring New Year’s Day festival held on the first day of the first month in which the sanctuary of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was sanctified by blood being smeared on its doorposts and altar. On the seventh day of the first month (translated in the LXX as the first day of the seventh month) a

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

103

similar ritual was followed, this time to expiate any sins the people may have committed unwittingly, thereby inadvertently polluting the temple. But this is not to be identified with the Day of Atonement ceremonies we find in Leviticus 16. In its present form this pentateuchal text is itself a late composition, containing evidence of the use of various sources that have undergone a number of re-editings. Thus we find doublets (vv. 6/11; 9b/15; 4/32 ), two conclusions (vv. 24 and 29a), and an editorial comment summarizing what has gone before (vv. 29b-34). In spite of their ostensible setting in the wilderness tabernacle therefore, the Day of Atonement ceremonies would appear to have had their origins in the Jerusalem temple. Diagram of the Wilderness Tabernacle According to Exodus 25–27; 30 75 ft

15 ft Ark

HOLY OF HOLIES

15 ft

Curtain Altar of Incense

30 ft

Showbread Table

HOLY PLACE Lampstand

Bowl for Washing

Burnt Offerings

150 ft

104

Jesus the High Priest

The Sacrificial Work of Christ (8:1–10:18) Having served our author’s purpose of establishing Jesus’ non-Levitical, superior, priestly credentials, the figure of Melchizedek is abandoned. Now it is Christ’s cultic work that is compared and contrasted with Judaism’s priesthood in general and the Aaronic high priesthood in particular, and the sacrificial victim whose death was the essential prerequisite for access to God. The language of “offering” that begins (8:3, “every high priest is appointed to offer [prospherein]”) and ends (10:18, “an offering [prosphora] for sins”) this unit draws our attention to the specific function of the priesthood, namely, to offer the blood of the sacrificial victim to God on behalf of the worshiper (see 5:1). It brings to a triumphant close the central section of the homily, begun at 4:15, in which the preacher has drawn an analogy between the death and heavenly exaltation of Jesus and Judaism’s Day of Atonement rites. It falls into two parts: (1) 8:1–9:28, which claims that Jesus has achieved the cult’s purpose; (2) 10:1-18, which asserts that his is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Access into God’s Presence (8:1–9:28)

The first subunit opens with an affirmation (8:1-6), followed by twin themes (a, b) and then the exposition (c, b1, b2, a1), and may structured in this manner: a

a1

Heaven as the true sanctuary (8:1-2, 5), and b Jesus as the minister of a new covenant (8:6) c A demonstration of the need for a new covenant (8:7–9:10) b1 Jesus the superior priest and victim (9:11-14) b2 The mediator of a new covenant (9:15-22) He has entered heaven—the true shrine (9:23-28).

(8:1-2, 5) Heaven as the True Sanctuary. With the inclusion “minister” (leitourgos, v. 2) and “a ministry” (leitougias, v. 6) is signaled the opening paragraph’s major theme—the priestly work of Jesus in heaven. In 1:3 God’s throne angels have been designated “ministers.” Given its context, here too this vocabulary is used cultically, although not to claim that Jesus is an angel (a suggestion that has been explicitly denied in 1:5-14), but that he officiates

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

105

in heaven. “Minister” here, therefore, is employed as a synonym for “priest” (cf. LXX Neh 10:39; Isa 6:6; Ecclus 7:20 ). With the words, “We have such a high priest who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (v. 1), the author’s argument of the preceding chapter—that Jesus is the superior high priest “after the manner of Melchizedek”—reaches its “crowning affirmation” (= kephalaion; so Lane, vol. 1, 199-200; cf. NRSV, “the main point”). Above all, his superiority is evidenced by the fact that the shrine he has entered is located not on earth but in heaven. Once more, therefore, the theme of heavenly exaltation is picked up in v. 1b via an allusion to Ps 110:1 (cf. 1:3, “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”); only now it is associated with priesthood as well as sonship. In Hebrews we find the following spatial images of heaven (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 205-19): • the throne room of a royal court (cf. Ps 11:5; Isa 66:1; Rev 4:2–5:2). This is its principal use in Heb 1:4–2:18 where our author interprets Ps 110:1 in terms of Jesus’ enthronement in heaven as the son of God • a country, i.e., the promised land. Although the word “heaven(s)” (ouranoi) does not occur there, this is the major concept of “heaven” in chapters 3 and 4, where its attainment is the “heavenly” (epouranios) call, shared by the people of God. It is the goal of their pilgrimage, which, as yet, only Jesus has achieved. • a city (11:10), the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22); the city state/kingdom that is unshakable (12:28). • a shrine (see 4:14-16). In each case, “heaven” is not so much a geographical location as a symbol of the Divine Presence. Like the “kingdom of God” in other New Testament writings, it represents the sphere of God’s sovereignty and carries with it strong eschatological overtones of hope for the future. The psalmist had already brought together images of heaven as both a palace and a temple: “The Lord is in his temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Ps 11[LXX 10]:5). Since the author of Hebrews has imaginatively placed his audience, like Israel of old, in the wilderness period, he uses the language of “tent” (ske¯ne¯) rather than that of Jerusalem’s subsequent temple. Given the cultic analogy drawn between Jesus and the Day of Atonement rites, which is the major theme of 4:15–10:18, it is hardly surprising that in this section we find heaven principally depicted as a shrine; and not simply a shrine, but as the shrine par excellence.

106

Jesus the High Priest

Hebrews lays claim not only to Jesus as the superior high priest, but also to heaven—the sacred space he now occupies—as the superior shrine, “the sanctuary, even the true tent” (v. 2 NIV), in which he now officiates. This translation is preferable to the more literal rendering, “the sanctuary (ta hagia) and the true tent (he¯ ske¯ne¯ he¯ ale¯thine¯)” (RSV), since, from its context, it is evident that here not two but one sanctuary is meant. As v. 4 acknowledges, Jesus would have been ineligible to enter the priestly domain of Israel’s shrine. The second half of the phrase, therefore, is epexegetical, indicating that “the sanctuary” Jesus has entered is none other than “the true tent” (cf. v. 5, “the heavenly sanctuary”), heaven itself. At this point in his homily our author is not so much drawing a distinction between two contrasting shrines as establishing that Jesus is now exalted in heaven—the true place of rendezvous with God. If “which was set up by God and not any mortal” (v. 2b) is an allusion to LXX Num 24:6—Balaam’s vision of God’s blessing upon Israel, namely, that its dwellings were “as tents which God had pitched”—then it is even less likely that this is intended as a polemic against Judaism’s cult place. Undoubtedly, the emphasis here is upon the shrine that Jesus has entered being of divine rather than human construction (cf. 9:11, 24). Yet, as the citation of LXX Exod 25:40 (cf. Wis 9:8) in v. 5c shows, the author of Hebrews shared Judaism’s belief that the plans for Israel’s sanctuary, entrusted to Moses, were God-given: “See that you make everything (LXX “them”) according to the pattern (typos) shown you on the mountain.” Philo, accepting the Platonic philosophical premise that the immaterial world of ideas is superior to the phenomenal world, claimed that the vision of the tabernacle and its furnishings granted to Moses belonged to the former: He saw with the soul’s eye the immaterial forms of the material objects about to be made and these forms had to be reproduced in copies (mime¯mata) perceived by the senses, taken from the original draft (arche¯typon) so to speak and from patterns (paradeigmata) conceived in the mind . . . . So the shape (typos) of the model (paradeigma) was stamped on the mind of the prophet. (Life of Moses 2.74-75) Only if we accept the translation adopted by the RSV, the NRSV, and the NEB et al. of v. 5a, “They serve a copy (hypodeigma) and a shadow (skia) of the heavenly sanctuary,” and interpret it in Platonic terms, are we obliged to see the author of Hebrews relegating to the second-order world the

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

107

plan/pattern (typos/hypodeigma) of the shrine revealed to Moses, so that it becomes an inferior copy of the real McCoy. L. D. Hurst (“How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. vii.5 and ix.23f?,” 156-68), on the other hand, has pointed out that there is no known instance in Greek literature where the word hypodeigma is used in the sense of “copy.” Rather it conveys (like the more classical paradeigma, preferred by Philo) something that is copied, in which case it would indicate the original archetype or pattern (cf. 4:11 where it is a moral pattern of disobedience to be avoided) and not its inferior copy. Hurst follows James Moffatt’s suggestion (Hebrews, 105) that the phrase hypodeigma kai skia should be understood as a hendiadys, conveying the sense of “a shadowy outline.” He denies, however, that it owes anything to Platonism, pointing out that in the LXX “shadow” (skia) is frequently used to denote that which is insubstantial and transient (e.g., Job 8:9; 14:2; Wis 2:5; 5:9,10-12). Hurst (162) suggests that the phrase could be translated as “a preliminary sketch,” the final details of which are to be filled in later. This would certainly accord with what we find throughout Hebrews; namely, that the relationship between God’s revelation in the past and God’s word spoken through Jesus (see 1:1-2) is depicted as one of promise and fulfillment. Thus at 10:1 the Law is “the shadow of the good things to come.” In claiming the superiority of the son, Hebrews relativizes rather than denies the inspiration of the prophets (see 1:1-2). So it is with our author’s treatment of Israel’s cult place. It prefigured the heavenly sanctuary now inhabited by the exalted Christ. This language of an “earthly” (see 9:1) as opposed to a “heavenly” shrine therefore is to be understood, not within the context of Platonic philosophy, but in terms of our author’s Christian eschatology. There is no evidence that the author of Hebrews has been influenced by the tradition we find in the later rabbinical text, Numbers Rabah 12.12, according to which, at the same time as Moses was commanded to erect the wilderness tabernacle, the angels were bidden to erect a tabernacle in heaven. There, Metatron, the first among the angels, offered the souls of the righteous upon the heavenly altar as an expiation for sin. In the book of Revelation we also find a description of a temple in heaven, contemporaneous with the one on earth (Rev 11:1-2), and inhabited by angels (Rev 5:2; 7:11), the cherubim (Rev 4:6, 8, 9), the twenty-four elders (Rev 4:4, 10; 5:8), and the martyrs (Rev 6:9-11)—all praising God (Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9-14). For John of Patmos, however, there will be no temple in the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:22). This is unlike the Letter to the Hebrews where the language of “sanctuary” is integral to its author’s vision of the eschaton. Thus heaven itself is depicted not as containing a shrine but as being a shrine—or more

108

Jesus the High Priest

precisely, being the inner sanctum, the holy of holies of the wilderness tabernacle to which the high priest alone was permitted access. Like Ezekiel 40–48 (cf. Jubilees 31:14; 1 Enoch 90:28-29), the image of a heavenly sanctuary forms an important part of Hebrews’ eschatological hope. It is the place of rendezvous with God that has as yet been attained by Jesus alone but will in the future be entered by all his followers. (8:6) Jesus as the Minister of a New Covenant. Having established in chapter 7 that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of the Levitical order and in 8:1-5 that he officiates in a superior shrine, our author now goes on to claim that he exercises a superior ministry, not least since it is established on the basis of a better covenant. At 7:22 Jesus has been described as the guarantor (enguos) of a better covenant. Now he becomes the “mediator” (mesite¯s; cf. 9:15; 12:25). (This word is rare in the NT. In 1 Tim 2:5 it also applied to Jesus. In Gal 3:19-20 it describes the angels as mediators of Mosaic Torah [see note on Heb 2:2].) In what sense Jesus may be seen as the mediator of a new covenant is made clear in 9:15-22 where he is depicted as the covenant sacrifice. Although in Old Testament tradition there is more than one covenant made between God and His people (e.g., with Noah, Gen 9:1-17; with Abraham, Gen 17:1-14; with David, 2 Sam 2), not to mention covenant renewals (under Joshua, Josh 24; Josiah, 2 Kgs 23:1-3; Ezra, Neh 8–10), the new covenant promised by Jeremiah is here contrasted with that made by God with Moses on Mount Sinai (Exod 19). Thus, like Exodus 19–28, Hebrews similarly links the institutions of priesthood, sanctuary, sacrifice, and Law. OT scholars are divided as to the antiquity of these covenant traditions. As a way of expressing Israel’s conviction of its divine election as God’s people, we may safely say that the notion of “covenant” flowered in Deuteronomistic circles in the years leading up to the Exile (see Nicholson, God and His People). Although in this context the term “covenant” (Hebrew, berit; . LXX, diathe¯ke¯) does not convey the notion of a contract between God and Israel as two equal partners, it was nonetheless bilateral in that it carried with it not only God’s commitment to Israel but also Israel’s obligation to worship only Yahweh and to obey His commandments. It was Israel’s failure to live up to its part of the covenant that led the prophet Jeremiah to look forward to a new one. (8:7–9:10) A Demonstration of the Need for a New Covenant. This need is testified by scripture (8:7-13) and by the inadequacy of the old covenant and its earthly cultus (9:1-10).

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

109

(8:7-13) The Testimony of Scripture. Our author finds in Jeremiah (LXX 38[MT 31]:31-34) proof that the Mosaic covenant was never intended to be God’s last word. The very mention of a “second” covenant demonstrates the need for another one since the first was not “faultless.” Like Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews attributes the responsibility for the breakdown of the covenant relationship to Israel’s disobedience. Hence he introduces his citation of scripture with: “He (i.e., the Lord) finds fault with them when he says . . . .” He goes further than Jeremiah, however, in seeing an inherent transitoriness in the Mosaic covenant itself. It was never intended to be other than the prefiguration of the superior covenant inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ. The author of Hebrews’ citation of Jeremiah (as is the case with most of his biblical citations) is clearly not taken from any Hebrew text represented by the Masoretic text but comes from a Greek version. Hence, with the LXX, v. 9 reads, “And so he paid no heed to them,” rather than the MT’s, “Though I was a husband to them.” Like the prophet, our author looks forward to a restoration of the covenant relationship between God and His people; to a time when there will be an internalization of the will of God in the hearts and minds of everyone, which will lead to radical obedience on their part (v. 10). Then, teachers and interpreters of the Law will become redundant, since all will have firsthand knowledge of the will of God (v. 11). One of the functions of Israel’s priesthood was to teach the Law (Deut 33:10; Lev 10:11; Ezek 44:23; Hag 2:11-13; see Excursus 1: Ancient Israel’s Priesthood), but this is not developed in Hebrews, which focuses rather upon one priestly function alone—that of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. In that connection this passage from Jeremiah, especially with its promise of forgiveness (v. 12), will be picked up again at 10:16-17. Meanwhile, the main point the preacher wishes to make is that the new covenant, promised by God through the prophet Jeremiah, demonstrates that the Mosaic covenant is part of the passing age, soon to disappear. It is “becoming obsolete,” “growing old,” and “ready to vanish away” (v. 13). The new covenant therefore heralds a new order. Yet, like the promised land (see 6:5; 12:22), the new covenant remains part of our author’s vision of the future. However imminent, that future has yet to be achieved. For the present it is experienced by the believer as hope. (9:1-10) The Inadequacy of the Old Covenant. Our author returns once more to the theme that dominates 4:15–10:18, the Day of Atonement. 9:15 outlines the layout and contents of Israel’s shrine, with its tent’s twofold division between the holy place (vv. 2,6, “the first one [he¯ prote¯], RSV “the outer one”) and the inner sanctum, the holy of holies, separated by a curtain.

110

Jesus the High Priest

Verse 3 refers to this as “the second curtain,” which may imply that the author of Hebrews thought that there was a first curtain that separated the holy place from the outside courtyard. If so, he did not find such a suggestion from the biblical narratives, which mention only one curtain—that which divided the holy place from the holy of holies (see Exod 26:31-35; 36:35-36). It is possible that here we find evidence of a tradition present in later rabbinical writings (e.g., Yoma 1) that a double curtain separated the tabernacle’s two compartments. As to the shrine’s furnishings, our author (v. 2) follows his biblical sources in placing the lampstand (see Exod 26:25) and the table and its showbread (see Exod 25:23-30; 26:35; Lev 24:6) in the holy place. Where he parts company with them is in his summary of the contents of the holy of holies. In Exodus (25:1–31:11; 26:2-29, 43; 40:1-38) the inner sanctum’s sole furnishing was the ark. This had probably been removed from the Jerusalem temple and/or destroyed by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE when they sacked it (see Jer 3:14-17). According to Josephus, in the holy of holies of the temple of the first century CE “stood nothing whatsoever” (Jewish War 5.219). The shrine that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews describes, however, is clearly not the Jerusalem temple of his own day but the portable tent that was Israel’s place of worship in the wilderness. Not surprisingly, therefore, he claims that its holy of holies contained the ark in which were placed the tablets of the covenant (v. 4; cf. Deut 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chron 5:10). What is surprising, however, is that according to Hebrews the ark also contained the manna (contra Exod 16:33-34) and Aaron’s rod (contra Num 17:16-24). More strikingly, the altar of incense is located, not in the holy place, but in the holy of holies (contra Exod 30:1-10; 38:25-28). This may reflect an exegetical tradition current in first-century Judaism. According to 2 Baruch 6:7 (a work usually dated c. CE 70), an angel descends to the Jerusalem temple prior to its destruction and removes the ark and the altar of incense from the holy of holies so that they may not be desecrated. Harold Attridge (234-38) has suggested that the relocation of the altar of incense in the holy of holies may have arisen as a result of the ambiguity of the septuagintal translation of Exodus 30:6, “before the curtain,” as apenanti tou katapotasmatos. The word apenanti could be (and in some circles was) understood as inside rather than opposite. The author of Hebrews, however, is not principally interested in the shrine’s furniture, as his minimizing aside, “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail” (v. 5), shows. His main concern is to focus upon the role of the high priest on the Day of Atonement since this provides his analogy with the death and exaltation of Christ. He is not concerned with the activities of Israel’s priests in general. They go about their ritual duties “continually,” and

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

111

are confined to the holy place (v. 6). The high priest, on the other hand, alone enters the holy of holies, and then but once a year (v. 7). (See Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement.) Then he entered twice; first with the blood of the bull presented as an expiatory offering for himself and the whole priestly order (Lev 16:6, 11), and the second time with the blood of the goat offered for the nation (Lev 16:16). Blood was regarded as the essential medium of purification (see v. 22), without which the removal of the barrier of sin (the prior condition for access to God) was impossible. These sacrifices, however, were “ for sins committed unintentionally (agnoe¯mato¯ n)” (NRSV, v. 7). Israel’s cult was never intended to expiate sins done “with a high-hand” (see Num 15:30-31). Thus both the “expiatory offering” (Hebrew, ha . .tta . ‘t) and the reparation or “guilt offering” (Hebrew, ‘a¯ sa¯ m) were prescribed largely for inadvertent rather than deliberate offenses (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 98-99). In vv. 9-10 our author claims that the whole purificatory system of the Mosaic cult—not only animal sacrifices but also food offerings, wine libations (see Exod 29:40-41; 30:9; Lev 23:13, 18, 37), and ritual ablutions (for those required of the high priest see Lev 16:4, 24)— could deal only with the external rather than the internal. Hence it was unable “to perfect [i.e., cleanse; see 9:14; 10:1, 2] the conscience (syneide¯sis) of the worshiper.” Here “conscience” does not mean what the word has come to mean in twenty-first-century English, namely, an inner Geiger counter that registers right and wrong. In first-century usage, far from being neutral, the conscience was thought to be a wholly negative indicator of that which was reprehensible (see Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament, 13-30). It therefore refers to an inner sense of guilt, something that needs to be removed rather than reeducated (see 10:22). Only at 13:18 in Hebrews do we find the word used positively, and even there a “good conscience” probably refers to the absence of guilt. By asserting that the death of Christ effected not only the removal of external defilement (cf. v. 10, “regulations for the body”) but also a guilty conscience, our author is claiming that Jesus both fulfilled and excelled the Mosaic cult’s remit. As long as the latter, “the first tent,” “still has standing (echouse¯s stasis, v. 8)”—i.e., is legally in force—the holy of holies remains barred to all but the high priest. (Since the present tenses in vv. 7-8 are clearly historic presents, referring to the regulations laid down in the Torah rather than to what may or may not have been operative in the Jerusalem temple of our author’s own day, nothing may be inferred from this about whether or not the Letter to the Hebrews was written before or after CE 70.) That was true of the Mosaic covenant and its cultic regulations, and, until the imminent return of Jesus (see 9:28), that remains so for the present. It is

112

Jesus the High Priest

a “parable” (parabole¯) or “symbol for the present age” (v. 9, NEB). Until then only Jesus has entered the holy of holies (= heaven). Nonetheless, with his entry into heaven has come “the time . . . to set things right (kairou diotho¯ seo¯ s)” (v. 10, NRSV); a time of re-formation wherein what was prefigured in Israel’s sacrificial system has now been reshaped and perfected. (9:11-14) Jesus the Superior Priest and Victim. The emphatic “Christ” (Christos, probably used here and in vv. 14, 24, and 28 as the title “Messiah” [= anointed one] rather than as a personal name), positioned as it is at the beginning of the sentence, draws our attention to Jesus as the high priest who has superseded that of the Aaronic order. Among the early Greek manuscripts we find two different readings of verse 11, both well-attested. In one manuscript Jesus is described as the high priest of “the good things that have come” (genomeno¯ n agatho¯ n; accepted by the editors of NA and UBS and adopted by the translators of RSV, NRSV, and TEV). The other manuscript reads “the good things that are to come” (mellonto¯ n agatho¯ n; adopted by the AV and JB). If we accept the first, the emphasis is upon Jesus having already achieved the cult’s aim, i.e., access into the presence of God. The second introduces a future dimension and draws our attention to the eschatological age; to the time when such access will be enjoyed not only by Jesus, the high priest, but also by all God’s people. The central affirmation of the Letter to the Hebrews is indeed that Jesus, now exalted in heaven, has himself gained access to God. Its author also believes that his followers have already “tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (6:5). Nonetheless, for him the attainment of the goal of the worshipper’s pilgrimage still lies in the future (cf. 13:14, “the city which is to come”). Since, therefore, this homily proclaims both the “now” and the “not yet” of the eschatological age, it is difficult to rule out either reading on contextual grounds. In 10:1 Hebrews will go on to describe the Mosaic Law as “a shadow of the good things to come.” Perhaps in 9:11 our author is suggesting that Christ is the fulfillment of what the cult, legislated for by that self-same Law, foreshadowed (cf. 8:5 where the wilderness tabernacle is depicted as a trailer or preliminary sketch of the heavenly sanctuary). The superiority of Christ’s priestly work to what has gone before is now demonstrated via a series of contrasts drawn between his death and entry into heaven and the sacrifices offered by the Aaronic high priest and his entry into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. Employing an a fortiori argument (see 2:1-3; 10:28-29; 12:15), Hebrews claims that the shrine Jesus has entered is superior to Israel’s cult place, that the sacrifice

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

113

Jesus offered is better than those offered by the cult, and that the death of Jesus effects a superior purification to that of Judaism’s expiatory sacrifices. A Superior Shrine. The metaphor of heaven as “the tent of meeting” with God par excellence runs throughout this central section of the homily (4:15–10:18). Notably, here salvation is depicted as analogous to entry into the holy of holies—the innermost sanctum of Israel’s sanctuary (see 6:19-20; 8:1-2; 9:24; 10:20). Although clearly aware of the latter’s twofold division into the holy place (ta hagion) and the holy of holies (ta hagia hagio¯ n) (see 9:2-4), here our author uses “the holy place” (RSV “sanctuary”; see also 9:1, 24), like “the tent” (ske¯ne¯) (cf. 8:2, 5), as a designation of the tabernacle in general rather than as a description of its outer compartment. A number of commentators, both ancient and modern, have interpreted “the tent” through which Christ passed allegorically, so that it becomes a symbol of his body, variously understood as Jesus’ true humanity or his glorified body or his sacramental body or the church, as the means by which God effected salvation (see Hughes, 283-90). Such interpretations, however, are strained and needlessly distract us from Hebrews’ central imagery—the Day of Atonement. In keeping with this, “tent” more obviously refers, not to the body of Christ, but to the wilderness tabernacle. Our author’s claim here is that Jesus is the superior high priest, not least in that the shrine (“tent”) he has entered is superior to that located on earth (cf. also 8:2, 5; 9:1, 24). A Superior Sacrifice. All sacrificial victims were required to be “without blemish” (amo¯ mos; see Exod 29:2; Lev 1:3, 10; 4:3). So it was with Jesus (v. 14). His perfection, however, was morally superior, since it went beyond the demands of Israel’s sacrificial system. The means whereby he entered heaven’s sanctuary was via (v. 12, dia is better understood as “through,” contra the RSV’s “taking”) the voluntary shedding of his own blood rather than that of animals. A Superior Purification. Here the analogy is broadened to include all offerings intended to remove any impediment to access to God. Thus v. 13 refers to the multiplicity of “goats and calves” rather than the one goat and the one bullock sacrificed on the Day of Atonement, and also alludes to the ritual (see Num 19:1-22) whereby a red heifer was slaughtered “outside the camp” (cf. Heb 13:12-13), its blood sprinkled seven times by the priest towards the front of the tent of meeting, and its carcass burned with cedar wood mixed with hyssop and scarlet material (see Heb 9:19). The resultant ashes were mixed with water, which was sprinkled upon any person or object that had become ritually defiled by coming into contact with a corpse (see

114

Jesus the High Priest

de Vaux, 460-62). According to Num 19, the people were not sprinkled with the heifer’s blood, however. Neither were they sprinkled with blood on the Day of Atonement. In claiming that the people were sanctified (v. 13), the author of Hebrews may have been influenced by the account of the ratification of the covenant at Sinai where they are (Exod 24:8). Given that the next section (vv. 15-22) concerns the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus, this seems highly likely. At this point in his homily our author is content to lump Israel’s various expiatory rites together. The water made from the sacrifice of the red heifer was clearly regarded as purificatory. In Num 19:9 that water is described as “for impurity, for the removal of sin.” Throughout the Mishnah the tractate that deals with this ceremony, Parah (= heifer), refers to it as “the water of the sin offering” (cf. Num 8:7, RSV “the water of expiation”). Parah 3.5 claims that the last priest to offer the blood of the red heifer was Ishmael ben Picarbi, who was high priest from CE 58 to 60. The superior expiation effected by the death of Jesus is evident from the fact that it cleanses not only the exterior (v. 13, “the flesh”) but also the interior (v. 14, the “conscience”) and requires no repetition. Expiatory sacrifices only needed to be repeated because their efficacy was not permanent. The sacrifice of Christ, on the other hand, was definitive; it took place “once for all time” (hephapax; 9:12; see also 7:27; 10:10). Hence, unlike the high priest who had annually to offer the Day of Atonement sacrifices, Jesus made but one offering, and thus entered heaven’s holy of holies not twice but “once” (hapax; see 9:7, 27; 8:3), indicating thereby that his sacrifice and entry brought about an eternal “redemption” (v. 12, lutro¯ sis, a metaphor used both of Israel’s liberation from bondage in Egypt in particular (see Exod 6:6); and of God’s liberation in general (see Ps 25[LXX 24]:22); Luke 1:18; 2:38). English translations (e.g., RSV) that capitalize “Spirit” in v. 14 presuppose a trinitarian reference. It is more likely, however, that here the word “spirit” (pneuma) describes, not the Holy Spirit (contra Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 457 et al.), but the selfhood or person of Jesus, who, by virtue of his resurrection, is eternal (cf. 7:16). (For the use of the language of “spirit” in this anthropological sense in hellenistic Jewish writings and in the NT see Isaacs, Concept of Spirit, 35-42, 70-74.) The efficacy of Jesus’ priesthood and sacrifice is such as to render all further priesthood and sacrifice redundant (see Isaacs, “Priesthood,” 58-60). (9:15-22) The Mediator of a New Covenant. Resuming the theme of the “better covenant” (8:6; cf. 7:22) explored in 8:7-13, Jesus’ death is now

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

115

compared with the sacrifice that accompanied the ratification of the covenant made between God and His people in the time of Moses (Exod 24:4-8). Apart from the Letter to the Hebrews, 1 Corinthians 11:25 and the longer reading of Luke 20:20 are the only other instances in the New Testament where Jesus is depicted as the new covenant victim. In Mark 14:24 we have simply, “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,” to which Matthew 26:28 adds, “for the remission of sins”— used as words of institution at the Last Supper (itself understood as a Passover celebration). Some scholars (Moffatt, Michel et al.) have seen in v. 20, which not only cites Exodus 24:8, “This is the blood of the covenant,” but with Mark and Matthew reads “This” (touto) instead of the LXX’s “Behold” (idou), a deliberate allusion to the words of the Last Supper. This is hardly a convincing argument, however, not least in light of the fact that some LXX manuscripts read, “Behold, this . . .” (Idou touto). More importantly, neither here nor anywhere else in the entire homily does the author of Hebrews show any interest in eucharistic traditions (see Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 300-312). Strikingly, unlike these other New Testament writers, he does not link the motif of the (new) covenant inaugurated by the death of Christ with the Last Supper. In Hebrews the covenant theme is similarly used, however, to present Jesus as the (new) covenant victim. It is not associated with any notion of the Christian church as a covenant community. Hence, unlike 1 Peter 2:9, our author does not address his audience as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (cf. Exod 19:6), nor, unlike the Qumran covenanters (see Vermes, 163-70), are they called “sons of the (new) covenant.” Two arguments are put forward to demonstrate that Christ’s death was an essential prerequisite for the inauguration of the new covenant. First, a testator must die before a will can take effect (vv. 16-17). This particular argument depends upon the fact that in secular Greek the word diathe¯ke¯ can, and more often does, mean “will,” as in “last will and testament” (cf. Gal 3:15-17). Rather than the more usual term for an agreement (synthe¯ne¯), the Septuagint uses it to translate the Hebrew word for covenant (ber¯ıt). . Playing upon the double meaning of the Greek word, the author of Hebrews claims that, just as the terms of a “will” (diathe¯ke¯) can only come into force after the death of the testator, so a “covenant” (diathe¯ke¯) has to be ratified by a death, i.e., through the offering of the blood of a sacrificial victim. Second, a death was essential for the ratification of the first covenant. Therefore it is essential for the inauguration of the new covenant (vv. 18-22). In the biblical account of the making of the Mosaic covenant the blood of the sacrificial victim was sprinkled on all the people (Exod 24:8), but not, as

116

Jesus the High Priest

we find here, also upon the book (v. 19, which also introduces elements drawn from the ceremony of the red heifer; cf. note on v. 13) and the contents of the tabernacle (v. 21). Indeed, according to the narrative of the book of Exodus, the tabernacle had not yet been constructed. It is not mentioned until the next chapter (25:8), and not constructed and consecrated until Exod 40 where its medium of consecration is not blood but oil (vv. 9-10). It may be that Hebrews here is drawing upon extra-biblical midrashic tradition, current in the first century CE, according to which blood was also used. Evidence for this may be found in Josephus, who, in his retelling of the inauguration of the tabernacle, adds to the oil used to purify the sanctuary and its furnishings, “the blood of bulls and goats” (Jewish Antiquities, 3.206). The major difference between the biblical account of the Mosaic covenant and the author of Hebrews’ use of it, however, is that in the former the blood of the covenant victim was sprinkled upon the people as an act of consecration, whereas in the latter it is viewed as an act of expiation. Here it needs to be borne in mind that the expiatory rites of the Day of Atonement rather than those concerned with the making of the Sinai covenant provide our author with his dominant analogy. This has clearly influenced his depiction of the covenant sacrifice as the means whereby sin is removed. Jesus is thus compared not so much to Moses, the Sinai covenant maker, as to the sacrificial victim whose death ratified that covenant. Unlike the Exodus narrative, moreover, our author presents that sacrifice as essentially a sin offering, not least because that is his principal metaphor for the death of Christ. As the new covenant victim, Jesus is the “mediator” (mesite¯s, v. 15; cf. 8:6; 12:24), i.e., the means whereby transgressions are removed. As the allusion to the water made from the ashes of the red heifer indicates (vv. 13, 19), Hebrews is aware that the Torah legislates for media other than blood (e.g., water [Exod 19:10; Lev 15:1-15; 22:6]; incense [Num 16:46]; and fire [Exod 31:22-24] ) as the means whereby purification can be effected. Nonetheless, in keeping with the major theme of this particular homily, its author focuses upon blood as the means of expiation. This is evident in verse 22, which, in spite of the qualifying “almost” (schedon), asserts, “Indeed, under the law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (9:23-28) Jesus Has Entered Heaven, the True Shrine. The unit ends with a reaffirmation that Christ’s priestly work is superior to that of the Aaronic order, not least since the shrine he has entered is nothing less than heaven itself (cf. 8:1-2, 5). Three contrasts are drawn between the earthly shrine in

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

117

which the Levitical high priest officiated and “heaven itself,” which Christ entered (v. 24); the furnishings of the tabernacle, which were ritually cleansed by the blood of the Day of Atonement victim, as opposed to “the heavenly things themselves” (v. 23), cleansed by the blood of Jesus; and the many, repeated sacrifices of Judaism’s cult, over against his one, definitive death (vv. 25-28). The language of “copy” is here used both of the wilderness tabernacle (v. 24, antitypa) and its contents (v. 23, hypodeigmata), not in the Platonic sense of a material world inherently inferior to the world of Ideas (see comment on 8:5), but to claim that what went before was a prefiguration— albeit an incomplete one—of what was to come. It is better understood therefore eschatologically rather than cosmologically. Here, as throughout the homily, our author is working with a promise/fulfillment schema. He believes that the cult has been superseded, not because there was no correspondence between its aim and Jesus’ achievement, but precisely because that aim, namely access into the presence of God, has finally been accomplished. Jesus is now in heaven. Clearly, the “copies of the heavenly things” that require the cult’s purification refers to the contents of the earthly shrine. Not so evident, however, is the meaning of “the heavenly things themselves” (v. 23, auta ta epourania) that require better sacrifices. Various suggestions have been made, namely: • They are the contents of the heavenly world that the author thought, along with the earthly world, had been infected with sin and therefore needed cleansing (Lane, vol. 1, 247 et al.). Ceslau Spicq (vol. 2, 266-67) roundly dismissed this suggestion as “nonsense.” • This verse echoes the myth of the expulsion of Satan from heaven (cf. Isa 14:12-21; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Rev 12:2-9) (Michel, 213-14; Héring, 82). If so, nowhere else does Hebrews display any interest in or having been influenced by this myth. • It refers, by analogy with the Mosaic tabernacle, to the inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary by the sacrifice of Jesus (Spicq, vol. 2, 267; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 477). This requires us to understand the verb “to cleanse” (katharizein) in verse 23 as a synonym for “to inaugurate” (enkainizein), used earlier in verse 18. • “The heavenly things” refers to the church, understood as the new temple, which stands in need of cleansing (Bruce, 218-19). This interpretation, however, goes against the grain of the Letter to the Hebrews, which, unlike other New Testament writings (e.g., 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph

118

Jesus the High Priest

2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:3-6), nowhere applies the imagery of shrine or temple to the church. • Perhaps the best solution is the one adopted by Harold Attridge (260). This is to understand “heavenly things” as a metaphor for the interior conscience, cleansed by the superior sacrifice of Christ. Verse 23 thus picks up the theme of vv. 11-14. In verses 25-28 the repetitive character of Levitical sacrifices is contrasted with the “once” (hapax, cf. vv. 7, 26, 27; 10:2; 12:26) of the death of Jesus. A reductio ad absurdum argument is employed to show that, if this were not the case, Jesus would have had to die repeatedly. As we all know, however, humans die but once! Nonetheless, he will make a “second” (deuteros) appearance (v. 28). Here the Christian belief in the return of Christ to earth is expressed in terms of the eagerly awaited reemergence of the high priest from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. Like the high priest on that occasion, Jesus’ appearance at the parousia will not be for the purposes of effecting expiation for sin. That has already been done. Rather will it be to assure the people of that fact. Only then will salvation finally be accomplished. The Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices (10:1-18)

Verses 1-18 function as both a recapitulation of the argument of 8:1–10:18 and its climax. Thus it reiterates the themes of the inadequacy of the repeated sacrifices required by the Law, Christ’s voluntary self-offering, and the need for no future sacrifice. (10:1-4) The Inadequacy of Repeated Sacrifices. For the author of Hebrews, neither these sacrifices nor the Law that legislated for them was God’s last word. Torah contained but “a shadow” (skia; cf. the comment on 8:5 where the word is used of the wilderness tabernacle) rather than “the true image” (eiko¯ n) of “the good things to come” (v. 1). The on-going need for sacrifices to be repeated is clear evidence that they were not effective. Precisely because the Law is but a preliminary sketch, it could not “make perfect” (teleio¯ sai), i.e., bring the worshipper to his/her appointed goal (telos), which is nothing less than into the presence of God Himself. (For Hebrews’ use of the language of “perfection” see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 95-115). Part of the cult’s function was to remind Israel of its sins, but for our author such a reminder of itself is not enough. It does not deal with the inner sense or

Hebrews 4:15–10:18

119

consciousness (syneide¯sis, v. 2; for “conscience” understood as an inner conviction of guilt see the comment on 9:9; 9:14; 10:22; 13:18) of sin. Here our author is drawing attention to what he sees as an inherent weakness in the system. The cult had, in fact, no legislation that provided for a guilty conscience. Both the so-called “sin” (Hebrew, ha . t.t’. a¯ t) and “guilt” (Hebrew, ‘a¯ ˇsa¯ m = offense ) offerings were largely for unwitting rather than intentional sins, and were not designed to cleanse a guilty conscience. (10:5-10) Christ’s Voluntary Self-Offering. Our author here (vv. 5-7) cites the LXX version (Ps 39:7-9) of Ps 40:6-8 to affirm the superiority of Jesus’ sacrifice of himself in obedience to the will of God over against animal sacrifices (cf. 9:11-14, 25). “A body (so¯ ma) you have prepared for me” (v. 5) is the Septuagint’s translation of the obscure Hebrew phrase, “Ears which you have dug for me,” presumably understanding the part (ears) as representing the whole person (the body). These words are put on to the lips of Jesus. Although the Greek text reads, “Consequently, when he came into the world,” from the context there is little doubt who is meant in Hebrews. Hence most English translations insert “Christ.” Only if we read the epistle through the eyes of the prologue of John’s Gospel may we infer from the language of “coming into the world” that our author is referring to the incarnation of a pre-existent being. A. T. Hanson (The Living Utterance of God, 108) has suggested that in Hebrews these are the words addressed by the preexistent son to the Father at the moment of his incarnation. As we have seen when considering its prologue (1:1-4), however, the Letter to the Hebrews is not to be read as if it were the Fourth Gospel. Our author is more interested in Jesus’ “post”-existence (together with the means whereby that was achieved) than his “pre”-existence. It is more likely, therefore, that the reference to Jesus’ coming into the world refers to his birth, foretold by scripture (so Michel, 336). Thus he puts the words of the psalm onto the lips of Jesus (cf. 2:12-13), not to claim his personal pre-existence, but to identify his death with the superior self-offering extolled by the psalmist. The sacrificial system, he claims, has now been abolished/annulled (v. 9) and replaced by the death of Christ, itself interpreted as the supreme act of obedience to God, spoken of in the psalm. (10:11-18) The Need for No Further Sacrifices. The definitive character of Jesus’ priestly “offering” (cf. vv. 10, 11, 12, 18) is signaled by the contrast drawn between the “repeated” (pollakis, v. 11) sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood and the “single” (mia , vv. 12, 14) offering made by Christ. By alluding to the “daily” sacrifices of Israel’s cult (v. 11), our author

120

Jesus the High Priest

goes beyond his principal Day of Atonement analogy to include all expiatory offerings. In contrast to these, his offering had only to be made once, since its effect was permanent, “for all time” (eia to die¯nekes, vv. 12, 14). It has thus fulfilled the two promises that lay at the heart of Jeremiah’s prediction of a new covenant (LXX Jer 38[MT 31]:33-34 cited freely, and not identical to its citation in Heb 8:10-12, in vv. 16-17): it brought about an interior change in humanity and removed sin. Furthermore, with the allusion to Psalm 110:1, “He sat down at the right hand of God” in verse 12, our author once more affirms his conviction that the offering made by Christ is superior, not least in that the sanctuary in which he presented it was nothing less than heaven itself. Which, as he reminds us, is not to say that all God’s enemies have been subjugated. They have not. That lies in the future (cf. 2:8; 8:28). Nonetheless, Jesus’ present access to the presence of God is not ultimately to be for himself alone but for all his followers. “The sanctified,” as the present participle (hagiazomenous, v. 14) indicates, are not those who have made it into the promised land or the heavenly holy of holies, but those who are in the process of being sanctified. As yet, only Jesus has entered heaven. Through his death, which was the means of that exaltation, he has fulfilled—and indeed exceeded—the purpose for which Israel’s sacrificial system was ordained. Thereby, he has brought it to an end. “Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer any offering for sin” (v. 18).

The Need for Perseverance in Faith (Hebrews 10:19–12:13)

The strong pastoral concern of the preacher is apparent in this the penultimate section of his homily, which is addressed to a readership tempted to abandon their Christian discipleship in the face of current hardships. Via a mixture of encouragements and warnings he urges them to remain faithful; to persevere (see the verb hypomenein in 10:32; 12:2, 7 and the noun hypomene¯ [perseverance] in 10:36; 12:1); to go forward rather than backward. To this end the earlier theme of pilgrimage (cf. 3:1–4:14) is taken up once more. The section may be divided into three units: (1) An exhortation to perseverance (10:19-39); (2) The example of the faithful of the past (11:1-40); (3) The faithful perseverance that is required of the believer now (12:1-13). An Exhortation to Perseverance (10:19-39) Many commentators (e.g., Vanhoye, Structure, 44-46; Lane, vol. 2, 270) take vv. 19-39 as the concluding exhortation of the previous main section. They certainly reflect the warning/reminder/encouragement pattern of 5:11–6:20 as well as reprising the theme of Jesus, the superior priest and victim. However, given that they anticipate much of what is to come—namely, the topics of “faith” (v. 22), which will be developed in chapter 11; “perseverance” (v. 36), which will be taken up in chapter 12; and “love,” which will be explicated in chapter 13—they are better understood as the introduction to the final part of the homily. With the direct address to the community as “brothers” (v. 19, adelphoi; see also 3:1, 12; 13:33; cf. 6:9 “beloved” [agape¯toi]), our author signals a shift in his argument.

122

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

This unit is framed by a verbal inclusion: v. 19, “Therefore . . . since we have confidence” (parre¯sia); v. 35, “Therefore, do not throw away your confidence” (parre¯sia). As in the earlier parts of his homily in which he addresses his audience directly (see 2:1-4; 3:7–4:11; 5:11–6:20), so here also our preacher alternates the carrot and the stick of encouragement and warning. In these verses the warning (b) is introduced and concluded by assurances (a, a1). We thus have: a a1

An assurance of the faithfulness of God (vv. 19-25) b A warning: No second sacrifice can be made (vv. 26-31) An assurance from the past and for the future (vv. 31-39)

An Assurance of God’s Faithfulness (10:19-25)

Verses 19-25, which in Greek constitute one long complex sentence, employ three hortatory subjunctives: “Let us draw near ” (prosercho¯ metha, v. 22), “Let us hold fast” (katecho¯ men, v. 23), and “Let us study (katanoo¯ men, RSV “consider” ) how to stir up one another” (v. 24), before concluding with the injunction not to neglect meeting together (v. 25)—presumably for worship and fellowship. All these appeals to Christian fidelity, moreover, are grounded in a belief in the steadfastness and loyalty of God to His people. “For he who promises is faithful (pistos)” (v. 23). As in other New Testament writings (e.g., 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 John 1:9), in Hebrews “faithfulness” is not only enjoined on the believer, but also it characterizes God as the One who is utterly reliable and completely trustworthy. In the earlier part of the homily, evidence of this has been found in that God was true to His word to Abraham (6:13-17; 11:11). Here, continuing the cultic model that has dominated 4:15–10:18, the evidence for God’s faithfulness is found in that Jesus has not only himself achieved full access into God’s presence, but also has opened the way for others to follow. Just as our author has previously exhorted his readers to follow Jesus, their pilgrimage leader, into the promised land of rest (4:1-11), so here he encourages them to follow Jesus, their “great priest” (v. 21, hierea megan; as in the LXX [Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, 28, etc.], this is used as a designation of the high priest; cf. Heb 4:14, “a great high priest” [archierea megan ]) who enters the holy of holies. The most natural referent of “through the curtain (dia tou katapetasmetos)” in verse 20 is to the high priest passing behind the curtain in order to enter the innermost sanctum of the tabernacle. Drawing an analogy between

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

123

heaven and the holy of holies of Israel’s shrine, our author claims that, through his death, Jesus has come into the presence of God (see also 6:19; 9:3). Not so evident, however, is the meaning of the phrase “that is, of his flesh (tout’ estin tes sarkos autou).” Some scholars understand it as a descriptive genitive, explicating “the way” (so Spicq, vol. 2, 316; Héring, 91). This is reflected in the NEB translation: “the new, the living way which he has opened for us through the curtain, the way of his flesh.” There are some linguistic problems with this suggestion, however. We would normally expect “curtain” and “flesh” to appear closer together in the sentence, and, if they were the words linked together by “that is,” for them to be in the same case, whereas they are not. It is therefore preferable to understand “that is (through) his flesh” as an explication of “through the curtain” (so Attridge, Epistle, 285-87; Lane, vol. 2, 287 et al.). Thus the RSV reads, “by the new and living way that he has opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh).” In this case, “through ” (dia), although used only once, governs both “the curtain” and “his flesh.” It is, however, used in two different senses (see Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 521). In the case of the curtain it has a local force, indicating movement from one place to another. Of Christ’s flesh, on the other hand, it is used instrumentally to indicate his sacrificial death as the means (cf. v. 19, “by the blood of Jesus”) whereby he entered heaven (cf. 9:12, 24) and thereby opened the way for others to follow. The believer may therefore approach God boldly (v. 19, parre¯sia), “with full assurance [ple¯rophoria] of faith,” confident that Christ’s sacrifice has removed the barrier of sin (v. 22). The language of “sprinkling” with water is unlikely to refer to the ablutions demanded of Israel’s priests before they were permitted to approach the altar (see Exod 29:4; Lev 8:6; 16:4), not least since here it is the people and not the priesthood whose hearts are sprinkled clean from a bad conscience and whose bodies are washed with pure water. (Neither here nor anywhere else in Hebrews is the Christian community addressed as a new priesthood. See Isaacs, “Priesthood,” 58-60.) As we have already seen, our author includes water as well as blood as a medium of expiation and indeed combines them both in his account of the Day of Atonement rites and the making of the Mosaic covenant (see comments on 9:13-14 and 9:19). It is unnecessary, therefore, to see in verse 22 a reference to the Christian rite of baptism in particular (contra Attridge, Epistle, 289; Lane, vol. 2, 287 et al.), rather than to the purificatory effect of the sacrifice of Christ in general (see comment on 6:2). In this case, the content of the “confession” (homologia, cf. 3:1; 4:14) to which the readers are exhorted to hold fast are not the words of a baptismal creed, but, as our author states,

124

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

“hope.” (See 3:6, “if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope”; cf. 6:9). As will be made plain in chapter 11, faith is holding fast to the hope of God’s imminent future, “without wavering” (v. 23, akline¯s). The word akline¯s, although common in classical Greek, occurs only here in the New Testament and only twice ( 4 Macc 6:7; 17:3) in the LXX. (At 6:9 we find the synonym “firm” [bebaios] also used of hope, “the soul’s immovable anchor.”) Philo uses it both of the unchangeableness of God and of the sense of stability experienced by those who are close to Him: “True stability and immutable (akline¯s) tranquillity is that which is experienced at the side of God, who Himself stands always immutable” (aklino¯ s) (On the Giants 49). Hebrews’ call to unwavering hope is similarly grounded in the character of God, who is Himself dependable, i.e., faithful (pistos). By way of negative contrast stand those members of the community who have abandoned the fellowship (v. 25). They have not displayed steadfastness. This paragraph ends, however, on a positive note of encouragement addressed to those who have not defected but remain within the community. They are to continue to meet together for mutual support and to cultivate “love and good works” (v. 24; cf. 6:10 where the two are also brought together) as their way of life. What that means in practical terms will be spelled out in 13:1-17. Both notes of encouragement and warning are sounded in the last phrase, “and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” This absolute use of “the day” (v. 25, he¯ he¯mera) echoes passages in the Old Testament where it is used of the day of God’s impending judgment (see Ezek 7:10-12; 30:3-9; cf. Matt 7:22; 13:1; 24:36; 1 Thess 5:4; 1 Cor 3:13). To the faithful, the imminent parousia is a word of hope (cf. 9:28), but for those who have given up on Christian discipleship, that day will be one of condemnation. A Warning: No Second Sacrifice Can Be Made (10:26-31)

The emphatic position of the word “deliberately” (hekousio¯ s) at the beginning of the sentence indicates what kind of sin the author regards as irredeemable. It is not a particular sin or even a special category of (mortal) sins, but the rejection of the sovereignty of God acknowledged in the covenant. Verse 28 alludes to Deuteronomy 17:6, which is about the death penalty not for any and every infringement of the Mosaic Torah, but for idolatrous apostasy, which was regarded as a denial of the covenant relationship itself. Just as under the old covenant, our author argues, to “sin with a high hand” (cf.

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

125

Num 15:30-31) was thereby knowingly to place oneself outside the jurisdiction of God’s court and thus beyond the efficacy of expiatory sacrifice (see comment on 6:4-6), so to abandon the community of faith is to place oneself beyond the efficacy of the new covenant sacrifice. In fact, says our author, it is worse! (Note the a fortiori argument in v. 29.) It is to spurn the son of God by treating his passion as if it were a common, profane death rather than a sacred sacrifice, and thereby to insult the gracious spirit of God. (“The spirit of grace” [to pneuma te¯s charitos] here could refer either to the gracious disposition of God or Jesus. Whichever, there is no reason to connect it with the “sin against the holy spirit” that we find in Mark 3:28-30 // Matt 12:31-32 // Luke 12:10.) “There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (v. 26b). This conclusion depends upon Hebrews’ previous argument that Christ’s death was “once” (9:26, 27, 28), “once for all time” (7:27; 9:12; 10:10). It therefore cannot be repeated. Neither, unlike animal sacrifices, did it need to be repeated, since it definitively achieved the whole purpose of the cult—access to God (see 9:1214, 25-28; 10:11-14). By the logic of his argument, our author cannot therefore admit the possibility of the readmission of anyone who, having once entered the new covenant community, subsequently abandons it. (For the problems this was to create for the church subsequently see the comment on 6:4-6.) Hence this solemn warning ends with the words of Deuteronomy 32:35-36, which speak of God’s vengeance. An Assurance from the Past and for the Future (10:32-39)

As in the case of chapter 6 where a warning against defection from the Christian community (vv. 4-6) is immediately followed by an assurance (vv. 9-12) that the readers need have no fear, since they are not included among the deserters, so here also our author ends his exhortation to perseverance with words of encouragement. First, they are to draw fresh resolve from remembering their past—the time soon after their initial conversion—when they were first “enlightened.” From the second century CE onward enlightenment became an established metaphor for Christian baptism (e.g., Justin, Apology 1.61, 65; Dialogue with Trypho 122). Yet here (as in Heb 6:4) it seems to refer to spiritual illumination or conversion rather than the rite of initiation (see Spicq, vol. 2, 150-52). Apart from what we can gather from the letter itself, we know nothing about the situation that led to its writing (see Introduction).

126

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

What this passage tells us is that in the past the community has suffered public insults (oneidismoi; cf. 13:13 where the same word is applied to the suffering of Christ) and affliction (thlipsis). For some, that had involved imprisonment and the loss of their property (although from 12:4 we know that this had not yet ensued in loss of life). We are not told who the persecutors were or exactly why the group had been treated in this way. Some scholars (e.g., Bruce, 267-69), assuming that the Letter to the Hebrews was originally addressed to a group in Rome, think that here we have a reference to the expulsion of the Jewish community from the imperial city by the emperor Claudius in CE 49. Jewish Christians, at that point in time, would not have been distinguishable by the Roman authorities from any other Jewish group. Yet our author’s main concern is not with their Jewish identity but with the need to remain loyal to their Christian faith. He assumes that the sufferings the group have had to face are as a consequence of their being followers of Jesus. The word “affliction (thlipsis) in early tradition is associated with being persecuted for the Christian faith per se (see Mark 4:17 // Matt 13:21; Mark 13:19; Matt 24:9; John 16:33). Similarly, the language of solidarity (v. 32, koino¯ nia) and sympathy (v. 34, sympathein) with the sufferings of fellow Christians suggests that it is this particular allegiance that has evoked such antipathy, not their Jewish identity. Their loss of possessions could just as easily be as a result of unofficial looting by the mob as of official confiscation by Roman authorities. What is highly unlikely, however, is G. W. Buchanan’s suggestion (256) that “You joyfully accepted the plundering (harpage¯) of your property” (v. 34b) refers to the Christian convert’s voluntary giving over of his/her goods upon joining the community. This presupposes that the recipients of this letter were members of a monastic sect who, like the Qumran Covenanters (see 1QS 6.22-23), handed over their possessions to the “order” upon joining it. Buchanan suggests that, as a result of the delay of the parousia, some members of the group had lost their initial enthusiasm and had come to resent their previous financial act of commitment. Apart from other problems about reading Hebrews against this particular background (see Introduction), the use of the word harpage¯ would tell against this interpretation. It hardly suggests a voluntary act of handing over goods. Rather it has the unfavourable connotations of robbery or looting, well brought out by the RSV translation “plundering.” It is more likely, therefore, that our author is referring to the involuntary loss of their property in the past, which they nonetheless faced cheerfully, knowing that they looked forward to a better, abiding possession, namely, God’s future reward (cf. 11:6, 26).

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

127

Having assured them via a reminder of their past fidelity, the author of Hebrews concludes his exhortation by looking to the imminent future, when that steadfastness will be rewarded. He cites (vv. 37-38) the LXX of Habakkuk 2:3-4 in order to affirm, by way of encouragement, two things. First, Jesus will return shortly. To emphasize this point, he introduces his quotation with the words, “For yet a very little while” (eti gar mikron hoson hoson; cf. LXX Isaiah 26:20, “a very little while” [mikron hoson hoson]). Second, his readers are not among those who have reneged on their Christian commitment. Rather they are those who, in the words of Habakkuk 2:4, “live by faith” (ek pisteo¯ s ze¯setai). What that means will be developed in the next chapter. The Faithful of the Past (11:1-40) The beginning and end of chapter 11 is marked by an inclusion (so Vanhoye, Structure, 46-47, 183-94): “Faith (pistos) . . . by which those of old received attestation (emarture¯the¯san),” vv. 1-2; “though they received attestation (marture¯thentes) through their faith (dia te¯s pisteo¯ s), v. 39. “Faith,” picked up from Habakkuk 2:4 and cited at the end of the last chapter (10:38), is the theme that unifies this unit, and “by faith” (pistei), occurring eighteen times, functions as a repetitive refrain throughout the chapter. From the examples he cites of men and women of Israel’s past who have demonstrated this virtue, it is evident that the author of Hebrews is using the term, not simply of a credal confession, but of a steadfast fidelity to and trust in God’s promises—even when they remained part of the “unseen” future. Faith, therefore, in the sense of faithfulness in the present, is grounded in a future eschatological hope that enables the believer not to give up but to go forward, certain of God’s ultimate vindication. The listing of figures drawn from the past for exemplary purposes is common in post-exilic Jewish writings (cf. Ecclus 44:16–50:24; 1 Macc 2:49-68; 4 Macc 16:16-23, etc.), where, emanating from Judaism’s wisdom circles, they have both an educative and an apologetic function. They indicate the virtues Israel should follow, and demonstrate its moral superiority over the nations. We find such a list in Wis 10, which recites the deeds of those of the past who were led and delivered by God’s wisdom. Unlike Hebrews, however, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, while alluding to Adam, Noah, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, does not do so by name. The point he is making, namely that these all triumphed over adversity, is nonetheless similar to that of our author. The major difference is that Wisdom of

128

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

Solomon attributes this to the assistance of divine Wisdom, whereas Hebrews claims that it demonstrates a fidelity born of faith. Philo of Alexandria in his treatise On Rewards and Punishments (11-14) also lists those whose example is to be followed, although he cites general types (the tradesman, the skipper of a ship, the politician, the athlete, etc.) rather than named individuals, and extols them as those who live “by/because of hope” (elpidi) rather than “by/because of faith” (pistei, vv. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 21, 22 ,23 ,24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31). Like Hebrews 11, Philo first begins by defining what he means. “Hope is . . . the first thing that is sown, the fountainhead of the lives that we lead” (On Rewards and Punishments 11). The author of Hebrews says something similar of Christian faith, which, for him, is inextricably bound up with hope. Early Christian writers also adopted and adapted from Judaism the tradition of such exemplary lists. Alongside the positive examples of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, the list in Acts 7 includes the negative example of the wilderness generation who were disobedient (cf. 1 Clement 4:1-13, which cites those who exemplify the vice of jealousy). Hebrews, on the other hand, includes only those whose example is to be emulated rather than avoided (cf. 1 Clement 9:2–12:8; 17:1–19:3; 31:2–32:2). Our author is concerned to distinguish between the faithless and the faithful of all generations, past and present, rather than to distinguish between two communities of faith, the one “Jewish” and “faithless,” the other “Christian” and “faithful” (see Introduction). As far as he is concerned, both the faithful and the faithless can be found among the people of God in the past and the present. Perhaps the closest formal parallel to Hebrews 11 is found in a Christian writing, 1 Clement (17:1–19:3) (so M. R. D’Angelo, 18-24), where we find the verb “to witness (marturein) used in the passive to refer to God’s attestation or authentication of exemplary figures, and a similar pattern of a brief introduction, a list of exempla so attested, and a summary conclusion. This is not to claim that Hebrews and 1 Clement share a common source, but that they share a common tradition that had its roots in Jewish wisdom writings. It is generally agreed that chapter 11 constitutes one thought unit. How it is to be subdivided, however, is another matter (see Ellingworth, Epistle, 561-64). We shall follow Vanhoye (Structure, 183-84; adopted by Lane, vol. 2., 321) in suggesting the following paragraphs: • vv. 1-7, faith as believing in the “unseen” future; • vv. 8-22, faith in God’s promises; • vv. 23-31, the faith of Moses and the exodus generation; • vv. 32-40, subsequent generations who lived by faith.

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

129

Believing in the “Unseen” Future (11:1-7)

The inclusion, “not seen (ou blepomeno¯ n),” v. 1, “as yet unseen (me¯depo¯ blepomeno¯ n),” v. 7, which opens and closes the paragraph, signals its main point: faith is living by the conviction that God’s purposes will be fulfilled in the future. Verses 1-2 act as an introduction to the topic of the chapter as a whole, the nature of faith. It is not so much a definition of faith as a brief declarative statement of how faith operates in human lives. This will be illustrated with reference to Israel’s heroes and heroines of the past. Whether we understand faith as subjective or objective depends upon the meaning of hypostasis and elenchos in verse 1. (For the various possibilities see Attridge, Epistle, 308-310.) To interpret hypostasis subjectively as “assurance” (so RSV) or as “confidence”/“being sure” (so NIV; TEV; Moffatt, 159; Bruce, 278 et al.) has a pedigree that goes back to Erasmus and Luther. Similarly, elenchos has been understood as “conviction” (RSV; Bruce, 278 et al.), in which case our author defines faith as a subjective experience of the believer. Given, however, that in first-century Greek usage both terms had an objective rather than a subjective meaning, it is more likely that they are to be understood as designating an exterior reality rather than an interior disposition. In this case, faith here is described as an “objective reality” (so Attridge, Epistle, 305; Lane, vol. 2, 325) or, given the legal resonances of the vocabulary of hypostasis, as a “guarantee” (so Spicq, vol. 2, 336-38). In a similar vein, elenchos is to be understood not subjectively as an inner “conviction” (so RSV) but as God’s objective proof, evidence, or demonstration (see Attridge, Epistle, 310; Lane, vol. 2, 325) of the as yet unseen fulfillment of His promises, which will be made good in the future. Through this guarantee previous generations (literally, “the elders”) of the people of God “received confirmation” (v. 2, emarture¯the¯san; contra RSV “received approval”) of God’s future promises, although, in their case, that future salvation was as invisible as the material world before God brought it into being (v. 3). This echoes the biblical account of creation according to which God’s creative word (re¯ma) brought the world into being (Gen 1:3; cf. Ps 33[LXX 32]:6, etc. Although Heb 1:3 ascribes a creative function to the son, there is nothing in this particular verse that would suggest that Christ rather than God is the subject). Like Philo’s “hope” (On Rewards and Punishments 11), therefore, Hebrews’ “faith” goes back to the beginning of human history. Although a belief in the doctrine of the creation of the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) may be traced back to Jewish writings such as

130

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

2 Macc 7:28, 2 Baruch 21:4, 48:8, and 2 Enoch 24:2, this is not the major point of verse 3b. The stress here is upon the contrast between “what is seen”—the world as it is now—and “things which do not appear”—the events (v. 1, pragmata, RSV “things”) yet to occur in human history. Hebrews is therefore referring to eschatology rather than cosmology; to the consummation of God’s purposes in the future rather than to God’s creative activity in the past. The antediluvian exempla of faith cited are Abel, Enoch, and Noah. The account we find in Genesis (4:3-10) does not tell us how or why the sacrifice Abel offered was superior to that of his brother Cain. The Septuagint’s translators seem to assume that it was because Cain’s offering was not done “correctly” (ortho¯ s, LXX Gen 4:7), i.e., according to the prescribed rituals. Philo, on the other hand, thought that it was because Cain had offered God second best, keeping the finest animals for himself (On the Confusion of Tongues 124). In keeping with his presentation of all the exempla cited in this chapter, our author ascribes the superiority of Abel’s sacrifice to the fact that it was motivated “by” or “because of faith.” (Pistei here and throughout Heb 11 is best understood as a causal dative.) Furthermore, unlike in Genesis (4:10), it is not Abel’s blood that cries out to God for vengeance against his murderer, but his faith, which continues to speak (v. 4) to the contemporary believer (see Moffatt, 164). In Jewish tradition we find a belief that not all have to wait until the eschaton for the resurrection. Among the righteous were a few who were privileged to be immediately translated to heaven upon their death. Among that number were Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11; Ecclus 48:8), Moses (Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.288-291, although this claim was denied by Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 4.326), and especially the one cited here (v. 5), Enoch (Ecclus 49:14; 1 Enoch 12:3; 15:1; 2 Enoch 27:8; 71:14; Jubilees 4:23; 10:17; 19:2427; Philo, On the Changing of Names 38; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.85). Our author follows the LXX version of the story of Enoch (Gen 5:18-24), which translates the MT’s enigmatic “and he was not because God took him” as “and he was not found because God translated (metethe¯ken) him” (LXX Gen 5:24 cited in Heb 11:5b)—“to heaven,” understood. That this is how our author interprets the text is evident from the gloss with which he introduces the citation : “Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death” (v. 5a). That this was Enoch’s reward for having pleased God is qualified by the aside, “without faith it is impossible to please God” (v. 6; cf. 1 Clement 9:3), thereby stressing once again that faith is the ground of all virtue. The eschatological dimension of faith is emphasized by Hebrews’ insistence that you must not only believe in the existence of God (cf. Wis 13:1; 4 Ezra 7:23;

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

131

8:58, etc.), but also that He is the one who rewards the faithful (see Heb 2:2; 10:35; 11:26). Similarly, Noah, having been warned by God of “events as yet unseen” (v. 7), i.e., the impending flood, built the ark (see Gen 6:9-22). In Jewish tradition Noah was renowned for his righteousness (see Gen 6:9; 7:1; Ezek 14:14, 20; Ecclus 44:17). Whereas in the Wisdom of Solomon (10:4) his salvation is attributed to the guidance of God’s wisdom, “steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood,” in Hebrews it is faith that motivated the obedience that led to Noah’s salvation. Faith in God’s Promises (11:8-22)

The second paragraph picks up the theme of inheritance from verse 7, where Noah is spoken of as an heir (kle¯ronomos), and pursues it with reference to the inheritance (v. 8, kle¯ronomia) of Abraham and those who, like him, were given promises (epangelia, vv. 9, 11, 13, 17) by God, and handed on that blessing (euloge¯sen, vv. 20, 21) to their successors. Foremost among this group is Abraham. Two incidents from the account of his life in Genesis are singled out to demonstrate what it means to be motivated “by faith” (v. 1): 11:8-12, Abraham’s migration from Haran to Canaan in response to the call of God, and God’s promise of future progeny (cf. Gen 12:1-8); and 11:17-19, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. (11:8-12) Abraham’s Migration. Here Abraham’s initial ignorance as to his destination is emphasized, as is the fact that even the Canaan he reached was to be but a weigh station rather than a permanent home. For him and his offspring, Isaac and Jacob, his sojourn in Canaan was to be as a transient nomad (see Gen 23:4) rather than as a permanent settler. And this, according to the author of Hebrews, is because what God promised was not an earthly country/city but a heavenly one (v. 16; cf. 12:12). Unlike those traditions that write of the final consummation of God’s purposes in terms of the descent of a heavenly Jerusalem to earth (e.g., 4 Ezra 13:36; Rev 21:2, 10), in Hebrews the land or city of pilgrimage lies not only in the future, but also, since it is heaven, is wholly transcendent. The future orientation of faith is exemplified by the obedience of Abraham and his successors. They and he demonstrate that the fulfillment of the promises upon which their faith was based lay in the future rather than in their own lifetime. This point is made in vv. 13-16, which comment on the Genesis narrative. Abraham and his offspring died without themselves inheriting “the land of promise” (cf. v. 9).

132

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

Nonetheless, they were granted a vision and rejoiced in the prospect (v. 13, “having seen it and greeted it from afar”) of that better, heavenly country (v. 16). (For heaven as the eschatological goal of the people God see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 205-19). As in the Genesis (12:1-8) account, so Hebrews also associates Abraham’s call to a promised land with his divine election as the father of a great nation (vv. 11-12). Verse 11 makes this point, although it is not clear how prominent a role is given to Sarah in this process. The major problem is identifying the subject of the sentence. Ancient tradition (reflected in the Latin [Vulgate] and Syriac [Peshitta] versions), which goes back as far as Chrysostom (and more recently is adopted by the RSV; REB; JB; Moffatt, 171; Spicq, vol. 2, 349, Hughes, 473, et al.), understands Sarah to be the subject. This involves translating dunamin eis katabole¯ spermatos elaben as, “ She (Sarah) received power to conceive.” The problem with this interpretation, however, is that in hellenistic Greek eis katabole¯ spermatos is an idiom that refers to insemination by the male, not conception by the female. In this case, given also that he is the subject of both the preceding and succeeding sentences, it is more likely that Abraham rather than Sarah is the subject of verse 11 (so NRSV, NIV, TEV; Bruce, 296; Attridge, Epistle, 321; Lane, vol. 2, 344; Ellingworth, Epistle, 587-88). Some early Greek manuscripts omit “being barren” (steira). With or without its inclusion, the ante¯ of ante¯ Sarra is better understood not as a nominative (“Sarah herself”) but as a dative of accompaniment, i.e., “together with Sarah.” Thus Harold Attridge (321) translates v. 11 as, “By faith, with Sarah’s involvement, he (Abraham) received the capability of sowing seed even beyond the prime of life.” This is to ascribe the impediment to conception to both; Abraham because of his old age (cf. v. 12, “one man . . . as good as dead”) and, if we accept “being barren” (steira) as part of the original text, Sarah because she was infertile. Nonetheless, in keeping with the biblical account, the author of Hebrews focuses upon Abraham rather than Sarah as the recipient of God’s promise of progeny. (11:17-19) Abraham’s Willingness to Sacrifice Isaac. In subsequent Jewish traditions of the “binding” (Hebrew, aqedah) of Isaac it is the son’s willingness to be sacrificed that comes to the fore (see P. S. Alexander, “Aqedah,” 44-46). Hebrews, however, is closer to the biblical account (Gen 22:1-19) that makes Abraham the central character in the drama and highlights his obedience rather than that of Isaac. Our author, in citing Genesis 21:12, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named” (v. 18), reminds his readers of the sheer enormity of Abraham’s trust in God. He was willing to

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

133

destroy his only son, and thereby the means whereby God’s promise of future descendants could be realized. Hebrews attributes this to Abraham’s belief in the power of God to raise the dead (v. 19a). No such motivation is to be found in the Genesis account. This is not surprising given that, although widespread in the first century, a belief in the resurrection of the dead is not to be found in Jewish writings earlier than the second century BCE. Standing within Christian tradition, however, our author clearly believed both in Jesus’ resurrection (see 13:20) and in the general resurrection of the dead (cf. 6:2). Since Isaac was not in fact sacrificed, his restoration to Abraham is here interpreted as a “resurrection” from the dead “figuratively speaking” (so the RSV translation of en parabole¯ in v. 19b). More significant for the author of Hebrews is that it was a symbol or antitype of future salvation. (See 9:9 where the wilderness tabernacle is similarly described as a type [parabole¯] of the heavenly sanctuary.) The blessing handed on by Abraham’s descendants (vv. 20-22) is also given a future reference. Thus Isaac “invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau” (see Gen 27:27-29, 39-40), and the dying Jacob blessed Joseph’s sons (see Gen 47:29-31). Whereas the MT of Genesis 47:31 reads “Israel bowed himself at the end of his bed,” i.e., he was prostrated by old age, the author of Hebrews, following the LXX, has “bowing in worship over the top of his staff.” This enables him to interpret Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph as an act of homage to God. Upon his deathbed Joseph is also shown to be looking forward to the future promises of God. Thus he did not only give instructions concerning his own burial (literally, “his bones”), but he also spoke of his people’s future exodus from Egypt (v. 22; cf. Gen 50:24-25, 2930). The Faith of Moses and the Wilderness Generation (11:23-31)

The author of Hebrews selects three events in the life of Moses (vv. 23-27), clearly chosen to convey the message to his readers, “Live by faith, not fear!” Thus each episode is prefaced with, “By faith” (pistei, vv. 23, 24, 27), and the narrative begins: “they (the parents) were not afraid (ouk ephobe¯the¯san) of the edict of the king (tou basileo¯ s)” [v. 23] and ends: ”he (Moses) . . . not being afraid (me phobe¯then) of the anger of the king (tou basileo¯ s)” (v. 27). In the case of Moses (v. 23), the action of his parents in concealing him is attributed by our author both to their lack of fear of Pharaoh’s command that every male Israelite child should be killed at birth (see Exod 1:22), and to their offspring’s “beauty” (asteios). Here, as with a number of features of

134

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

his brief outline of the life of Moses, the author of Hebrews may be indebted to the extra-biblical traditions of first-century Judaism. Thus like Philo (Life of Moses 1.10) and Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 2.218-221), it is both parents who hide the child. These traditions may also explain Hebrews’ reference to Moses’ “beauty” as a motivation for his parents’ action. Both Philo (Life of Moses 1.9) and Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 2.224-5; cf. Acts 7:20) comment upon the infant’s beauty as evidence of his election by God (see Lane, vol. 2, 370). For the author of Hebrews, Moses’ “beauty” may be interpreted as a sign of God’s favour and protection. Various “embellishments” to the biblical accounts of the life of Moses had grown up within Jewish first-century circles (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 133-40). Among them is the account we find in Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 2.210-216; cf. the rabbinical commentary on Exodus, the Mekhilta) of the dream that came to Moses’ father Amram before his son was born. In this dream, according to Josephus, God reminded Amram of His promise to Abraham of future progeny. Although in Hebrews there is no reference to such a dream, there is a similar inference that Moses, like Isaac, will be spared, not least because he will lead Israel out of Egypt. Motivated by that faith rather than any fear of Pharaoh, Moses’ parents hid their son for three months after his birth. The other two incidents concern Moses the man “when he was grown up” (v. 24). The first is his decision to act in solidarity with the hardship and suffering of the Israelite people rather than enjoy the privilege of his adoptive status as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter (see Exod 2:10). The occasion of such renunciation, namely, Moses’ killing of an Egyptian overseer for beating one of the Hebrew workforce (see Exod 2:11-12), is glossed over by a discreet silence on the part of our author. A later less reticent scribe (perhaps also influenced by Acts 7:23-24) has added to the end of v. 23, “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, killed the Egyptian because he observed the humiliation of his brothers” (which we find in a few ancient manuscripts), by way of elucidation for the reader. For our author, however, Moses’ departure had been no more motivated by fear of the king than his parents earlier had been intimidated by the royal edict. Although his departure from Egypt (mentioned in v. 27) seems to refer, not to the Exodus, but to his flight to Midian (Exod 12:14-15), this is depicted as an act of heroism rather than as an escape from punishment. The preacher’s principal purpose here is not to extol the bravery of Moses, however, but to bring home to his readers the message that present hardship can and should be endured in view of the prospect of a better reward that will be theirs in the future (v. 26). Holding fast to this hope, Moses, like the addressees of Hebrews, who in the past had themselves been exposed to the world’s opprobrium and/or identified with

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

135

those who had (10:33-34), chose rather to share “ill-treatment with the people of God rather than the empty fleeting pleasures of sin” (v. 25). The phrase, “He considered abuse suffered for the Christ” (oneidismon tou christou, v. 26), is ambiguous, not least since it is not clear to whom “the Christ”—“the anointed one”—for whom Moses suffered reproach, refers. The NEB translation, “the stigma that rests on God’s anointed,” captures something of the ambiguity of the phrase in Greek. “Anointed” (Christ) in the OT, either in the plural (see 1 Chron 16:22; Ps 105:15) or the singular (see Ps 28:8), can designate collectively the people of God. Like “servant” (dailies) (see Isa 41:8; 43:10; 44:2, 21; 43:3) it can have both a corporate and an individual reference. This is evident in Ps 89:50-51 (LXX 88:51-52), a psalm that our author seems to be echoing here (cf. Ps 69:7a, 9, LXX 68:8a, 10): Remember, O Lord, how thy servant is scorned (tou oneidismou to¯ n doulo¯ n sou); how I bear in my bosom the insults (o¯ neidisan) of the peoples, with which thy enemies taunt, O Lord, with which they mock the footsteps of thy anointed (tou christou) In Heb 13:13 (like Rom 15:3, which also draws upon this psalm) it is Jesus, who, in his passion, endured the world’s “insults.” Here, however, Moses is the subject. Scholars are divided as to whether our author means that Moses endured abuse in solidarity with the Lord’s anointed, i.e., the collective people of God, or in solidarity with or “for the cause of Christ,” i.e., the coming Messiah (so Lane, vol. 2, 367-68). Given the contents of the whole of chapter 11, it would seem that he has both in mind (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 141-43). Moses’ suffering alongside his people in Egypt was motivated by his vision of what was to come in the future. Thus, like all the heroes and heroines of chapter 11, he is portrayed as one driven by faith in the as yet unrealized future—a future that is to culminate in Christ. Like them, “he endured as seeing him who was invisible” (v. 27b). “The invisible one” clearly means God (see John 1:18; Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17) rather than Jesus. In Jewish tradition Moses was viewed as the one who had been granted an unparalleled vision of God (see comment on Heb 3:1-6). Although not actually seeing God’s face (Exod 33:20-23), he was able to speak with Him “face to face” (Exod 33:11; Num 12:1-8; Deut 3:10; Ecclus 45:6). Thus he was the supreme agent of revelation; the recipient of Torah; the acme of all human virtue; “the noblest Hebrew of them all” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.229). For the Christian author of the Letter to the Hebrews, the content of Moses’ vision of unseen realities

136

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

included the coming Messiah, foreknowledge of whom had been revealed to him. In accepting to suffer hardship and abuse, Moses thereby acted in solidarity with Israel in Egypt and with the future Christ, who was also to suffer with and for his people. With the reference to the observance of Passover (v. 28) we come to the exodus. In keeping with our author’s interest in blood as the medium of expiation (which he has pursued in the central section of the homily in his exposition of the death and exaltation of Jesus as a superior Day of Atonement offering), he makes no reference to the observance of the meal, but focuses rather upon the apotropaic use of blood, smeared on the lintels of the doors to ward off the angel of death (see Exod 12:11-28). Like the crossing of the Red Sea (following the LXX, which has “Red” Sea rather than the MT’s “Reed” Sea; cf. Acts 7:36) (v. 29, see Exod 14:21-31), and the fall of Jericho (v. 30, see Joshua 6:1-21), it reflects the actions of those who were motivated by faith in God’s future. Included in the number of “faithful” is a non-Israelite, Rahab (v. 31), who assisted Israel’s victory over Jericho by hiding the spies who came to reconnoiter the city before its attack (Joshua 2:1-21), for which service she was spared its fate (Joshua 6:17, 22-25). In spite of her profession, Rahab became a positive role model both in Jewish and Christian tradition (see Matt 1:5; Jas 2:25; 1 Clement 12:1-8). Thus Josephus elevated her occupation to that of “inn-keeper” (Jewish Antiquities 5.7-8), and a scribe has glossed our text (v. 31) to read “so-called (epilegomene¯) harlot.” Subsequent Generations Who Lived by Faith (11:32-40)

Omitting any mention of the faithless among the wilderness generation (dealt with in 3:3-11) who did not live to see the promises of God realized, our author moves on swiftly, via the established rhetorical commonplace, “What more shall I say? Time would fail me . . . ” (see Attridge, Epistle, 347 for first-century parallels), to cite a selection from among their successors, whose exploits were motivated “through faith” (dia pisteo¯ s)—used here as a synonym for the earlier “by faith” (pistei). The military and political leaders of the post-settlement period chosen for mention in vv. 32-34 are those noted for being recipients of God’s promise of victory over their enemies: Gideon against the Midianites (Judges 6:16; 7:7); Barak over the Canaanites (Judges 4:14) (like 1 Sam 12:11, Heb 11:32 inverts the order of Gideon and Barak); Samson against the Philistines (Judges 13:5); Jephthah over the Ammonites (see Judges 11–12); David

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

137

against the Philistines (2 Sam 5:19) and Samuel (Judges 13–16), mentioned here not only because he was a judge (1 Sam 7:15-17) but also because in biblical tradition he is depicted as a prophet (1 Sam 19:20; Ecclus 26:13-20; cf. Acts 3:24). Although not overtly named, allusion is also made to Samson (Judges 14;6), David (1 Sam 7:24-25), and Daniel (Dan 6:19, 23) who defeated lions. “Quenched raging fire” (v. 34) probably refers to the story of Daniel’s three companions who survived Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace (Dan 3:23-27; cf. 1 Macc 2:59-60; 3 Macc 6:6-7; 4 Macc 16:3, 21; 18:12-13; 1 Clement 45:6-7, which also cite Daniel and his three companions as exemplars). Against all the odds, they “won strength out of weakness” (v. 34). It is not only the “winners” who obviously triumphed over their enemies but also the weak and persecuted who are held out as examples of faith to be emulated (vv. 35-38). Our author here seems to have especially in mind the Maccabean martyrs who endured torture and death rather than renege on their faith (see 2 Macc 6:18-31; 7:4; 4 Macc 6–12). Verses 39-40 summarize the main point of this part of the homily: The faith of the past was to find its fulfillment in Jesus, the Christ, who was himself the inspiration of all who remained faithful to God in adversity. “What was promised,” however, was “something better” which lay in Israel’s future. The statement, “Apart from us they should not be made perfect” (v. 40), does not mean that according to the author of Hebrews salvation has fully and finally occurred for Christians (see 4:11; 12:18-28; 13:14 where that clearly lies in the future), but that it was not to come before Christ (and hence, prior to the Christian generation). The Faithful Perseverance Required in the Present (12:1-13) Turning with an emphatic “for this very reason” (v. 1, toigaroun) from the example of the faithful of the past, our preacher now addresses his contemporary audience, exhorting them to display that self-same perseverance in the situation they are currently facing. Throughout this unit, language taken from the sporting arena—already popularized by the Stoic-Cynics in their diatribes as a metaphor for training in the virtuous life, adopted by hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo, and found frequently in Paul’s writings (e.g., 1 Cor 9:24-27; Gal 2:2; Phil 1:30; 2:16; see Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif : Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature, 16-72)—is employed. Thus its opening “Let us run” (v. 1, trecho¯ men) is echoed by the cognate noun “track” (v. 12, trochia) at the end, and in between we have references to “the race” (v. 1, ago¯ n, although more

138

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

usually used of an athletic arena or the event that takes place there, is here used in the sense of “race” [dromos]; cf. 1 Cor 9:24; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16); the necessity for contestants to divest themselves of any unnecessary impedimenta that might hinder their performance (v. 1); the blood spilt in physical combat (v. 4); and the pain that is an inherent part of all training (v. 11, paideia). All this imagery is used to bring home the author’s message that, just as for the athlete, so too for the people of God, stamina is essential if they are to reach their goal. The section consists of three subunits (so Lane vol. 2, 405), two of which are exhortations (a, a1), and one of which is an explanation (b): a a1

vv. 1-3, An exhortation to run with perseverance b vv. 4-11, An explanation of the suffering that must be endured vv. 12-13, An exhortation to a renewed commitment to complete the race

An Exhortation to Run with Perseverance (12:1-3)

Like the competitors in the Graeco-Roman amphitheatre, Christians too have an audience. The cloud, i.e., crowd (for this metaphor in classical Greek literature see Attridge, Epistle, 354, n. 18) of spectators at or “witnesses” (v. 1, marture¯s) of their contest, however, are the women and men of the past, held out (in the previous chapter) as exemplars of faithful perseverance. Moreover, they were no mere passive observers; they were active witnesses to the faithfulness of God, who were themselves “attested” (emarture¯the¯san) by God (see 11:2, 4, 39). As our author acknowledges (11:35-38), remaining faithful to God could and did on occasion ensue in the “witness” (martus) laying down his or her life (e.g., 4 Macc 17:12-17 ; Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13). Hence the word martus later came to mean “martyr” (see 1 Clement 5–6 where Peter and Paul are depicted as martyr-athletes for Christ). The language of “witness” here, however, is not confined to those who laid down their lives for their faith. As those listed in chapter 11 demonstrate, it refers to all who have persevered in spite of their present experience of adversity, trusting in the promises of God for the future. Hebrews’ readers are encouraged to follow their example, divesting themselves, like runners, of all unnecessary “weight” (v. 1, ogkos). Whether this is an allusion to the clothes shed by athletes before a race (who in Graeco-Roman contests were usually naked), and/or excess body weight lost in training, is not spelled out. Since it is used as a metaphor for “sin which

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

139

clings so closely” (v. 1, te¯n euperistaton hamartian; a few manuscripts here read euperispaston = “that so easily distracts”), the “weight” to be shed includes “everything” (panta) that would impede the Christian’s pilgrimage. The list of the heroes and heroines who demonstrated the virtue of perseverance in their lives now reaches its climax in the example of Jesus. The addressees of this homily are exhorted in the race “set before” them (v. 1) to look to Jesus, who “for the joy that was set before him” (v. 2) endured crucifixion—the death of slaves convicted as criminals. The cross was therefore regarded as a shameful means of death (see Cicero, Against Verres 2.5.62, 162-165; cf. Gal 5:11; Phil 2:8). The Greek manuscripts are divided as to whether such hostility was directed by sinners against Jesus “himself ” (heauton) or against the sinners “themselves” (autous) (v. 3). The latter, although the more difficult reading, has the better attested manuscript support. If it is accepted, here the author is pointing to the ironic truth that evildoers, by their actions, in fact injure themselves (so Lane, vol. 2, 416-17). Given that in verses 2-3 the focus is not upon his tormentors but upon Jesus and the suffering he endured, most commentators adopt the singular “himself,” in which case it refers to the hostility directed against Jesus by his persecutors. The readers are urged to look to Jesus as “the pioneer” (arche¯go¯ s) and perfector (teleio¯ te¯s) of faith” (v. 2). Although many translations (RSV, NRSV et al.) have “our faith,” the possessive pronoun is not to be found in the Greek manuscripts. For the author of Hebrews, faith is not a credal statement or set of propositions, but steadfast trust in and fidelity to the promises of God—even in the face of adversity (see comment on 11:1). It is therefore a quality of life exhibited both by Jesus and those who would follow him. Jesus, however, is faith’s supreme exemplar since he is its “pioneer” and “perfector.” The Greek word arche¯gos has a whole range of meanings, dependent upon the context, but all conveying the notion of primacy or supremacy (see comment on 2:10). Here the (N)RSV translation “pioneer” rightly evokes the pilgrimage imagery redolent of the previous chapter (cf. 3:1–4:14). In Hebrews it is supremely Jesus who has blazed the trail to the pilgrim’s goal, which is nothing less than being in the presence of God in heaven. Given that much of the other vocabulary of this unit is drawn from the world of athletics, here it may also carry with it the nuance of “champion” or “forerunner” (= prodromos; cf. 6:20)—the one who is out in front, leading the race. Whether as in a race or on a pilgrimage, in Hebrews Jesus is portrayed as the one who has gone ahead. More than that, he is the one who has successfully completed the course and/or reached the pilgrim’s goal. The Greek word teleio¯ te¯s (RSV “perfecter”)—perhaps, since it is not found in any

140

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

Greek literature prior to Hebrews, coined by our author—conveys the sense of one who has achieved his aim or goal (telos). “Seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (v. 2), yet another allusion to LXX Ps 109[MT 110]:1 (cf. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13), makes plain that the trail Jesus blazed and the track he ran led to heaven itself. There, like a pilgrim after a long journey and an athlete after his exertions, he now enjoys rest. Suffering That Must Be Endured (12:4-11)

The phrase, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood,” (v. 4) has been understood by some commentators to refer to martyrdom. Although in the past they had had to endure public ridicule, imprisonment, and the confiscation of their property (see 10:32-34), unlike some among the people of God of the past (see 11:35-38), and especially Jesus himself, they had not been called upon to lay down their lives. Given the wealth of athletic imagery used throughout 11:1-11, however, it is more likely that the principal referent here is not to the martyr’s death but to a boxing or wrestling match (so Spicq, vol. 2, 390) in which the contestants could and did draw blood. In favourably comparing their present situation with that of a boxing contest our author reminds his readers that their present plight could be far worse than it is. (For the supposed situation of the recipients of Hebrews see Introduction.) This is not to say that the painful character of their present suffering goes unacknowledged by our author. “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant” (v. 11), he concedes. Significantly, here (cf. vv. 7, 8) Hebrews designates these trials as “discipline” (paideia)—a word picked up from the text of (LXX) Proverbs 3:11-12. This enables him to stress that his recipients’ suffering has a positive, educative purpose, rather than merely a negative, punitive one. (See 2 Macc 6:12-16; 4 Macc 10:10-11, which similarly gives the suffering of the Maccabean martyrs an educative purpose; cf. Wis 11:9-10; 12:22. For an understanding of suffering as divine education [paideia] in Graeco-Roman thought see Talbert, Learning through Suffering, 17-20.) Above all, he wishes to assure his readers that their present trials are not a sign that they have been abandoned by God. Rather, he claims, they are evidence that the sufferer is indeed God’s child. To this end, in vv. 5-6 Hebrews cites (LXX) Proverbs 3:11-12, in which God exhorts Israel, His “son” (huios, RSV “child”), not to lose courage in the face of parental discipline (paideia). This is one of a number of passages we find in Jewish wisdom tradition that explains suffering in terms of God

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

141

training His children as a good father should. It is therefore a sign not of God’s neglect but of His parental love (see Job 5:17; Prov 13:24; 22:15; Wis 11:9-10; 12:22 Ecclus 18:14; 30:1; cf. Rom 5:3-4; 1 Cor 11:32).The sentence with which the scriptural citation is introduced (v. 5a) can either be read as a statement or as a rhetorical question. If it is the former, then “You have forgotten” is a rebuke. Given the tone of this section, however, it is probably better understood as a rhetorical question, “Have you forgotten . . . ?” Exhortation (parakle¯sis)—Hebrews’ own classification of the text from Proverbs (cf. 13:22 where he describes his own letter as “a word of exhortation”)—can, of course, include rebuke. Principally, however, its purpose is encouragement. Thus he urges his audience to see that the designation “son” in the scripture does not simply refer to a past generation. It is God’s present word of address to them now. Sonship has been the dominant theme of the first four chapters of the Letter to the Hebrews, where we find it used of his followers (see 2:10-18), but where principally it designates the status of Jesus. Although in 5:8 (see comment) the word “discipline” (paideia) is not used, there the suffering of Jesus is similarly interpreted as the means whereby he, as son of God, was educated. In his case, however, our author is at pains to stress that, since he was sinless (see 4:15), his suffering and death were not corrective of any misdeeds on his part. It was nonetheless essential, since it was the necessary means whereby he himself was exalted and the way could be opened for others to follow (see 2:9-10). Our author has therefore already established the grounds for his argument that suffering and sonship are inextricably linked. In his explication of Proverbs 3:11-12 in vv. 7-10 he begins with his conclusion: “It is for discipline (paideia) that you have to endure” (v. 7). His premise is that such educative training, albeit painful, is an essential responsibility of any parent. Only those who do not acknowledge their offspring and thereby categorize them as bastards (v. 8, nostoi) abdicate this task. Having established this essential connection between family legitimacy and discipline, our author moves on to other points of comparison and contrast in the parent/child analogy. First of all he establishes via an a fortiori (= how much more) argument that he is indeed speaking by way of analogy. Hence he argues that just as there are “earthly fathers” (v. 9 sarkos pateres = literally “fathers of flesh”) who exercise discipline, so there is God, the “father of spirits” (pate¯r to¯ n pneumato¯ n), i.e., the Lord of both angelic (cf. 2 Macc 3:24; 1 Enoch 37:2-4; 38:4) and human beings (see LXX Num 16:22; 27:16, “The God of all spirits and all flesh”).

142

The Need for Perseverance in Faith

Thus our author argues that, like all good human fathers, God’s discipline is a sign that its recipients are truly part of His acknowledged family (v. 8). Although the instrument of pain, the parent nonetheless commands the child’s respect (v. 9). Yet, in contrast to earthly trainers or educators (v. 9, peideute¯s), God is divine rather than human (v. 9) and hence acts not simply according to his personal whim (v. 10, “ at his pleasure”) but for our good. The educative purpose of the reader’s present suffering is that they might share God’s holiness (v. 10). Such holiness is defined as “righteousness” (diakaiosyne¯), i.e., doing that which is right in God’s sight. This is portrayed as the outcome (v. 11, “fruit”) of faithful endurance. (Cf. 10:38; 11:7, 37. For righteousness as the fruit of fidelity see Amos 6:12; 2 Cor 9:10; Phil 1:11; contra James 3:18 where righteousness is what is sown rather than what is reaped.) An Exhortation to Complete the Race (12:12-13)

Picking up the athletic imagery with which it began, this unit ends with an exhortation not to drop one’s guard or to buckle at the knees, but rather to complete the course. We find a similar use of language in Philo of Alexandria’s treatise, On Mating with Preliminary Studies 164, where he says of Israel’s wilderness generation: Some faint ere the struggle has begun and lose heart altogether, counting toil a too formidable antagonist, and like weary athletes they drop their hands in weakness and determine to speed back to Egypt to enjoy passion. Our author’s source, however, would seem to be Isaiah 35:3 to which he alludes in verse 12. In the MT this reads, “Strengthen the weak hands and make firm the feeble knees.” Hebrews’ exhortation, “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,” diverges both from this and from the LXX version, “Be strong, O you hands that hang idle and knees that are palsied” (cf. Deut 32:26; Ecclus 2:12; 25:23). To this biblical allusion in the following verse he adds another, Proverbs 4:26, “Make straight paths for your feet.” Here our author is closer to the LXX, although he has altered the singular “you” (addressed in the Greek version to “my child”) so that it becomes a plural, addressed to all his readers. (The meaning of the Hebrew of Prov 4:26 is conjectural. The RSV translates it as, “Take heed to the path of your feet.”) Unlike its context in Proverbs,

Hebrews 10:19–12:13

143

where “Make straight paths for your feet” is an exhortation to be guided by God’s wisdom in the paths of ethical behaviour, here the author of Hebrews uses it as an encouragement not to lose sight of faith’s ultimate goal. His emphasis is thus principally eschatological rather than ethical (so Lane, vol. 2, 427). Keeping that goal in sight and not diverting from it is, according to Hebrews, the safest way to ensure that those already exhausted by the race (v. 12, “the lame”) may not suffer the more serious injury of a dislocated joint (v. 13). The Greek verb ektrepesthai can mean “to fall away,” presumably in this context from the Christian faith (cf. 1 Tim 1:6; 5:15), in which case our author is overtly referring to the danger of committing apostasy. Given, however, that for our author there is no remedy for apostasy (see 6:4-6; 10:26-30), and that here the phrase ends with a reference to healing, it is more likely that the verb should be understood in its medical sense of “to be dislocated” (RSV, “put out of joint”). We find evidence of this usage as early as the fifth century BCE in Hippocrates’ On the Duty of a Physician 14, in which case the purpose of this exhortation is generally to encourage the readers, however tired they may be, not to risk the potential of a serious injury that can result from such exhaustion, but to keep going forward in their pilgrimage of faith.

Closing Exhortation (Hebrews 12:14–13:21)

In the concluding section of the homily our preacher resorts principally to paraenesis (i.e., exhortation). Above all, he is here concerned to draw out some of the practical implications for Christian living of his interpretation of the death and exaltation of Jesus in terms of Israel’s Day of Atonement rites and that nation’s pilgrimage to the promised land. Holiness, the sine qua non of access to God in worship, is nothing less than a way of life wholly dedicated to God. It should characterize, therefore, the community’s lifestyle. This is brought out in the section’s two main parts: a call to holiness (12:1429) and the obligations of holiness within the community of faith (13:1-19). To this is appended a prayer-wish or benediction (13:20-21) that acts as a closure to the whole homily. A Call to Holiness (12:14-29) The first section of the concluding homily consists of three main paragraphs: (1) an exhortation and warning to pursue peace and holiness (12:14-17); (2) a reminder that the Christian’s goal is the city of God (12:18-24); and (3) a solemn warning from Scripture (12:25-29). An Exhortation to Pursue Peace and Holiness (12:14-17)

The thought of peace (eire¯ne¯) with which this final section begins (12:14) and ends (13:20) seems to have been suggested by LXX Proverbs 4:27b, “He (God) will make your paths straight and will guide your steps in peace (en eire¯ne¯).” Having closed the previous unit (v. 13) with an allusion to Prov 4:26, the author of Hebrews now moves on to the next verse, which assures

146

Closing Exhortation

the faithful of God’s guidance. He turns the text’s assurance, however, into an exhortation, “Pursue peace with everyone” (v. 14, RSV). Given the association of peace with holiness in this verse, it is unlikely that this is an injunction to find accord with all (contra the TEV’s “Try to be at peace with everyone”). Rather is it an encouragement to make common cause with others (presumably members of the Christian community) in their quest for God’s peace (cf. v. 11)(so Moffatt, 208). Like “rest,” peace is the eschatological goal of the Christian’s journey. The readers are reminded that “to see the Lord”—to draw near to God (see vv. 5-6 where “the Lord” designates God)—the worshipper must be in a state of purity. (Cf. Matt 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”) To attain this goal of access to God, they therefore need to pursue holiness (hagiasmos). From the content of the injunctions in 13:1-6, which spell out its implications for Christian living, it is evident that by “holiness” our author means not only ritual purity but also a life totally dedicated to God. Hence he can and does address the members of this community as “holy” (hagioi, 3:1; 13:24); as those who have been sanctified by the sacrifice of Jesus and are called to share in God’s holiness (see 12:10). To this exhortation is now added three warnings, each introduced by the words, “Let no one” (me¯ tis). First, make sure that no one fails to obtain the grace of God (v. 15a). The verb “to fall short of ” (hysterein), as in 4:1 where it refers to the promised “rest” as yet to be attained by the people of God, is similarly employed here as a warning. They have not yet come before the throne of grace (cf. 4:16) in the holy of holies. As yet, Jesus alone has done that. Second, do not permit anything in the community that would lead to its defilement (v. 15b). Continuing the theme of a “holy” people, our author’s second warning is against contagious impurity. The most obvious allusion here is to LXX Deut 29:18, which describes idolatry as “a root springing up with gall (en chole¯) and bitterness.” (Cf. MT Deut 29:18, “a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit.”) Hebrews has no reference to “with gall” (en chole¯), but the choice of the verb “cause trouble” (enchole¯) may well have been influenced by the resonances of this text. Unlike Deuteronomy, however, our author is not inveighing against idolatry. Rather he uses the metaphor of a bitter plant contaminating the others as a warning against anyone whose bad influence (cf. Acts 8:23) would defile the community from within rather than of one who would leave it. The third warning appeals to the negative example of Esau (vv. 16-17), categorized as sexually immoral (pornos) and irreligious or godless (bebe¯los). In biblical tradition sexual immorality is not infrequently associated with the

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

147

worship of foreign gods (cf. Exod 34:15-17; Deut 31:16). Like Hosea 2, our author uses sexual imagery as a metaphor for religious infidelity. Metaphorically, the sexual immorality committed by Esau was selling his birthright as the older son to his younger brother Jacob (see Gen 25:27-34). The tragedy was that, once given, Abram’s blessing of Jacob as his heir could never be revoked (see Gen 27:30-40). So, our preacher argues, is it with his contemporary addressees. If they once renounce the blessing of God, which is their inheritance, there can be no second chance. This warning reiterates those already given to the same effect in 6:4-6 and 10:26-31. A Reminder: The City of God Is the Christian’s Goal (12:18-24) The accessibility of heavenly Zion is here contrasted with the inapproachability of Mount Sinai. Although not explicitly named, vv. 18-21 clearly allude to both the site (Mount Sinai) and the events that surrounded the ratification of the Mosaic covenant and the giving of the Law. Our author combines features drawn from the accounts in Exodus (19:12-19; 20:18-21) and Deuteronomy (4:11-12; 5:23-27) in order to stress the distance between the people and the sacred site where the theophany took place. The sheer awesomeness of that event was reflected in the regulation that, upon pain of death, not so much as an animal was to set foot upon the sacred ground where it had taken place (see Exod 19:12-13). Unlike the account we find in the book of Exodus (20:21), moreover, Hebrews does not exempt Moses from this taboo. Thus he, too, was terrified (v. 21). Moses’ fear is mentioned in Scripture on two other occasions: first, at the sight of the burning bush (Exod 3:6; cf. Acts 7:32); and secondly, when he came before God, having discovered Israel’s idolatrous act of fashioning and worshipping the golden calf (Deut 9:19). Hebrews’ introduction of the motif of Moses’ fear into the account of the Sinai theophany paves the way for the contrast between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus, which follows in vv. 22-24. The principal contrast in these verses, however, is between the two places of rendezvous with God—Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. Here the negative, “For you have not come” (v. 18, ou gar prosele¯luthate), is superseded by the positive and emphatic, “But you have come” (v. 22, alla prosele¯luthate). Throughout this homily salvation has been depicted as unimpeded access to the presence of God. Not surprisingly, therefore, the language of place rather than time dominates. Whereas in first-century contemporary writings, both Jewish and Christian, the consummation of

148

Closing Exhortation

God’s purposes is mainly expressed temporally as the age in which God’s kingdom will be established, in Hebrews we find it principally depicted spatially in terms of a place. In 3:4–4:11 that place is the promised land. In 8:2–10:18 it is the holy of holies of the wilderness tabernacle. Now (vv. 1824) that place is Mount Zion. Each location is used as a symbol of the most sacred of all space— heaven. Just as in the earlier sections of the homily where the land and the inner sanctum have been “relocated” so that they become heaven, so “Mount Zion . . . the city of the living God” becomes identified as “the heavenly Jerusalem” (v. 22). This makes clear to Hebrews’ readers that the goal of their pilgrimage is not Zion, the former Jebusite stronghold captured by David (2 Sam 5:6-9), which was to expand into the city of Jerusalem (see Ps 122:3-4; 147:12-13; Amos 1:2; Mic 4:2 where Zion and Jerusalem are synonymous). Since this was the site of Israel’s temple, the place where the ark was lodged (2 Sam 6:2), Zion came to symbolize God’s dwelling place (1 Kgs 14:21; Ps 78:68-69; Isa 24:23; Mic 4:7; Zeph 3:14-20; Zech 1:16; Jer 31:3-4; Joel 3:7). Jewish apocalypses, such as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras) written at the end of the first century in response to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in CE 70, depict the descent of a city from heaven as part of their eschatological hope of restoration: For behold the days will come, and it shall be when the signs which I have foretold unto thee shall come to pass, then the city that is now invisible shall appear, and the land which is now concealed be seen. (4 Ezra = 2 Esdras 7:26; cf. 9:26–10:59; 13:35-36) In 2 Baruch (4:2-7) the plan of that “city to be revealed” was engraved on the palms of God’s hands and shown to Adam, Abraham, and on Mount Sinai to Moses. The claim made thereby is that God’s plan of salvation, although as yet to be realized, is not new but goes back to the time of creation. In the New Testament we find similar references to a heavenly city in Paul’s letter to the Galatians (4:26), which speaks of “Jerusalem above,” and in the book of Revelation’s “new Jerusalem” (Rev 3:12), coming down from heaven (Rev 21:2, 10). Only in Hebrews, however, do we find the phrase “the heavenly Jerusalem.” Like these Jewish and Christian apocalyptic visions of a future city of God, Hebrews’ use of the spatial language of the “heavenly Jerusalem” is to be understood eschatologically, as an expression of the author’s convictions concerning God’s plan for the future—and not only for the future.

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

149

This celestial city represents simultaneously both an existing reality in the present and one yet to come. Strikingly, unlike other Jewish and Christian writings that speak of the descent to earth of a heavenly city, in the Letter to the Hebrews the movement of salvation is to rather than from heaven. Thus Jesus is no descending redeemer, but the pioneer of a pilgrimage (Heb 2:8; 12:2) whose journey into the presence of God is to be emulated by his followers. As yet, however, Jesus alone has arrived at faith’s destination and “entered” (note the use of the verb eiserchomai = to enter at 6:20; 9:12, 24, 25) into heaven, where he is now seated at the right hand of God (1:3). The city to which the faithful of old journeyed (11:10, 13-16) remains “the city which is to come” (13:14), as yet to be arrived at by the faithful of the present as well as the past. For all that our author employs the perfect tense in verse 22, “You have come” (prosele¯luthate), this is the language of approach rather than final attainment. (The verb is used in Hebrews especially of approaching God in worship; cf. 4:16; 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6.) Throughout this homily the audience has been addressed as those who are at the very borders of the promised land of salvation. Hence they have been encouraged not to turn back but to persevere (see 4:1-9). They have also been constantly reminded, however, that they have not yet arrived at faith’s destination. Given all that has gone before, therefore, this vision of the festal gathering in the heavenly Jerusalem is best interpreted as a proleptic one, albeit containing elements of both the “now” and the “not yet,” typical of the eschatology of Hebrews. That angels are included in the festal throng is not surprising since, in Jewish tradition, angelic beings are depicted as heaven’s ministers who stand before the throne of God (see Isa 6:2-3; Dan 7:10). Less clear from the text, however, is whether “the assembly (ekkle¯sia) of the firstborn” (v. 23) refers to the myriad of angels or to human beings, “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” (RSV, v. 23). In LXX Ps 89:5 angels are described as “an assembly” (ekkle¯sia), and in Gen 6:2 (cf. Job 38:7) they are “sons of God.” Yet, given the fact that Hebrews here describes them as those “who are enrolled in heaven” (v. 23a), i.e., as those who are elect among the people of God (see Exod 32:32-33; Ps 69:28; Dan 12:1; Phil 4:4; Rev 3:5, etc.), “the assembly of the firstborn” more likely refers to human rather than angelic beings. Their identity is explicated in the following phrase. They are “the spirits (pneumata) of the righteous made perfect.” In Jewish writings the word “spirits” (pneumata; cf. 1 Enoch 22:3-4; 103:4) ) and its synonym “souls” (psuchai; cf. 1 Enoch 9:3,10; 103:3) can be used to describe the dead. Confident of the ultimate vindication of the faithful dead, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon (3:1, 4b) writes, “But the souls of the righteous are in

150

Closing Exhortation

the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them . . . Their hope is full of immortality.” In a similar vein, the author of Hebrews is confident that the faithful of all ages have been “perfected,” i.e., brought to salvation’s goal, which is into the presence of God. Writing from a Christian perspective, he is convinced that an event in the past, namely, the death and exaltation of Christ (cf. 10:14), made the realization of that goal (= perfection) possible. Only Jesus has attained that goal, however. For his followers, its attainment lies in the imminent future (see Introduction). Thus, Hebrews is not referring here to the present beatific state of Christians who have died and are now in heaven (contra Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 140-49 et al.). Rather are we presented with a vision of the ultimate complete company of the people of God (see Peterson, 162) who will finally reach the “city of the living God” at the eschaton. That company will include not only the angelic hosts but also His “firstborn.” This title, bestowed upon Israel in the time of Moses (see Exod 4:22-23), is to be the designation of the faithful of all ages, who, through the work of Jesus, God’s firstborn (1:6), as his brothers and sisters (2:11) will share the privilege that he now enjoys— unhindered access to God. Judaism had its own traditions of righteous individuals who had been translated to heaven at their death, notably Enoch (Gen 5:24; 1 Enoch 12:3; 15:1; 2 Enoch 27:8; 71:14; Jubilees 4:23; Philo, On the Changing of Names 38; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.85), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11; Ecclus 48:8), and Moses (Philo, The Life of Moses 2.288-291; Questions on Exodus 2.29) (although the ascension of Moses was not accepted by Josephus; see Jewish Antiquities 4.326). Unlike the Fourth Gospel, which explicitly denies that anyone other than Jesus has ascended into heaven (John 3:13; cf. 1:18), Hebrews contains no such denial of Judaism’s heroes. Thus in 11:5 we find an allusion to the ascension of Enoch. In Hebrews the exclusive claims made for Jesus’ entry into heaven are expressed positively in terms of what he has achieved rather than as a negative polemic against rival ascendants. The same can be said of Hebrews’ treatment of the other occupants of heaven, the angels (see 1:5–2:18). It is not their heavenly location that is denied, but the superior status of Jesus as God’s son that is affirmed. The paragraph closes with a shift from the metaphor of heaven as Mount of Zion, the meeting place between God and His people superior to Mount Sinai, to heaven as the holy of holies of Israel’s shrine. (This picks up the cultic analogy drawn between the death of Jesus and the Day of Atonement that has dominated 4:25–10:18.) Just as the two sites, Sinai and Zion, have been compared and contrasted, so the respective covenants of Moses and Jesus are juxtaposed. Having already expounded at some length

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

151

his claim that Jesus has inaugurated a superior covenant (see 7:22; 8:6; 8:79:10; 9:15-22), in this concluding part of his homily our author now only has to remind this audience that Christ is “the mediator of a new covenant” (v. 24). As in his earlier exposition of the theme, here the emphasis is not so much upon Jesus as the covenant maker as upon him as the covenant victim; the means whereby the new covenant is made effective. Similarly (see comment on 9:15-55), unlike Exodus 24:8 where the blood of the covenant victim was sprinkled on all the people as an act of consecration, here it becomes rather an expiatory sacrifice, removing the barrier of sin. Thus in verse 24, Christ’s “sprinkled blood,” in contrast to that of the murdered Abel (see Gen 4:10-11), does not cry out for vengeance but speaks of forgiveness and reconciliation. A Warning from Scripture (12:25-29)

Continuing the Mount Sinai/Mount Zion contrast of the previous paragraph, our author concludes his call to holiness with a final solemn warning. This takes the form of an a fortiori argument (cf. 2:2-4; 10:26-29), supported by a citation from scripture. If the voice of God that spoke at the earthly site of Mount Sinai demands obedience, how much more does that voice that speaks from heaven itself (v. 25)? In Hebrews, God is the source of revelation in the past. Thus the letter opens with the affirmation, “God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets” (1:1). God’s definitive, final word, however, is spoken through Jesus. Hence the prologue continues, “but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son” (1:2a). Thus the language of “on earth” as opposed to “from heaven” here is no denial of a genuine theophany on the occasion of the making of the covenant on Mount Sinai, but a warning that the new, superior covenant of Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, carries with it an even greater demand for obedience, since it is definitive. In an earlier part of this homily (3:7–4:13) the example of the infidelity of the wilderness generation has been used as a warning to its present audience. They should not abandon their faith in the promises of God. Similarly, in this concluding section they are reminded that, as the recipients of God’s word in the present, they have an even greater responsibility to obey it. It is unlikely that the phrase, “His voice then shook (esaleusen) the earth” (v. 26), was taken from Exodus 19:18, “and the whole mountain quaked greatly,” since this only occurs in the Hebrew text (MT). In the Greek version (LXX), which is clearly our author’s text, there is no mention of the

152

Closing Exhortation

mountain being shaken. Instead we are told that the people were amazed at the sight of it being ablaze. The author of Hebrews, therefore, probably took the reference to its shaking from other biblical allusions to the Sinai theophany (e.g., LXX Judg 5:4-5; LXX Ps 67[MT 68]:8; 76:19 [MT 77:18]; 114[MT 113]:17). In Jewish tradition theophanies are not infrequently accompanied by earthquakes (e.g., Isa 6:4; Amos 9:5; Ps 18[LXX 17]:7). This imagery became part of the eschatological vocabulary of apocalyptic writings where we find earthquakes associated with the irruption of the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:30; 3:16; 1 Enoch 60:1; 4 Ezra [= 2 Esdras] 6:11, 17; 18:18; 2 Baruch 32:1; 59:3, etc.). Among these texts is Haggai 2:6, cited here: “Yet once more I will shake (seiso¯ ) not only the earth but also the heaven” (v. 26b). As with most of Hebrews’ citations from scripture, this is closer to the LXX than the MT. Hence, like the LXX, the MT’s “in a little while” is omitted. The reference to “the sea and the dry land,” found in both the LXX and the MT, are also omitted, the words “not only . . . but also” added, and the word order “heaven and earth” inverted, thereby making “heaven” more emphatic. In its original context this oracle was addressed to Israel’s postexilic remnant as a word of promise that the Jerusalem temple (destroyed by the Babylonians in 597 BCE) would be restored, and once more become the place where God manifests His glory. This eschatological promise is used by our author as an assurance that all that is earthly and transient (v. 27, “what is shaken” [saleuomena]) has been replaced by the heavenly and permanent (vv. 27-28, “what cannot be shaken” [ta me¯ saleuomena]). Just as in 1:10-12 where our author contrasted the transient nature of the whole created order with the eternal reign of God, so here he employs Haggai 2:6 to make the same point. Unlike 1:10-12 where, in keeping with LXX Ps 101[MT 102]:26-28 which he cites, he includes heaven as part of the created order, here he swiftly reverts to his more usual symbolization of heaven as the realm of the transcendent. Thus it is a “kingdom which cannot be shaken” (v. 28, basileia asaleutos). Many commentators think that this is an allusion to Daniel’s vision of “one like a son of man” coming before God to receive “a kingdom that shall not be destroyed” (Dan 7:14), and to his promise that the saints of the Most High will receive a kingdom that shall last forever (Dan 7:18). William Lane (vol. 2, 485, following Vanhoye, Structure), however, sees the most likely source as LXX 95(MT 96):9-10: Worship the Lord in his holy court; Let all the earth be shaken (saleuthe¯to¯ ) before him. Say to the nations, “The Lord has

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

153

inaugurated his reign!” For he will establish the world (oikoumene¯) which shall not be shaken (ou saleuthe¯setai). Like the psalmist, our author calls upon his readers to worship (v. 28) the God who reigns over the unshakable “world” (oukoumene¯) of heaven itself. (For oukoumene¯ used elsewhere in Hebrews as a designation of heaven see the comment on 1:6). They are to respond not only with gratitude (v. 28) but also with reverence and awe, “for our God is a consuming fire” (v. 29). With these words of LXX Deut 4:24 (“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire”), the readers are once again reminded of the Sinai theophany. Before such a revelation of God’s holiness, this is the only appropriate response. The reference to “fire,” an established symbol of judgment, also reminds them that they are but in the process of receiving (note the use of the present participle paralabanontes in v. 28) that heavenly kingdom. They have yet to attain it. The subsection ends, therefore, on a note of warning. Obligations of Holiness within the Community of Faith (13:1-19) The climactic ending of chapter 12, taken in conjunction with the abrupt change in tone and style at 13:1 (which opens without so much as a connective “therefore”), has led some scholars to question whether chapter 13 was originally part of Hebrews or whether it is an epistolary appendix, either added to his homily by the author himself (so Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 398, n. 37) or by someone else. G. W. Buchanan (24345,267-68) adopts the latter position, not least because the contents of the final chapter do not fit well with his suggestion that chapters 1–12 were originally addressed to “a very strict communal sect” (256) of Diaspora Jewish Christians, Zionists who had settled in Jerusalem to await the imminent return of the Lord. According to Buchanan, Hebrews was written by way of encouragement to such a group not to give up hope in spite of the parousia’s delay, but to continue to await the coming of the heavenly Jerusalem at its earthly site. Such a scenario is at odds with what we find in chapter 13, however. There instructions are given concerning marriage (v. 4), the readers are exhorted to abstain from pecuniary greed (v. 5), and, far from remaining in Jerusalem, they are urged to leave the city (vv. 13-14). Buchanan’s arguments against the integrity of chapter 13, based as they are upon a reconstruction of the supposed situation of the original readers of Hebrews arrived at by excluding the evidence of the last chapter, are therefore unconvincing. (For a defense of the integrity of chapter 13 see Lane, vol. 2,

154

Closing Exhortation

495-507.) Only a failure to see the thematic, stylistic, and structural links between this chapter and chapters 1–12 would lead one to classify it as “a scissors and paste composition of collected bits of literature” (Buchanan, 267) to be read in isolation from what has gone before. Far from being a selfstanding unit added by a later hand, its concluding exhortations pick up the homily’s central themes. Thus 13:1-21 takes up and elaborates the call to holy living begun at 12:14 (see Vanhoye, Structure, 210-15). This is signaled by the inclusion, “Let us offer to God acceptable (euaresto¯ s) worship (12:28) . . . Working in you that which is pleasing (euareston) in his sight” (13:21), which bridges our chapter divide. The same note is sounded in 13:16: “such sacrifices are pleasing (euaresteitai) to God.” What binds together the disparate injunctions on this final chapter, therefore, is that they illustrate the nature of what it means to be a holy people. Only by doing that which pleases Him may they approach God. Verses 1-19 fall into two unequal parts that deal with Christian holiness and its obligations (vv. 1-6) and the implications of Jesus’ sacrifice (vv. 7-19). Christian Holiness and Its Obligations (13:1-6)

In vv. 1-6 our author briefly lists what should be the ethical hallmarks of the new covenant community. He does this by way of four pairs of admonitions to each of which he attaches a motivation (see Michel, 479). “Brotherly love” (philadelphia) and “hospitality to strangers” (philoxenia) (vv. 1-2) are the first pair to be linked. “Brothers” (adelphoi) is Hebrews’ usual designation of fellow members, female and male, of the Christian community (see 2:11, 12, 17; 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22-23). Here the readers are exhorted to persevere in their love for one another. Furthermore, that love is to be extended to strangers (xenoi), i.e., fellow Christians who are visitors from outside the local community. As in 3 John 5, “Beloved it is a loyal thing you do when you render service to the brethren, especially to strangers,” so here “strangers” are fellow believers who require hospitality. (Cf. Rom 12:13 where the word philoxenia [hospitality to strangers] is used of contributing to the needs of “the saints.”) The reason given for this injunction, “for thereby some have entertained angels unawares,” alludes to the story of Abraham and Sarah who unwittingly entertained angels as their guests (Gen 18:2-25; for other examples of angels as unrecognized guests see Judg 6:11-24; 13:2-20, Tobit 12:11-22).

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

155

The second group paired (v. 3) are the prisoners (desmioi) and the otherwise maltreated (kakouchoumenoi). The NRSV translation “tortured” is too specific. In Hebrews the same verb (kakouchein = to ill-treat) is used of both physical (see 11:25, 37) and verbal (see 10:33; 11:26; 13:13) abuse suffered by the people of God. Here, the kind of abuse is not specified. It refers to those who, alongside the imprisoned, have been maltreated in any way for their faith. In 10:34 the recipients of this letter have been commended for the compassion they had previously shown toward such people. Now they are enjoined to continue to remember them (presumably not only in their prayers, but also by providing for their practical needs), and, “as though in prison with them,” to empathize with their plight. The motivation for such empathy, namely, “since you also are in the body” (en so¯ mati), is a reminder of the fact that they too share the same bodily existence as those who are suffering. Hence they can and should appreciate what they must be going through. The injunctions to marital fidelity and sexual chastity are paired in verse 4. Here adultery is seen not only as an act of dishonour against the institution of marriage but also as an act of defilement of God’s call to holiness. Thus it is the thought of the judgment of God that is held out as the motivation for sexual purity. The final twin injunctions in this section are to avoid material greed (cf. 1 Tim 3:3; 6:10) and to be content with what they have (v. 5). Here the reason given for indifference to material gain is the assurance of God’s unfailing assistance: “I will never fail you nor forsake you” (v. 5b, which is an allusion to Deut 31:6; cf. Deut 31:8; Josh 31:5). The author closes his list of some of the practical implications of holiness for the community’s lifestyle with a citation from LXX Ps 117[MT 118]:6, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?”—a confident confession of faith in God’s ongoing protection and assistance. The Implications of Jesus’ Sacrifice (13:7-19)

The inclusion that begins and ends this section deals with the subject of the community’s leaders and their conduct: “Remember your leaders (he¯goumenoi he¯mo¯ n) . . . consider the outcome of their way of life (anatrophe¯)[v. 7]. Obey your leaders (he¯goumenoi he¯mo¯ n) . . . Pray for us; we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act (anastrephesthai) honorably in all things” (vv. 17-18, RSV).

156

Closing Exhortation

(13:7-9, 17-19) Remember Your Leaders. The first group of leaders (v. 7) are those of the past, whose preaching led to the founding of the community to which Hebrews is addressed. The present generation are exhorted to imitate both the conduct and the faith of these, their forebears. Verse 8 explicates what lies at the heart of the confession of faith they have received from them: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Given Hebrews’ preoccupation with the post-resurrection, exalted Christ, rather than any notion of a pre-existent logos, it is highly unlikely that “yesterday” refers to his pre-existence (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 198-204, contra Williamson, “The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews,” 4-8 et al.) but to the events of his earthly life, and especially his death (see Filson, 30-34) and heavenly enthronement. “Yesterday and today” is an established OT phrase (e.g., Exod 5:14; 2 Sam 15:20; Wis 38:22) that expresses the idea of continuity. By adding “and forever” (eis tous aio¯ nas = into the ages), our author both affirms this traditional belief in the eternal, ultimate efficacy of the death and exaltation of Christ (cf. 7:25) and reassures his readers of the same. The community’s contemporary leaders are the topic of vv. 17-19. Via the use of the present indicatives, “continue to obey (peithesthe) and defer to (hupeikete, [N]RSV, submit to) them,” the author of Hebrews exhorts his audience to remain loyal to their current leaders, not least (by implication) because they continue to speak the word of God (see v. 7). To them has been entrusted the task of exercising eschatological vigilance (see Lane, vol. 2, 255), “keeping watch over your souls” (cf. Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36). For this they will have to render an account before God on the day of judgment (cf. Matt 12:26; 1 Pet 4:5). With that awesome day in mind, our author hopes that it will be a joyful rather than a sad occasion for his readers, adding—by way of monumental understatement—that the latter “ would be of no advantage to you!” (v. 17). Among the community’s leaders the author of the Letter to the Hebrews includes himself. Hence he asks them to continue to pray (v. 18, proseuchesthe, another present imperative) for him. The reason he gives for this request is that their leaders have “a clear conscience” (kalen suneide¯sin, v. 18); i.e., they have no cause for guilt (for “conscience” meaning a sense of guilt see the comment on 9:9), since they strive to act honorably in everything they do. The specific content of the prayer that our author asks of this community on his own behalf (v. 19) is that he may soon be with them once more. The reference to the faith of the leaders of the past(v. 7) and their traditional confession of faith (v. 8) leads naturally into a warning against

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

157

“multiple” (poikilos, RSV “diverse”) and “alien” (xenos, RSV “strange”) teachings. These terms are used here pejoratively to denote what is false. (For a similar use of poikilos concerning teaching see Titus 3:3. Josephus, Jewish War 2.414, uses xenos of false teaching within Judaism.) Our author does not pursue the subject of false teaching, not least because here his purpose is not to engage in polemics but to hold out encouragement to his readers (see Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9-16 Revisited,“ 268-84). The emphasis thus falls upon the positive, “For it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace (chariti),” rather than the negative, “not by foods (ou bro¯ masin) which have not benefited their adherents” (v. 9b). The “grace,” which is here contrasted with “foods,” refers to the death and heavenly enthronement of Jesus, viewed as the gracious act of God (see 2:9; 10:29), over against Judaism’s sacrificial offerings (see 9:9-10), which were ineffectual. This allusion to the sacrifice of Christ acts as an introduction to the central part (vv. 10-16) of the unit. This consists of a brief summary of the homily’s main point (vv. 10-12), followed by a resumé of its implications for the life of the community (vv. 13-16). (13:10-12) Jesus as the Day of Atonement Sacrifice. Helmut Koester’s claim that this is “among the most difficult passages of the entire New Testament” (“‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13:9-14,” 299) is especially true if we interpret it in isolation from or at variance with the homily as a whole. Thus, some interpreters (e.g., Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 79-95) have claimed that “We have an altar” is an assertion that the community’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper as the means of access to God. Others (e.g., Moffatt, 223-38) have interpreted it as a refutation of any understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial meal at which the body of Christ is consumed. Yet neither here nor elsewhere— either by way of affirmation or refutation—does our author display any interest in a shared Christian cultic meal (see Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 300-312). If anything, the analogy drawn between the death of Jesus and that of the Day of Atonement victim would preclude any such interpretation, since that sacrifice was the one par excellence that was eaten neither by the priesthood (as our author is at pains to point out [v. 10, “from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat,” RSV]) nor the laity. Moreover, of all Israel’s holocausts, this was the one that was not burned on the altar of sacrifices/burned offerings but disposed of beyond the sacred boundaries of the shrine (see Excursus 2: The Day of Atonement). Read within the context of chapters 1–12, the meaning of these verses thus becomes clearer.

158

Closing Exhortation

Just as 8:1 opens with the affirmation, “We have a high priest” (echo¯ men archierea), so similarly, this, the concluding summary of the homily’s main point, asserts, “We have an altar” (echo¯ men thusiaste¯rion, v. 13:10). “Altar” here is used as an alternative way of speaking of the Day of Atonement sacrifice—Hebrews’ principal model for the death of Christ. It is not a reference to the Lord’s Table. Although in the OT we occasionally find the altar of sacrifice described as the Lord’s table (e.g., Ezek 41:22; Mal 1:7, 12), in Christian tradition the earliest evidence we have of “altar” (thusiaste¯rion) being used of the Lord’s “table” (trapeza) is by Ignatius of Antioch in the second century CE (To the Philadelphians 4; cf. To the Magnesians 7.2; To the Ephesians 5.2). In Hebrews, however, it refers to the altar of sacrifice/burned offerings of Judaism’s cult, not to the eucharistic table of the Christian community. Some scholars (so Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 307-308; J. Thompson, “‘Outside the Camp’: A Study of Heb 13.9-14,” 53-63 et al.) have located the altar of verse 10 in the heavenly sanctuary, to which Jesus has ascended, and where he now offers his sacrifice to God. The major problem with this interpretation, however, is that to depict heaven as a sacred shrine (which Hebrews does throughout 8:1–10:18) is thereby to preclude it from containing the altar of sacrifice, not least because, in Jewish tradition, neither the wilderness tabernacle nor the Jerusalem temple housed this altar within its sacred precincts. It stood outside the entrance to the holy place (see Exod 27:1-8; 38:1-3), not inside it (see diagram on page 103). The only altar located within the shrine was the altar of incense (see Exod 30:1-10; 38:25-28; Lev 4:7), which, unlike his biblical sources, the author of Hebrews places in the holy of holies rather than in the holy place (see the comment on 9:4). He does not, however, confuse the altar of sacrifice (thusiaste¯rion) with the altar of incense (thumite¯rion). The former is situated outside the shrine’s sacred portals because in this thoughtworld, sacrifice was the means by which one was enabled to enter sacred territory, not what went on there once entry was attained (see Isaacs, “Heb 13:9-16 Revisited,” 273-77). The main point of Hebrews’ exposition is that, viewed as the Day of Atonement expiatory sacrifice, Jesus’ death was the means whereby he gained access to God—both for himself and, potentially, for his followers. Heaven may be the goal, but sacrifice (= an altar) is the means whereby that goal will be attained. That sacrifice has taken place not in heaven but on the cross on earth. Thus the statement, “We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat” (v. 10, RSV), is essentially descriptive rather than proscriptive. Far from being a phrase that identifies a particular group

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

159

excluded from the Christian fellowship, it signals the type of sacrifice that Jesus offered; that of the Day of Atonement, which was not a fellowship meal at all. This is explicated in the following verses (vv. 11-12). Just as its victim was burned “outside the camp” (exo¯ te¯s parembole¯s; cf. Lev 16:27), so Jesus suffered “outside the gate” (exo¯ te¯s pule¯s). In this the author of Hebrews sees not only the fate of Jesus, the expiatory victim, but also his execution as a criminal (see Lev 24:14, 23; Num 15:36) outside the gate (Deut 22:24), i.e., beyond Jerusalem’s walls. (For the place of Jesus’ execution see John 19:20, “near the city.” Mark 15:20 and Matt 27:31 state that Jesus was “led out” [cf. Luke 23:21, “led away”], implying that it took place outside the city walls.) (13:13-16) Implications for the Life of the Community. The first exhortation, “Go forth to him outside the camp” (v. 13) introduces once more the pilgrimage motif (see 3:1–4:14; 11:1–12:3, 18-24) with its emphasis upon the need for perseverance (see 10:19-39; 12:1-29) if its goal is to be achieved. En route the pilgrim should expect to receive abuse (oneidismos) from the world. This, after all, had been the experience of their own community (see 10:23). Moreover, long before them, it had been the experience of men and women of faith, notably Moses, who, in solidarity with the Christ who was to come, himself suffered such abuse (see the comment on 11:26). The “camp” here that our author exhorts his readers to abandon, like the “foods” (v. 9) and the “city” (cf. v. 14), is not therefore Judaism per se but the Mosaic cult and its shrine (see Introduction). This is not to suggest that the Letter to the Hebrews is a call to a life of secularity (contra Koester, “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13.9-14,” 302). Nor, on the other hand, is it a call to abandon all that is earthly and material in order to pursue the Platonic “heaven” of the immaterial world of Ideas (so J. Thompson, “‘Outside the Camp’: A Study of Heb 13.9-14,” 53-63, and idem, Beginnings, 141-51). On the contrary. What we find in Hebrews is neither the abandonment of the notion of the sacred nor an encouragement to escape from the material universe, but an exhortation to relocate the holy place where God may be encountered (see Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9-16 Revisited”). The place of rendezvous with God is not to be identified with Israel’s cult and sacred shrine. Its ultimacy (“heaven”) means that it lies both beyond the “here” and the “now”: “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come” (v. 14; cf. 2:5; 6:5). The second exhortation, “Let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God” (v. 15), like LXX Ps 49[MT 50]:14 (“Offer to God the sacrifice of praise”), which it echoes, implies an act that is in marked contrast to animal

160

Closing Exhortation

sacrifices (cf. LXX Ps 49:12-13). Thus our author describes this type of worship as “the fruit of lips which acknowledge his name;” i.e., it is the offering to God not of animals but of hymns of thanksgiving (see Psalms of Solomon 5:2-3; 2 Macc 10:7). Now the sacrifices required of the Christian are no longer those of Judaism’s cult. The latter have been made redundant by the supreme self-offering of Christ. What the people of God are now called upon to offer as their “sacrifice” is praise in worship (v. 15) and the performance of good works in their lives (v. 16). A Prayer-Wish (13:20-21) The closing benediction takes the form of a prayer for the recipients to which is appended a doxology in praise of God. The prayer is addressed to “the God of peace” (cf. Rom 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23), i.e., to the One who bestows His peace (shalom) upon His people. Its request is that they may be provided with the necessary gifts (v. 21, “everything good”) to enable them to do God’s will. This prayer is offered “through Jesus Christ,” by which is meant the mediatorial efficacy of his death. At the very outset of the prayer Jesus is described as the one whom God “led up from the dead (ho anagago¯ n ek nekro¯ n) . . . by the blood of the eternal covenant” (v. 20). In Hebrews, whether as a noun (anastasis, 6:2) or a verb (egeirein, 11:19), the language of resurrection is used of the raising from the dead of humanity in general. Nowhere is Jesus spoken of as being raised from the dead. Here, however, we find the verb anagein, which means “to lead or bring up,” used of Jesus’ victory over death. In the Septuagint (see 1 Kgdms = 1 Sam 2:2; Tobit 13:2; Ps 29:4 [MT 30:3]) it describes God’s action in leading the dead up from Sheol (cf. the exposition of Deut 30:13 in Rom 10:7). This word is particularly appropriate for Hebrews, since it also means “to exalt or elevate,” and is thus in accord with the homily’s principal understanding of Christ’s death as the means whereby he was exalted to heaven. Even in this concluding prayer-wish the author reminds his readers that it was that death, “the blood of the eternal sacrifice,” that made Jesus’ entrance into the presence of God possible. “The eternal covenant” is a phrase that is found in the OT (e.g., Isa 55:3; Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26) and the writings of the Qumran Covenanters (1QS 4.22; 5.5-6) where it refers to God’s immutable fidelity to Israel. Here it picks up the theme of Jesus, the superior covenant victim, through whose blood a new covenant has been inaugurated (see 8:6; 9:15-22; 10:29).

Hebrews 12:14–13:21

161

The description of Jesus as “the great shepherd of the sheep” (v. 20, cf. John 10:11, 14; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4) at this point may be an echo of LXX Isa 63:11-12: “Where is he (i.e., God) that brought up (anabibasas) from the land the shepherd of the sheep? . . . who led (anago¯ n) Moses with his right hand . . . ?” in which we also find the language of “being brought up” used in conjunction with “the shepherd of the sheep.” In Isaiah this refers to Moses, the shepherd of God’s people (cf. Ps 77:20); the leader who was himself led by God out of Egyptian bondage. For the author of Hebrews, Jesus, like Moses, is “the shepherd of the sheep.” By adding the qualification “great” (megan; cf. 4:14: “great high priest”; 10:21: “great priest”), however, he claims that Jesus is superior to Moses (see 2:2-3; 3:1-6; 8:1-6; 11:23-31). (Cf. The Psalms of Solomon 17:40 [a first-century CE Jewish work], which looks forward to the coming of a Davidic Messiah as the shepherd of God’s flock.) Just as Isaiah 64:11-14 asserts that it was God who brought Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land (cf. Exod 6:7-8; 20:1-2; Lev 19:36, etc.), so our author affirms that it is God “who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ.” Contra the TEV’s translation, “And to Christ be the glory,” it is God not Christ who is the subject of the sentence, which begins at v. 20. (For similar doxologies in praise of God see Rom 16:27; Eph 3:1421; Phil 4:19-20; 1 Pet 5:10-11.) Thus, in keeping with Hebrews’ own exhortation to its readers to “offer up a sacrifice of praise to God” (v. 15), the homily ends (v. 21) with a doxology in praise of God.

A Personal Note (Hebrews 13:22-25)

Hebrews closes with a personal note, appended to the end of the homily. It may be a covering note written by another, later hand (so Vanhoye, Structure, 219-21 et al.), perhaps to make it conform more closely to the ending of a Pauline letter (so Héring, 119 et al.). If so, this must have occurred at an early date, since, although there are some later manuscripts in which a scribe has added “by Paul” to the end of the work (and thereby strengthened the assumption that it was written by the apostle Paul), there are no manuscripts that omit vv. 22-25. We are not therefore able to discount the possibility that this note was written by the original author himself. (On issues concerning Hebrews’ authorship and addressees see Introduction.) It certainly reflects the same strong pastoral concern for the Christian community addressed that runs throughout the whole of the work. The author describes the contents of his communication as a “word of exhortation” (logos te¯s parakle¯seo¯ s, v. 22). Undoubtedly the dominant note of the whole of Hebrews is that of exhortation. This phrase, however, could more specifically be used to describe a sermon or homily (see Lane, vol. 2, 568 et al.). Thus the “words of exhortation” (logoi parakle¯seo¯ s) addressed by Judas Maccabeus to his troops before battle (2 Macc 15:11), based as they were upon “the law and the prophets” (2 Macc 15:9), were more than simply a pep talk. He preached a sermon. Similarly, “after the reading of the law and the prophets” in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, the apostle Paul was invited to deliver “a word of exhortation” (Acts 13:15), i.e., to preach a sermon, presumably on the basis of the scriptural texts just read. The author of Hebrews mentions that his homily has been a “brief ” one (v. 22). This does not seem to be either defensive or ironic, but reflects a literary convention that extolled the virtue of brevity in writing (see 2 Macc 2:31-32; 6:17; cf. 1 Pet 5:12). Understandably, the reference to Timothy (v. 23) led later interpreters to assume that this was the missionary companion of Paul (Acts 16:1-3; 17:14;

164

Personal Note

18:5; 19:22; Rom 16:21; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1, etc.) and that Paul wrote Hebrews. Here our author hopes that Timothy will arrive in time to join him in visiting the group to whom this letter is written. It is not clear, however, from what Timothy “has been released” (apolelumenon). It could be from prison, although, if this Timothy is one and the same as the Timothy who was Paul’s co-worker, there is no other mention of his imprisonment elsewhere in the New Testament. It is therefore better to understand the verb in its more general sense to mean “has departed” or “gone away.” In which case, the author of this personal note is saying that if he returns in good time they will be able to travel together to meet up with the community to which this letter is addressed. The author sends his greetings not only to their leaders but also to the community as a whole, “all the saints” (v. 24, pantas tous hagious; cf. Heb 3:1; Phil 4:21). He also sends greetings from “those from Italy” (hoi apo te¯s Italias). The ambiguity as to the identity of this group is retained in the NEB’s translation, “Greetings to you from our Italian friends.” “Those who are from Italy” could either indicate that Italy was the place from which the letter was written (hence some later manuscripts add “written from Italy” or “written from Rome” as a subscript), or it could mean that Italy was the letter’s destination—in which case the Italians were sending greetings home. On the other hand, references to “the Italians” need refer neither to Hebrews’ place of origin nor its destination, but merely be the designation by which the group was known to the addressees. The note ends with a brief prayer for God’s grace. Although this seems to be an established liturgical formula (see Titus 3:15; cf. 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22), God’s grace (charis) has been a recurrent theme running throughout the homily (see 2:9; 4:16; 10:19; 12:15; 13:9). Appropriately, some later manuscripts add a final, “Amen.”

James

Introduction

In fine, Saint John’s Gospel and his first epistle, Saint Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Saint Peter’s first epistle—these are the books that show thee Christ, and teach thee everything that is useful and blessed for thee to know even though thou never see nor hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore is Saint James’ epistle a right strawy epistle in comparison with them for it has no gospel character to it. . . . Therefore I will not have it in my Bible in the number of the proper chief books, but do not intend thereby to forbid anyone to place and exalt it as he pleases, for there is many a good saying in it. With these words Martin Luther consigned the Letter of James (along with Jude, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation) to the appendix of his 1522 German translation of the New Testament—with no number assigned to it in the table of contents. The Reformers were not the first to question the place of James in the canon of Christian scripture. In spite of the traditional character of much of its contents, there is no evidence of its use in the church before the third century. Some modern scholars have claimed that there is sufficient affinity between the language and themes of James and that of the Shepherd of Hermas (Mayor, The Epistle of James, lxxiv-lxxviii; Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 22-23) and 1 Clement (L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James,” 72, 76, 128, 135) to conclude that our letter was read and employed by the church in Rome in the second century. In which case it is very surprising that it is not included in that church’s second-century list of “accepted” works (i.e., the Muratorian Canon). More compelling, therefore, is the likelihood that the overlap between James, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas is to be accounted for by an independent use of traditional material, rather than

168

Introduction

dependence upon James as a source. In fact, we have to wait until Origen (Commentary on John 19.6) for its earliest indisputable attestation (as L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 129, is obliged to admit). While accepting the Letter of James as canonical, Eusebius (History of the Church 3.25) placed it among the “disputed” books. Although approved by Jerome (if somewhat hesitantly, see On Famous Men 2) and Augustine, it was only finally included in the canon of the Western church in CE 397 at the Third Council of Carthage. Even then it was not accepted by the Syrian church until the fifth century, and a century later its canonicity was still disputed in some parts of the church (see Mayor, lxvi-lxxxiv). Whilst Luther found James wanting when measured against his own “canon within the canon” and relegated it to an appendix, he did not actually exclude it from the New Testament altogether. Those early fathers before him who afforded it no place at all did so not by questioning its content (or, as Luther would have it, lack of content), but by denying the accepted touchstone of authority, i.e., its apostolic authorship. Author The name James (Hebrew, Jacob; cf. Gen 27:36; Isa 41:8; 48:22, etc.) was common among first-century Jews and Christians. In the NT alone we meet five or six people called James: • the son of Zebedee, who, together with his brothers John and Simon Peter, was one of the “inner circle” of Jesus’ first disciples (Matt 4:21 // Mark 1:1920 // Luke 5:10; Mark 3:17 [cf. Mark 10:35-41; Luke 9:28, 54-56]; Mark 9:2-9 and parallels; Mark 14:33 and parallels). In Acts (1:13) we find him as a member of the Jerusalem church. He was put to death by Herod Agrippa (CE 41–44) (Acts 12:2). • the son of Alphaeus, another of the twelve (Matt 10:3 // Mark 3:18// Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He may or may not be the same James whose mother Mary was present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40) and who went with the other women to the tomb on Easter morning to embalm Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1 // Matt 27:56 // Luke 24:10). Mark (15:40) alone calls this James “the younger.” • the father of another Judas (not Iscariot), named only by Luke (6:13-14; Acts 1:13) as one of the twelve. • the brother of the Jude (= Judas) who claims authorship of the NT letter of that name (Jude 1). • one of the four brothers of Jesus (Matt 13:55 // Mark 6:3).

Introduction

169

Later Christian tradition came to identify the author with James the brother of Jesus, also called “the Just” (Eusebius, History of the Church 2.24.4, quoting Hegesippus, the second-century Christian author). Certainly, if we were obliged to choose from this list, he would be the most likely candidate (L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 92-121). (Jerome’s identification of the author with James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve, occurring as it does in his treatise Against Helvinius [c. CE 383], is clearly dictated principally by his concern to uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary.) From the New Testament we know that, although not a follower of Jesus in his lifetime (Mark 3:20-21; John 7:38), James the brother of Jesus subsequently saw the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:7) and went on to become the leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:7; 15:13-29; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12). According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.197-203), James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death at the instigation of the high priest Ananus II (CE 60-62), who accused him of “having broken the law.” We are not told of the specific charges. Far from being the instigators, the Pharisees complained to the procurator Albinus and successfully managed to have Ananus removed from office. Ralph Martin (James, lxiv-lxvii) suggests that what antagonized the high priest was not a particular infringement of Torah, but James’ support of the poor peasantry over against the rich Sadducean landowners of Palestine in the 60s. Eusebius (citing Hegesippus) gives a different version of the death of James. In this account James is presented as ultra law-abiding (hence the epithet “The Just”), one whose knees have camel-like calluses caused by hours of kneeling in prayer in the temple in Jerusalem, and who has taken a Nazirite vow not to shave, eat meat, drink wine, or bathe. It was James’ overt testimony to Jesus as the exalted Christ, rather than any breach of Torah, that led to his martyrdom at the hands of the Pharisees. They hurled him down from the pinnacle of the temple, and when that did not kill him, he was finished off by the crowd who stoned him to death. The reference in the narrative to Vespasian dates the event as CE 66/67. In spite of the discrepancy in the date and the evident influence of traditions concerning the martyrdom of Stephen (cf. Acts 6:8–8:1) in Hegesippus’ account, both it and that of Josephus are agreed on two major points. First, James, the brother of Jesus, was killed at the instigation of his opponents among the Jewish leadership sometime in the 60s. Secondly, he was held in high regard as a man of piety among his Jewish compatriots. In literature that emanated from conservative Jewish Christian circles from the second century onwards there are similar attempts to elevate James

170

Introduction

(see Carroll, “The Place of James in the Early Church,” 49-67). Not only (as with Hegesippus) is he presented as a man of exceptional piety; he is portrayed as Jesus’ successor. Thus the Gospel According to the Hebrews (cited in Jerome, On Famous Men 2) implies that he was present at the Last Supper, where he took a vow neither to eat nor drink until he had seen Jesus raised from the dead. In the Gnostic Nag Hammadi writings it is to James rather than Peter (contra Matt 16:17-19) that leadership of the church is entrusted by Jesus (Gos. Thom. 12). James himself is portrayed as a gnostic redeemer figure (1 Apoc Jas 24.13, 18; 2 Apoc Jas 55.15–56.14; 58.2-25) who has been granted knowledge of the secret mysteries he may impart to others (1 Apoc Jas 24.11; 2 Apoc Jas 49.9). In the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (1.43-72) James is not only the bishop and president of the Jerusalem church, but also head of the church everywhere. Hence the twelve (including Peter) are obliged to report to him. Furthermore, in this account it is Saul of Tarsus, depicted as the principal opponent of James’ mission to the Jews, who personally throws him down the steps of the Jerusalem temple. This thirdcentury source thus depicts James and Paul as implacable enemies. The New Testament, however, tells a more complex story. Undoubtedly the issue of the terms upon which Gentile converts were to be admitted into the Christian community was one that led to dissension in the early church. According to his own letters, Paul’s stance on this matter was unequivocal: Gentile converts should not be obliged to be circumcised or to keep Judaism’s food laws (Rom 4:1-15; Gal 2:1-21; 5:2-6). In writing to the Galatians (2:1-13) he claims that Peter and James, “pillars” of the Jerusalem church, initially agreed that these should be the terms of his mission to the Gentiles. Paul’s complaint is that Peter, upon the arrival of certain “men from James” at Antioch who opposed such a relaxation of Mosaic Law, subsequently abandoned his practice of eating with Gentile Christians. These “men from James” even persuaded Barnabas to take the same stand. Luke’s account of Paul’s and James’ respective stances on the issue is rather different, however. In Acts (15:13-21), while James is willing to dispense with circumcision, he nonetheless insists that the Gentiles should keep the food laws. Moreover, in Acts not only does Paul agree with this decision of the assembly of the Jerusalem church, but also he and Barnabas are deputed to convey its import to the church at Antioch. In this version of events, James was motivated by a concern that the Jewish community should not interpret a Gentile mission as the abandonment by the church of the Law of Moses (see Acts 21:17-26). Most theories put forward to account for these discrepancies between Paul and Acts either seek to reconcile the two or exaggerate their differences.

Introduction

171

This is particularly evident with commentators on the Letter of James. Even those who accept that it was written by James the brother of Jesus either (a) downplay any possible conflict between James and Paul by claiming that our letter was written before its author had encountered Paul’s missionary activities and the issues these raised (Moo, James, 45-47); or (b) claim the date of the letter after the conflict at Antioch had been resolved by an agreement made at Jerusalem that all Christians should keep the laws of kashrut (Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 236). Alternatively (c) they claim the Letter of James as evidence of such conflict, and read it as a piece of antiPauline polemic (Hengel, “The Letter of James as anti-Pauline Polemic,” 248-78). At first glance, James’ discussion of faith and works (2:14-26) might seem to support the latter view. Like Paul (Rom 3–4; Gal 2–3), James uses the vocabulary of justification, righteousness, faith, and works; appeals to the example of Abraham; and cites Gen 15:6 in support of his argument. Yet a closer reading of the text shows that, far from opposing Paul, James is debating a wholly different issue. Paul is concerned with the admission of Gentiles into the church. For him, insisting that they must be circumcised and keep the food laws is tantamount to claiming that they are saved by the performance of “works” of the Law rather than by faith in Christ. James, on the other hand, is writing about a wholly different issue. There is nothing to suggest that he has been caught up in the debate about the terms of entry for Gentile Christian converts, nor the question of the status of Mosaic Torah which that raised. Jas 2:14-26 is not about the respective place of “works” of the Law and faith in Christ in the economy of salvation. Rather, it is part of a larger unit (Jas 1:19b–2:26) concerned with the topic of “word and deed” in which James exhorts his readers to hold both together. Here he seeks to demonstrate that true piety is exhibited in a life where faith and its active performance are one. Indeed, he claims, they are inseparable; there is no such thing as “faith alone.” Once it is appreciated that the Letter of James and the letters of Paul are not discussing the same issue, one of the major arguments for accepting that the author of our epistle is James “the Just” disappears. True, the overlap between the language of Paul and that of James 2:14-26 makes it difficult to postulate the total independence of the two. Yet equally, the different context in which this language is used makes it highly unlikely that the Letter of James was addressed to a Christian audience currently involved in the Pauline debate. The most plausible explanation for both the similarities and dissimilarities between the Letter of James and Paul’s letters is that the former is

172

Introduction

post-Pauline, written in a context in which the language of the original debate has become transferred. What once concerned the implications for the status of Torah if Gentiles were to be absolved from some of its precepts became a more wide-ranging debate about whether for a Christian believer there can be such a thing as “faith alone,” whether creed can be divorced from conduct. Which is not to say that our letter is pseudonymous. Far from it. Its author makes no special claim for himself, other than that he is the “servant” (NB not “brother”) of the Lord (Jas 1:1). He makes no appeal to eyewitness testimony. The most likely explanation is that he is an established teacher (Jas 3:2), known to the community to whom he writes and addresses as “brothers” (Jas 1:12, 16, 19; 2:1, 14; 3:1, 11; 4:7, 9, 10, 12, 19), but otherwise unknown to us. (As we have already noted, James/Jacob was a popular name of the time.) Not surprisingly (and not least if this work was to be accepted into the “canon” of the church’s accepted writings), subsequent tradition identified its author with James, the brother of Jesus—one renowned for his fidelity to the Law. Setting If the Letter of James is not to be read against the background of the relationship between the leaders of the Jerusalem church and Paul in the 40s and 50s CE, where is it to be located? Its milieu is clearly Jewish. Hence it draws upon the Torah and its ethical implications, exalts Abraham for his faithwith-works, proclaims the prophets’ message of God’s option for the poor, and holds up Job and Elijah respectively as examples of those who are patient in the face of adversity and the righteous whose prayers are answered. Above all, the teaching of James echoes much of Israel’s wisdom literature, especially Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. More striking from a Christian perspective than our author’s indebtedness to Jewish tradition, however, is his failure to point to Jesus as the exemplar of patience in the face of suffering. James invariably draws our attention to the character of God and uses that rather than the story of Jesus as the basis for his exhortation. Christocentricity, which looms large in other New Testament writings, is thus singularly lacking in James. In the last century this led some scholars to suggest that James began as a Jewish work, which was then adopted by the church and lightly “Christianized” by the addition of the name of Jesus (Jas 1:1; 2:1). Most commentators today, however, would not deny its Christian origins. Not least, James shares with the early church a belief in the imminent return of Christ. The thought of the judgment this will bring, far from being

Introduction

173

peripheral to his exhortation, is made one of the principal motivators for ethical behavior in the present. Furthermore, although he nowhere attributes them to Jesus, James clearly echoes some of the sayings of Jesus. These are closest to the form in which we find them in Matthew and Luke, although insufficiently close to warrant the conclusion that James knew either Gospel. Neither can we conclude that James used Matthew and Luke’s supposed common source “Q” (contra Hartin, 140-217, 220-44), not least because such a source is hypothetical, and even among its proponents there is no agreement as to what it might have contained, let alone how close James and Q might be. On the other hand, the centrality given to the Levitical command to love one’s neighbour as oneself, although not without later rabbinical parallels, must surely have its origins in the early Jesus movement. Those who question how “Christian” is the Letter of James usually assume either (a) that the church of the first century and its teaching was wholly distinct from the synagogue, or (b) that there was one Christianity measured against which James is to be found wanting. Contemporary biblical scholarship would question both assumptions. In fact, the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity was a far more complex and protracted process that such a simplistic analysis would suggest. Christianity began as a reform movement within Judaism and became a sect on the fringes of the Jewish community before finally becoming a separate religion. Yet not all Christian groups moved through this process at the same rate. Hence we can find Jewish Christian synagogues well into the third century CE. Therefore, the “Jewishness” of the Letter of James is not necessarily an indication of a non-Christian audience or an early date. It is Jewish and Christian, and is addressed to a readership that finds no incongruity in this fact. Just as modern scholarship has shown that, prior to the emergence of “orthodoxy” in the second century CE, within the Jewish community there were Judaisms rather than one Judaism, so too within the church, prior to the emergence of “orthodoxy” in subsequent centuries, there were Christianities rather than one Christianity—as the New Testament itself amply demonstrates. To judge James as wanting by the norms and preoccupations of a later era not only fails to acknowledge the pluralities of Christian understanding in his time, but also it prevents us from hearing the distinctive “voice” of its author. Clearly James was written to a community where theology had yet to become dominated by christology. That, however, does not necessarily preclude it from the wide spectrum of first- and secondcentury Christianities. At the very least it can be placed among those Christian communities where being both Jewish and a follower of Jesus had yet to become regarded as incompatible.

174

Introduction

So far in our attempt to “locate” James we have identified two assumptions that have bedeviled its reading: (1) that it is to be interpreted within the context of Paul’s debate vis-à-vis the Mosaic Law and the admission of Gentiles into the church, and (2) that it is too Jewish to be Christian. We must now briefly deal with a third assumption: that its Hellenistic character must be at odds with its Jewish-Christian content. This is only necessarily so, of course, if we assume that either Judaism or Christianity were completely isolated from the pagan world of the first century. In fact, both communities lived in a world where Greco-Roman culture—not to mention the Greek language itself—was all-pervasive. In which case, it should come as no surprise that James reflects not only the values of Jewish Christianity, but also the ethical concerns of the pagan moralists of his day (L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 27-28). A similar combination of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas can be found in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Written in Greek probably to a Diaspora community in the second century BCE, this Jewish work later came to be used and interpolated by the Christian church (see H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ” 777-81). Although written in a different genre, in many ways it is comparable to our letter (L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 43-47). Like James, it appeals to the universal precepts of Hellenistic ethics, including the virtues of generosity, self-control, and compassion. Yet at the same time it reflects an antipathy towards the world, expressed in terms of enmity between two spirits or two ways controlled respectively by angels and demons, which will only be resolved in the endtime, when God’s purposes will finally hold sway. Thus, as in James, here we find both Hellenistic ethics and Jewish eschatology happily coexisting. What distinguishes the teaching of James from that of his pagan contemporaries is not so much particular moral principles as his appeal to their theological bases. Unlike most moralists outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition who were anxious to detach ethics from religion, James grounds his ethical exhortations in his beliefs about the character of God. Thus, behaviour, like God, should be single and consistent (Laws, “The Doctrinal Basis for Ethics in James,” 299-305), an enactment of the covenant obligation to love God and neighbour, for which the believer will be answerable on the day of judgment. Evidence of Hellenistic enculturation is more evident in the style rather than the substance of James, however. While some scholars may have exaggerated the quality of James’ Greek, in the text as we have it there is nothing that would lead us to conclude that it is a translation of a Hebrew or

Introduction

175

Aramaic original. Our letter is clearly the product of someone well educated in the Greek language and literary conventions of his time (see Turner, “The Style of the Epistle of James,” 114-20). Thus James not only addresses conventional moral subjects, but also he adopts traditional treatments of such topoi, including the employment of clichés, maxims, comparisons, and short definitions (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Source Book, 144-61). In typical rhetorical style he uses alliteration and rhetorical questions and plays upon words similar in sound and/or meaning as a means of linking what might otherwise be disparate topics. Particularly evident is the use in James of the diatribe “mode” of address (Ropes, 10-16) popular among Greco-Roman moralists and adopted by Christian (e.g., Paul’s Letter to the Romans) and Jewish (e.g., 4 Maccabees) writers. This was essentially dialogical in character. Hence, along with the use of rhetorical questions and conventional formulae, it could take the form of a conversation with an imaginary interlocutor (Malherbe, 129-43). All these features are to be found in our letter. James may be broadly classified as paraenesis, i.e., moral exhortation that advises something should either be pursued or avoided (Malherbe, 124-49). Thus, in typical paraenetic style, he ranges over a variety of topics, appealing in each case to known and accepted traditional teachings, encouraging their continuance, and providing concrete examples to imitate and/or avoid. The generalizations of this type of literature, together with its diverse elements, make it difficult to determine whether or not it was addressed to a particular situation. Seneca may have argued that traditional paraenesis should be adapted to specific circumstances (Epistle 94.1, 21, 25-26, 32-35, 39), but that does not tell us whether the author of James did so, let alone the situation of his addressees. Hence Martin Dibelius (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 80) concluded that, in the case of James, we can neither impose upon it a coherent structure as if it were a reasoned treatise nor, like a letter of Paul, read it as addressed to a specific situation. This is not to say that James is merely a formless rag-bag of disparate moral teachings. Not only is there a coherence in the author’s world-view, but there is a structure in the writing itself. Hence, as we shall see in the following commentary, James signals the boundaries of his four principal thought units by inclusions, and links each section by picking up associative words in a “speaking of which” style. Nonetheless, the whole is hardly a seamless robe. Thus we need to tread warily between the extremes of atomization and over-schematisation. Above all, we should be wary of attempts to “read off ” from the contents of James a detailed profile of its addressees (contra Reicke, Sidebottom, and Martin). That could lead us to conclude

176

Introduction

that it was addressed to a Christian community that included killers and adulteresses in its fellowship. In reality we know that preachers and moralists not infrequently address their rhetoric ostensibly to the insider, when in fact their target is the outsider, or more generally the world at large. We also know that many of the examples they use are equally “typical” rather than a depiction of a particular historical situation. Audience What then can be said of the author of James and his original readers? Clearly they were Jewish, Christian, and part of the Hellenistic world. Of itself this tells us little about their location or the letter’s date, since that combination can be found in Palestine in the first century, although, given its echoes of language reminiscent of the earlier Judaizing debate, James is probably post- rather than pre-Pauline. From the way this language is used, it is highly unlikely to be contemporary with Paul. James’ imminentist eschatology and undeveloped christology could be a sign equally of an early or late date. The mention of “rich” and “poor” even understood as socio-economic groups hardly helps us determine the Letter’s date or geographical location either, since similar circumstances prevailed both within Palestine and the Diaspora in the first and second centuries CE (Chester and Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, 14-15). As we have seen, the Letter’s affinities with other Christian writings prior to the third century are insufficiently close to warrant the conclusion that there was a direct dependence of James upon any of these works or vice versa. Nonetheless, James has many affinities with both Jewish and Christian writings of the late first/early second century. A reasonable working hypothesis, therefore, is that our letter was written by a James, unknown to us but known to his original addressees, who were a Jewish-Christian, Greek-speaking congregation probably located somewhere in the Diaspora (possibly Syria) at the turn of the first century. Its principal purpose was didactic rather than polemical; its aim the general one of exhortation to Christian morality, especially in one’s behaviour toward others.

Epistolary Opening James (1:1)

James begins in the style typical of a Hellenistic letter (for a general introduction to letter-writing in the ancient world see White, “Ancient Greek Letters, ” 85-105), “A to B Greeting” (1 Macc 10:18, 25; 12:6; cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26). Unlike the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters (cf. 1 and 2 Pet; Rev 1:4-5; Epistle of Polycarp 1), the greeting is not extended to include “grace and peace” (for the Jewish prayer-wish for peace see Dan 4:1; 6:26; 2 Macc 1:1) or any other prayer-wish (cf. 3 John 3). The bare “greeting” (chairein) finds its closest Christian parallel in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Magnesians; Trallians; Smyrnians). This should warn us against using Paul’s letters as a paradigm for the structure of James. Whereas Paul usually begins with an extended opening that introduces the major topics of the letter, discussed at length in the body of the letter, before its close, here we have little emphasis upon the opening and even less on the closing. It is debatable as to whether 5:12-20 should be classified as epistolary. Thus, compared with the letters of Paul, the sender and recipients are given but scant attention and confined to the opening. The weight is entirely upon the body of the letter (Bailey and Van der Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament, 201). Since it is not the letter form that is the most important characteristic of James, it should not (Davids, The Episte of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 29; Hartin, 34) be made to determine its structure. As we observed in the introduction, the significance of the letter’s attribution is debatable. The sender makes no claim to either apostleship or any relationship to Jesus other than that of “servant.” Yet this term was one that could denote leadership. We find it applied to Jacob (Gen 32:10), Joshua (Judg 2:8), Moses (1 Kgs 8:56), David (Ps 89:3), and the prophets (Amos 3:7). (The variant at Jas 2:23 reads “servant” rather than “friend” of God as a description of Abraham.) Paul so designates himself (Rom 1:1; cf. 1:10; Phil 1:1). Later NT writings emphasize its connotation of authority by

178

Epistolary Opening

associating it with the title “apostle” (Tit 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1). Thus a later scribal hand appended “the apostle” to the superscription “Letter of James.” Whoever the author was, he was clearly regarded as a leader within the church. At 3:1 he includes himself among its teachers. Certainly an authoritative, pedagogical tone pervades the whole letter. His favorite term of address for his readership is not “children, ” but “brothers” (1:2, 9, 16, 19; 2:11, 5, 14, 15; 3:1, 10, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19). The use of this term to indicate a spiritual rather than a physical kinship was quite common among pagans. Hence Plato used it of his compatriots (Menexenus 239a), and Xenophon of his friends (Anabasis 8.2.25). It was also used to designate members of religious associations (see von Soden, “Adelphos,” 144-46). We find the same use in Judaism (e.g., Jud 19:23; 1 Sam 30:23; Josephus, Jewish War 2.122), although more rarely. Although it was not a term exclusive to followers of Jesus, it became a mode of address characteristic of the Christian community (Matt 18:15; 23:8; Acts 1:15-6; Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 1:10-11; Gal 1:11; Phil 3:1). The readers are addressed as “the twelve tribes in the dispersion.” Given its Christian content and lack of apologetic tone, it is difficult to take this literally to mean the Jewish nation dispersed throughout the Greco-Roman world. It could be that, like Paul, James regarded the church as the true Israel (cf. Gal 6:16) and people of God (Rom 9:24-6; cf. Heb 4:9; 1 Pet 2:9-10), and therefore felt free to appropriate terms previously used to designate Israel. This language does not tell whether the Christians so addressed were converts from Judaism or paganism. That can only be determined by the rest of the letter, not its epistolary opening. 1 Peter (1:1) is similarly addressed to “the exiles of the dispersion” (1 Clem. 1; Ep. Pol. 1; Mart. of Pol. 1; Herm. Sim. 1.1). Yet the churches to which 1 Peter was written were predominantly Gentile in composition (cf. 1 Pet 4:3; 1:14, 18). What the language of “dispersion” conveys both in 1 Peter and James is that the lot of the Christian is one of alienation from the world (cf. Heb 11:13). Thus, like Hermas, (Sim. 9.17.2-3), James understands “the twelve tribes dispersed” as an appropriate designation of Christian believers facing a hostile world as they await God’s final day of judgment.

Trials and Temptations James (1:2–19a)

The first large thought unit of the letter is signaled by the inclusion “my brethren” (v. 2)/“my [beloved] brethren” (v. 19a). It contains advice on the two allied but distinct themes of trials and temptations. In Greek the noun peirasmos and its cognate verb peirazein can mean either. Our author wishes to discuss both as problems that the Christian believer will inevitably have to face. He indicates in what sense he is speaking by using the noun (vv. 2, 3, 12) for external trials that Jesus’ followers experience in the world, and the verb (vv. 13-14) for interior temptations that assail the soul. Thus the section falls into two sub-units: (1) trials (vv. 2-12), and (2) temptations (vv. 1319a). Trials as Occasions of Joy and Blessing (1:2-12) This unit is bounded by another inclusion: “Count it all joy . . . when you meet various trials” (v. 2). “Blessed is the man who endures trials” (v. 12). The macarism of v. 12 is better understood as the conclusion of the first subunit rather than the introduction to the second. In keeping with what has gone before, it uses the noun peirasmos in the sense of external trial and extols the virtue of “endurance” (hypomone¯; cf. v. 3 = “steadfastness”). Here the paraenesis takes the form of two exhortations in vv. 2 and 5a, which are substantiated by their accompanying bases or reasons in vv. 3-4, 5b, and 911, and ending with a final assurance in v. 12. Thus we have the first exhortation to rejoice in the face of trials (v. 2) because they can produce the steadfastness necessary for final maturity (vv. 3-4).

180

Trials and Temptations

Trial as a Test of Trust in God (1:2-4)

James stands in that tradition of Judeo-Christianity that recognized that faith in God is no guarantee of immunity from suffering. The faithful must accept that trials of various kinds are part of the believer’s lot, and a test of his/her trust in God: “My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials” (Ecclus 2:1 [RSV margin]; cf. 1QS 10:17; 1QH 5:15-17; 1QM 16:15–17:3). Unlike the following sub-unit (1:13-19a), which is about inner temptations, there is nothing in this opening section that would suggest these trials are brought about as a result of one’s own sins for which they are the just punishment. Like the author of 1 Peter (1:6-7; 2:20; 3:17), James assumes that these are the sufferings of the innocent, not the guilty. In company with Jewish wisdom writers before him, he recognizes that not all suffering can be accounted for as divine retribution for human wrongdoing. Just as the prologue of the book of Job suggested that the suffering of the righteous could be understood as a test of the disinterestedness of their faith, so James sees the various trials experienced by his Christian community as the means whereby their faith could similarly be put to the test. (See 1 Pet 1:7 [cf. Ecclus 2:5; Prov 27:21 LXX], which uses the image of fire as part of God’s refining process.) Such experiences are therefore to be welcomed. The persecution of the faithful, especially at the hands of their pagan overlords, was a popular theme in Israel’s post-exilic literature. Thus Judith, that great heroine of fidelity to Judaism in the face of the foreign oppressor, exhorts her people not to despair, but to view their current trials as but another example of God’s testing, and thus an occasion for praise: “In spite of everything let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting us to the test as he did our forefathers” (Jdt 8:25). The martyrdom literature that emerged out of the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE (Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 114-23, 169-75, 223-30) cast the piety of those who withstood Antiochus Epiphanes’ programme of hellenization in the heroic mold. Thus faithfulness in the face of external threat came to be characterized as hypomone¯ (“fortitude”) not in the passive sense of patient resignation, but as active; the staying-power or steadfastness that is itself courage (Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, 135-39). Of the Maccabean martyrs it was said: “All mankind was stirred to wonder by their courage and fortitude” (hypomone¯) (4 Macc 1:11; cf. 4 Macc 9:30; 16:19; 17:12; T. Jos. 2:7).

James 1:2–19a

181

This is not to say that the Letter of James was written to a church undergoing persecution. That may well be the situation that lay behind the writing of 1 Peter (Best, 1 Peter, 36-42). Most scholars, however, would not see this as official “state” persecution. (J. H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, 78-100.) Yet, although Jas 1:2-3 and 1 Pet 1:6-7 share certain verbal similarities, there is no evidence that James’ discussion of the theme of trials has been dictated by anything so occasional as a specific persecution of a particular group. Rather we find here the articulation of a general, conventional truth that has universal applicability, namely, that affliction can teach the virtue of endurance and promote maturity. This is spelled out in vv. 3-4, which explain why the Christian should welcome such trials. The conventional character of the catechesis is emphasized by the opening, “For you know.” What James has to say is nothing new, and therefore should be readily received by his readers. Like Rom 5:34, here trials are seen to have a potentially educative value. Although the apostle Paul uses the word “tribulation” (thlipsis) rather than “trials” (peirasmoi), he too means those sufferings that the faithful must endure at the hands of an unbelieving world. Both Paul and James also employ a similar climactic concatenation of the virtues (Dibelius, 94-96) which may be the positive outcome of such afflictions. Yet although their lists have some elements in common, they are by no means identical, either in structure or content. Thus in Romans we find: “Tribulation” –> “Endurance” (hypomone¯) –> “Character”(RSV) [= dokime¯] –> “Hope” Dokime¯ means that which has withstood the test and proved to be genuine. In modern parlance we might say, “Made of the right stuff.” The chain in James (vv. 3-5) is shorter and has a different climax: “Trials” –> “Endurance” (hypomone¯) –> “Perfect (teleios) and complete (holokle¯ros).” For our author, trials are God’s means of testing (dokimion) (cf. LXX Prov 27:21). The link in the chain is interrupted by an imperative, “Let steadfastness (hypomone¯) have its full effect (teleion).” This suggests that suffering does not automatically have beneficial side-effects. Of itself it need have no positive outcome; what matters is how it is used, and that is all dependent upon

182

Trials and Temptations

the response of the sufferer. The most basic meaning of the word teleios (often translated “perfect”) is “appointed end” or “goal.” Hence here it is used of suffering’s intended purpose, which is spiritual maturity. That goal is amplified by the phrase “complete, lacking nothing.” (Cf. Matt 5:48, “You, therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”) For James, the educative outcome of life’s trials is that they should produce a person who is whole, mature (see 3:2; cf. 1 Cor 14:20; Eph 4:13; Heb 5:14), and complete (cf. 1 Cor 13:10), as God intended. This language of trial, testing, and perfection or being brought to God’s intended goal is part of the vocabulary of first-century eschatology, and reflects traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about the purposes of God that will be brought to their fulfillment in an imminent endtime. It is important to recognize that a strongly eschatological note is sounded throughout 1:219a and underlies James’ interpretation of the significance of trials and temptations. Hence he shares the belief that the suffering of the righteous would, if anything, intensify rather than abate as the eschaton grew near (Dan 12:1; Zeph 3:8; Zech 14; Mark 13 // Matt 24; Rev; 4 Ezra 13:1-20). Since the trials of vv. 2-12 are those of the righteous, they may be viewed as a sign of the imminence of the end, but they cannot be interpreted as divine correction. The latter was the dominant understanding of Judaism. Here, however, like 4 Macc, James is more indebted to the Stoic tradition, which stressed that suffering was necessary for the training of virtue. (Cf. Seneca [On Providence 1.5; 2.5-6; 4.5; 7] who uses the analogy of parental discipline. Epictetus [Discourses 1.24.1-3; 3.9.7-8] compares the educative value of suffering to the necessary pain involved in an athlete’s training.) Both authors thus depict the sufferings of the faithful as (a) training, producing (b) endurance, to be endured out of hope, and (c) a blessing in which to rejoice (Talbert, Learning through Suffering, 20-21). Yet this is not suffering for its own sake. Sight of the eschatological goal is never lost (cf. Rom 5:3-5) since the virtue to be acquired is obedience to “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (1:25), which has as its source God, the giver of “every perfect gift” (1:17). In his portrayal of the educative purpose of suffering, James thus represents a synthesis of Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions (see Talbert, 24-41). An Exhortation to Wisdom (1:5a)

The second exhortation, “Ask for wisdom” (v. 5b), is introduced by way of the word “lacks,” picked up from v. 4 (“lacking”). There is, however, more

James 1:2–19a

183

than merely a formal link between the two exhortations. We can see also an association of ideas, which connects what has sometimes erroneously been read as two wholly disparate paragraphs. Once it is recognized that virtue and wisdom were not infrequently brought together in Jewish writings, then v. 5 does not have to be seen as a digression. In this tradition, wisdom is the essential gift without which righteousness is impossible (1 Kgs 3:9-10; Prov 2:6; Ecclus 1:1; Wis 9:17): “Even if one is perfect (teleios) among the sons of men, yet without wisdom that comes from Thee he will be regarded as nothing” (Wis 9:6; cf. 1 Cor 2:6-7; Col 1:28). Wisdom is given to the elect so that they might not sin (1 En. 5:8; cf. Wis 10:5) but be brought to maturity at the eschaton (2 Esd 8:52; cf. 2 Bar. 44:14-15). The association in thought between fortitude in the face of suffering, which is the topic of the first exhortation and its basis, and the following injunction to pray for the gift of God’s wisdom as the source of all virtue, is therefore evident. As the eschatological gift of God granted in answer to prayer (cf. Luke 11:13), and the source of all virtue (cf. Gal 5:22-5) that leads to perfection, wisdom functions in James in much the same way as does the Holy Spirit in other NT writings (Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis,”24-28; Davids, 51-56). It is misleading, however (contra Davids, 56), to claim that “James has a Wisdom pneumatology.” Even in the interests of subsequent trinitarianism, we cannot ignore the fact that the language of “spirit” (pneuma) occurs only twice in this letter: at 2:26 where it is part of a simile used to liken faith apart from works to a corpse from which the breath or life-force (pneuma) (cf. Gen 2:7;6:17; Ps 104:30) has departed (cf. Eccles 38:23; Wis 16:14), and at 4:5 where it is unlikely to refer to the Spirit of God. James thus employs the word pneuma of the human rather than the divine spirit. (For the anthropological use of “spirit” in Jewish and early Christian tradition see Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit, 35-42, 70-81.) Since our author keeps to the more traditional terminology of Judaism, which preferred to speak of God’s eschatological gift as “wisdom” rather than “spirit” (1QH 12:13; 14:25; cf. the Qumran Covenanters’ self-designation as “the wise,” 1QH 1:35; CD 6:3), it is better not to classify James’ statements about the wisdom of God as “pneumatology.” The Generosity and Forgiveness of God (1:5b, 6-8)

In support of his second injunction, “Ask God for wisdom,” James once more provides a reason: because God is generous and forgiving. The word haplo¯ s, used to characterize God’s giving (v. 5b), occurs only here in the NT.

184

Trials and Temptations

Commentators are divided as to whether it means without a hesitation or second thought, or generously (haplotes; cf. Josephus, Ant. 7.332; 2 Cor 8:2; 9:11,13. In The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs Issachar is the archetypal generous man [T. Issa. 3:8; 4:2; 6:1]). It may well be that James intends for us to understand that God is haplo¯ s in both senses (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 55). The “single-mindedness” that lies at the heart of true generosity is brought out well by Hermas: “Give wholeheartedly without doubting” (Mand. 2.4.6; cf. Did. 4.7; Barn. 19:11). Verses 6-8 introduce a qualifying proviso, which modifies the preceding statement that God gives generously “to all.” James now corrects himself. God’s gift of wisdom is in fact not automatically bestowed upon all. Nor is God’s word invariably one that contains no reproach. (For the connection between generosity and the kind [i.e., reproach-free] word, see Ecclus 20:1415; cf. Ecclus 18:15-18; 41:22.) God is not equally generous or single-minded (haplo¯ s) when it comes to the one who is “double-minded” (dipsychos). (This word occurs only here and at 4:8 in the whole of the NT or LXX.) James contrasts the without-a second-thought generosity of God with the halfhearted, in-two-minds hesitation of the doubter. The same judgment upon the doubter is found in Hermas: “For those who have doubts towards God these are double-minded, and they shall not in anywise obtain any of their petitions” (Mand. 9:5; cf. Did. 4.4; Barn. 15.5). This echoes Jewish tradition in which “doubleness” was thought to be the essence of sin (Ps 12:2; 1 Chron 12:33; Ecclus 1:28; T. Ash. 1:3–6:2; Testament of Benjamin 6:5-7; 1QS 3:17-18; 4:23, etc.). In Ecclus 2:12-14 we meet it in terms of the one who tries to straddle two paths: Woe to timid hearts and to slack hands, and to the sinner who walks along two ways! Woe to the faint heart, for it has no trust! Therefore it will not be sheltered. Woe to you who have lost your endurance! What will you do when the Lord punishes you? Like Ben Sira, the hallmark of faith for James is a single-minded trust in God. This should characterize Christian prayer (cf. Mark 11:22-24; Did. 4.4; Barnabas 9:5; Herm. Mand. 9:6-7). The simile that James applies to the doubter, divided in his mind, is the conventional one (Virgil, Aeneid 12.487) of being tossed about like the waves of a wind-swept sea (v. 6b). Isaiah 57:20 similarly describes the wicked as tossed about by life’s seas, unable to find rest, and Ben Sira likens the hypocrite to a boat in a storm (Ecclus 33:4; cf. Eph 4:14—“so that you may no longer be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of

James 1:2–19a

185

doctrine”—and Jude 13). The doubter is thus characterized as akatastatos (v. 8)—restless, unstable, and vacillating. A Reversal of Fortunes Awaits the Faithful (1:9-11)

Verses 9-11 introduce the assurance that, with the coming of the end-time, there will soon be a reversal in the current fortunes of the faithful. This (contra Dibelius) is no digression. Rather, it supplies the second reason for the opening exhortation: Rejoice in the face of trials (v. 2) (a) because they produce steadfastness that leads to spiritual maturity (vv. 3-4); and (b) because there will be a reversal in your fortunes at the eschaton (vv. 9-11). This picks up from the preceding verse the theme of divine judgment. Yet, whereas in vv. 6-8 it is the doubter who is contrasted with the faithful, here it is the rich man (plousios) whose fate is contrasted with that of the humble/lowly (tapeinos). In Jewish tradition, wealth was frequently associated with oppression (see the prophetic denunciation of the rich, Amos 2:6-7; 5:10-13; Ezek 16:49, etc ). Hence, Ben Sira can warn against the pursuit of wealth (Ecclus 31:5) and of becoming associated with the rich (Ecclus 13:2-8). Poverty, on the other hand, was associated with piety, since it was often the lot of the righteous. (For the equation of “the poor” with “the oppressed,” see Ps. Sol. 15:1; 18:2; cf. 1QpHab 12:3, 6, 10; 1QM 11:9.) Thus the term “poor” (Hebrew = anawim, Greek = pto¯ choi) came to be used as a synonym for those who were humble (tapeinoi) before God (see Luke 6:20, “Blessed are the poor” = Matt 5:3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit”—i.e., the humble—cf. 1QM 11:9). “Poor” and “lowly” (cf. Ecclus 11:1; 28:8; 1 Macc 14:14) were not simply socio-economic terms, but designations of religious piety. (See 1QM 14:7 for the Qumran Covenanters’ understanding of themselves as “the poor,” i.e., the faithful remnant.) This is well illustrated in the synonymous parallelism of the Psalms of Solomon 10:6: “And the devout shall give thanks in the assembly of the people. And God will be merciful to the poor to the joy of Israel.” It is against this conceptual background that we should understand James 1:9-11. Here “rich” and “lowly” typify the faithless over against the faithful whose fortunes will be reversed in the end-time. As with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:25), and the Magnificat: “He has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away”

186

Trials and Temptations

(Luke 1:52-53; cf. T. Jud. 25:4), so James teaches that it is God’s values rather than those of the world that will ultimately triumph. Later in the letter (2:2-4, 6, 15-16; 4:13-16) the terminology of “rich” and “poor” (pto¯ chos) seems to be used in a socio-economic sense. Some suggest that this language designates different groups within the church. In this section, however, there is nothing to suggest that the rich are part of the Christian community. Unlike the “humble” (NB not here “poor”), they are not addressed as “brothers” (contra NEB). As in 5:1-6 they represent the wicked who are outside the community of faith, here characterized as “the humble/lowly.” In what sense then is the rich man to “boast in his humiliation” (v. 10)? If he were a Christian, presumably heroically, being only too glad to relinquish his wealth when called upon to do so by God (Ropes, 144; Cantinat, Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude, 73; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 94; Adamson, The Epistle of James, 1-6; Moo, 18-19). Yet this cannot be the case, since James claims that it is the rich man himself, and not simply his wealth (as in 5:2-3), who will “pass away” (v. 10b). This allusion to Isa 40:67, with its image of the dying flowers “of the grass” (following the LXX; cf. 1 Pet 1:24.; the MT reads “of the field”), originally referred to the fragility of life in general. Like Ps 37:2 and Job 15:30-33, James applies it specifically to the eschatological fate of the wicked. He likens their destruction to the grass that withers in the heat. The word kauson (v. 11) can mean either the scorching heat of the sun (Gen 31:40; Dan 3:67; cf. Matt 20:12) or the scorching sirocco wind (Job 27:21; Jer 18:17; Hos 13:15; Jonah 4:8). Its use here proves that James was at home with biblical tradition, not (contra Hadidian, “Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James,” 227-28) that he himself necessarily had firsthand knowledge of Palestine. If the rich represent the wicked who will ultimately have their good fortune overturned, it is difficult to see how the injunction to “boast” in their impending humiliation can be intended by the author as other than bitterly ironic (Dibelius, 85; Davids, 77; Martin, 25-26). Psalm 49:6 (LXX 48:7) speaks of “men who trust in their wealth and boast in the abundance of their riches.” Here James is saying, “Just let them boast then, when they finally get their come-uppance!” An Assurance of Future Blessing (1:12)

This first sub-unit concludes (v. 12) with an assurance of future blessing for the individual who shows fortitude in the face of trial. It takes the poetic

James 1:2–19a

187

form of a macarism, i.e., “Blessed is the one who . . . ,” which is common in the Psalms (LXX Pss 1:1; 32:2; 33:9; 39:5, etc.) and Hebrew didactic writings (Prov 8:34; Job 15:17; Ecclus 14:1). The promise of blessing for those who withstand suffering and persecution is conventional in both Jewish and early Christian tradition (cf. Dan 12:12; Zech 6:14; 4 Macc 7:22; Matt 5:1112 // Luke 6:22-23; Mark 13:13; Rev 2:2-3, 10; Herm. Vis. 2.2.7). The phrase “crown of life” is epexegetical, i.e., “the crown which is life” (cf. Prov 1:9, 49; 12:4; 16:3; 17:6; Wis 5:15-23). In the book of Revelation it is worn by the occupants of heaven (4:4, 10; 6:2; 9:7; 12:1; 14:14) and is promised to the martyrs (2:10; cf. 3:11). The theme of steadfastness in the face of trial will be picked up again at 5:7-11. Temptations Do Not Come from God (1:13-19a) With the shift from the noun “trial” to the verb “to test” or “tempt (to sin),” the second sub-unit begins. Once again we have a pattern of an admonition (v. 13a), a basis/reason (vv. 13b-15), and an assurance (vv. 16-19a). God Is Not to Blame (1:13a)

The first admonition is expressed in rhetorical form, “Let no one say” (v. 13a; cf. v. 16, “Make no mistake”; cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7), and introduces the problem of who or what is responsible for the temptation to sin. There is nothing to suggest that a specific temptation is facing James’ readers (contra Martin, 30-31, 35, who identifies it with a supposed temptation facing the Jerusalem church in the early 60s CE to throw in its lot with the Zealots and to revolt against their rich, Sadducean persecutors). Rather, this deals with the problem of the source of temptation in general. This debate had long been carried on within Judaism. Inevitably a religious tradition that makes God both the ultimate cause of everything and yet wholly good raises questions about the origin of evil. Thus in the OT we find modifications of the general premise that God is the source of all. In Job 1 it is Satan, God’s prosecuting counsel, rather than God, who is the immediate cause of the suffering that tempts Job to curse God. In Genesis 6, however, it is the fallen angels who bring sin into the world (cf. 1 Enoch 6-14). This illustrates how, in an attempt to absolve God from responsibility for sin, there is a move to distance Him from its immediate cause. Hence, against 2 Sam 24:1, 1 Chron 21:1 asserts that it is Satan and not God who tempted

188

Trials and Temptations

David to make the census. A similar trend can be seen in extrabiblical Jewish writing. Jubilees 48:12 (contra Exod 14:4,8) claims that it was the prince of Mastema (the devil), not God, who led the Egyptians to pursue Israel, and (contra Gen 22:1) tempted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jub. 17:16). Human Responsibility (1:13b-15)

In vv. 13b-15, the substantiation for his admonition, James, unlike the stories of Jesus’ temptations (Mark 1:13 and parallels; cf. the Lord’s prayer [Matt 6:13/Luke 11:4]), does not make Satan accountable for temptation (although the demonic is clearly part of James’ worldview; cf. 3:15; 4:7). Rather he wishes to insist upon human responsibility for its existence. Very much in the vein of Ecclus 15:11-20, James (like Philo, Worse 122; Flight 7930, and Aristeas 231) rebukes those who would use God as an excuse for their attraction to sin. “Desire” (epithymia) is here used not of passions or emotions in general but of the specific desire to sin. In the New Testament epithymia can convey either a positive (Luke 22:15; Rom 15:23, etc.) or negative (Rom 7:17-23; Gal 5:16-21; 2 Pet 2:18, etc.) meaning, depending upon the context in which it is used. That it is used here pejoratively is evident from the progeny/death image with which the author forms another concatenation in v. 15: desire (= seed) –> sin (= child) –> death (= adult) James’ personification of “desire” as a pregnant woman who gives birth to sin and death may owe something to the association of the word epithymia with sexual lust. In rabbinic writings sin is attributed to the “evil inclination” (Hebrew, ye¯ser . ha-ra), which, on the basis of such texts as Gen 6:5 and 8:24, the Jewish sages thought to be one of two God-given components of human nature. The other was the “good inclination” (ye¯.ser hatôv) (Urbach, The Sages: The World and Wisdom of the Rabbis of the Talmud, 471-83). Sometimes the evil ye¯.ser was identified as Satan who entices humans to sin (Book of Adam and Eve 7:4; cf. Jub. 4:25; Testament of Asher 6:5-6; T. of Benj. 6:2). It is unlikely, however, that by “desire” James is here appealing to a doctrine of the two inclinations (contra Marcus, “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James,” 602-21; further see the discussion at 4:5), not least because nowhere does the LXX translate ye¯.ser as epithymia. These verses are not concerned to juxtapose the two antithetical powers at work in humankind.

James 1:2–19a

189

Hence there is no reference to the opposing force for good. If James is using “desire” in the sense of “inclination,” it is more akin to Ben Sira’s: “It was he who created man in the beginning, and left him in the power of his own inclination (LXX “decision” [diaboulion]) . . . to act faithfully in a matter of his choice” (Ecclus 15:14b). Both authors are concerned to stress human volition and therefore responsibility for whether or not one sins by giving way to temptation. God as the Source of Good (1:16-19a)

The section concludes with an assurance that God is the source of good (vv. 16-19a). “Do not be deceived” is a formula used to introduce a wellknown maxim (cf. 1 Cor 15:55; Gal 6:17), and underlines the conventional character of the teaching of James. Although the final verb (iste, v. 19a) can be read as an imperative, “Know this,” it is better taken as an indicative, “You know this.” In which case, the assurance begins and ends with an appeal to commonly accepted tradition. In v. 17 we find an allusion to Gen 1:14-16, the creation of the stars = “lights” (cf. LXX Jer 4:23; Ps 135[MT 136]: 7). Although angels could be referred to as “lights” (cf. Job 38:7; 1QS 3.20), here it is astral rather than angelic bodies which are in mind. This is evident from the qualifying phrase, “with whom there is no variation or shadow (apokrisma) due to change (trope¯).” Not least in this respect is their creator (= “father”) to be distinguished from the stars (and, presumably, also the sun and moon) which God created (For textual variants in v. 17 see Martin, 29-30. The reading adopted here, although not without its problems, is the one that has received most scholarly acceptance). Given that trope¯ was a technical term for the solstice, it is likely that “shadow” has a reference to the change brought about by the movement of these astral bodies, in which case it could mean “eclipse” (Dibelius, 101-102). It is evident here that James is contrasting the unchanging God, the Unmoved Mover, with the changeable nature of His creation, evidenced by the movement of the stars, moon, and sun. (For the idea of the divine as unchangeable [atreptos] see Plato, Republic 2.380ff; Philo, On the Inchangeableness of God 20-33; Alleg. Interp. 2.33; On the Cherubim 88-90; Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.24.) Neither the reference to gifts from above (cf. 3:17) nor the allusion to the creation story of Genesis should lead us to conclude that the theme has reverted to (v. 5) that of wisdom, however. It is true that in Jewish exegetical tradition wisdom played a role in creation (Isaacs, Sacred Space, 190-98 and

190

Trials and Temptations

footnotes), but here “every good endowment . . . and perfect gift” is not confined to the gift of wisdom. More importantly, it is not principally the initial act of creation that is held out as the example of God’s goodness, but Christian conversion (cf. Pet 1:23) seen as re-creation (cf. “new creature,” 2 Cor 5:17: Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; 4:24), which, in contrast to sin’s issue, death (v. 15), is rebirth, brought about by the gospel (v. 18). In the designation of Christian believers as “first fruits,” we see once more language, previously used of Israel (Ex 23:19; Philo, Spec. Laws 4.180; cf. Rev 14:4), appropriated by the church (cf. Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; 1 Clem. 42:4. 1 Cor 15:21-2 so designates the resurrected Christ.).

Word and Deed James (1:19b–2:26)

The pairing of the themes of “word” and “deed” in this second large unit (1:19b–2:26) introduces a new topic. The thought of “word” and “first fruits” is picked up from the preceding section (v. 18) and then developed in terms of the right response to God’s word (1:19b-27), partiality (2:1-13), and faith and works (2:14-26). The Right Response to God’s Word (1:19b-27) This section opens with a three-part exhortation, each of which is subsequently amplified as follows: Be quick to hear –> vv. 21-25, 27 Be slow to speak –> v. 26 Be slow to anger –> v. 20 This is followed by an assurance, “The doer will be blessed” (v. 25b), and a summary statement on word and deed (vv. 26-27). Exhortations: Listening, Speaking, and Acting (1:19b-25)

The custom of grouping topics in threes for teaching purposes seems to have been conventional (cf. Mishnah, tractate Aboth 1.2; 2.10-12), as was possibly this particular triad of exhortations (cf. Lucian of Samosata’s [second century CE] advice on the best way to exercise authority: “Do not lose your temper! Do little talking and much listening!” Demonax 51). Of the three exhortations, the first is the most important, since the second is only briefly touched upon, and the third becomes subsumed under

192

Word and Deed

the assurance. The last exhortation is dealt with first. The danger of unbridled anger was well accepted in the ancient world. Among pagan writers, however, it was more the excess of anger than its presence that was abhorred (cf. Eph 4:26). Blind rage needed to be controlled by reason. If this were accomplished, then anger, properly directed, could become an ally of virtue (Plutarch, Fragment 148; Malherbe,157-58). In early Christian tradition, however, anger was not only perceived as dangerous (1 Clem. 39.7; Did. 3.2), but also as inimical to a Christian way of life (Rom 12:17-21; Eph 4:31-32; 1 Clem. 13). In this vein James gives the basis (v. 3) for why anger is to be avoided: Because anger does not conform to the type of behaviour, i.e., “righteousness” (dikaiosyne¯), which God produces (= “works”) in the believer (v. 20). (For this understanding of the verb, see 2 Cor 7:10.) “Righteousness” is used here not as an attribute of God, but of Christian conduct seen as a “fruit” (cf. v. 18, “first fruits”) from God (Jas 3:18; cf. Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; Acts 13:10; Heb 5:13; 11:7; 12:11; 1 Pet 2:14; 3:14, etc. See Ziesler,133). The basis for “Be quick to hear” (v. 19) is given in vv. 22-25. In other New Testament writings the verb “to put off/away” (apotithe¯mi) usually introduces a list of vices (e.g., Rom 13:12 –> 13; Eph 4:22 –> 25). This is not the case in v. 21, where the exhortation, “Put away,” moves quickly to, “Receive . . . the implanted word”—i.e., the gospel message (cf. Matt 13:415, 18-23; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:13; 1 Cor 3:16)—which reintroduces the theme of hearing from v. 19. For James, receiving is not merely to be understood in a passive sense. Hence, vv. 22-25 couple hearing with doing (cf. Deut 30:8-10; Ezek 33:32; Prov 6:3; Ecclus 3:1; Matt 7:24-26; Luke 6:47-49; Rom 2:13), as can be seen in the “reprise” pattern below (Lodge, “James and Paul at the Crossroads? James 2.22,” 204): But be doers of the word (v. 22a) and not hearers only . . . For if anyone is a hearer of the word (v. 23) and not a doer . . . being no hearer that forgets (v. 25b) but a doer that acts Thus the exhortation, “Receive the implanted word,” is qualified by, “Be doers and not simply hearers!” Any other understanding of what it means to receive the word is self-deception (v. 22b). This is illustrated by way of two contrasting examples. The negative example is the person who forgets his/her own reflection in a mirror

James 1:19b–2:26

193

immediately upon leaving the mirror (vv. 23-24). The positive example is the person who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and does not forget what is seen (and heard) (v. 25). The import of the first simile is that if a person does not conduct himself in accordance with what he has heard, “then what he has heard sticks with him about as much as a mirror image sticks with a person who has observed himself in a mirror: he forgets it!” (Dibelius, 115) The metaphor of a mirror was common (Ecclus 12:11; Wis 7:26; 1 Cor 13:12; 1 Clem. 36:2; Odes Sol. 13:1; etc). In Greco-Roman paraenetic literature it could be employed of moral reflection (e.g., Epictetus, Discourse 1.14, 17-23; Seneca, Natural Questions 1.17, 4; cf. Pseudo-Plutarch, The Education of Children 20 [Moral Essays 14A] where it is a father’s life of virtue that, like the image in a mirror, should be visible to his children). Plutarch (On Listening to Lectures 8 [Moral Essays 42B]) uses it of self-examination, which should be the outcome of subsequent reflection upon the contents of a lecture previously heard. Its use—as here—to convey the notion of an image quickly forgotten is without true parallel in extant writings that pre-date James, however. The second example picks up the theme of “doing the word.” In pagan Greek thought this would refer to the art of oratory; in Judaism it signified living in accordance with God’s law (cf. 1 Macc 2:67). The phrase “The law of liberty” also has resonances in Stoicism and Judaism and Christianity (Dibelius, 116-20). For the Stoic, true freedom consisted in the recognition of and compliance with the divine principle of reason/law which lies at the heart of the cosmos. Only the one who understands this and lives accordingly is other than a slave (Diogenes Laertius 7.121). Thus, “To obey God is freedom” (Seneca, On the Blessed Life 15.7). Philo of Alexandria similarly depicts those who live by Mosaic law as free (Every Good Man Is Free, 45). The law to which James here refers, however, is not that revealed to Moses, but the law of Christ (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9:21; Barnabas 2.6, “The new law of our Lord Jesus Christ which is without the yoke of necessity”; cf. Matt 11:30), i.e., the will of God expressed in Jesus’ words and deeds, by which his followers should live. “The law of liberty” should not be read in a Pauline sense, as a claim to freedom for Christians from the injunctions of Mosaic Torah, however. For the apostle Paul, that issue was a burning one, arising as it did from the debate within the Jerusalem church as to the terms whereby Gentiles could become members of the Christian community (cf. Gal 2; Acts 15). There is nothing in the Letter of James, however, that would suggest this was an issue for the group to whom he was writing. He is not concerned to debate the relative status of God’s revelation in the past with that given in and through Christ. His concern is that the law/word of God, articulated in

194

Word and Deed

Jesus, should be positively acted upon and not merely passively received. Like the Cynics, for James also, “deeds come before words” (Julian, Oration 7.214B). Thus he concludes his teaching on the importance of action with an assurance that the doer will be blessed (v. 25c). Religion in Word and Deed (1:26-27)

Verses 26-27 summarize the topic of religion in word and deed. It provides the basis for the second exhortation of v. 19b, “Be slow to speak”; because anything else is self-deception (cf. v. 22) and not true religion (v. 26). Although the word “religion” (thre¯skeia) is rare in the NT (Acts 26:5; Col 2:18), there is nothing to indicate that James is using the term pejoratively. Far from it, as we can see in v. 27, where it is given a moral content. Here, “Be quick to hear” is picked up and amplified in terms of deeds—notably those that demonstrate care for the weak and defenceless. This echoes Judaism’s traditional ethic, in which widows and orphans epitomize all who are vulnerable, due to no fault of their own. Their protection is a religious duty (cf. Isa 1:17; Jer 5:28; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:18, etc.). In these verses true religion is defined both positively and negatively. From the positive point of view it is the active performance toward others, in word and deed, of what is acceptable to God. Negatively, it is the avoidance of everything that is impure in the world’s values. Partiality (2:1-13) “My brethren” (v. 1) signals the opening of a new paragraph. Although in some ways complete in itself, this section is clearly related to what has gone before and what comes after by the theme of doing God’s word, which runs as a thread throughout 1:19b–2:26. The reference to orphans and widows in the preceding unit (v. 27) has suggested this specific example of disobedience to God’s law, i.e., showing unfair favouritism to the rich at the expense of the poor. The structure of this section is as follows: • An admonition against partiality, since this is incompatible with Christian faith (2:1). • A particular example of discrimination against the poor and in favour of the rich (2:2-4).

James 1:19b–2:26

195

• The bases for the admonition: (a) God’s judgment is in favour of the poor (2:5-7); and (b) scripture forbids partiality (2:8-11). • A closing admonition to behave as those who stand under the judgment of God’s law (2:12-13). Certain features of the conversational style of the diatribe can be seen here (see Ropes, 10-16 for diatribal features throughout the letter), not least the use of rhetorical questions (vv. 4, 5; cf. 2:14-16; 3:11-12; 4:4-5) to make a point. Techniques, such as the invention of an imaginary opponent (cf. 2:18-19; 5:13-14) upon whose lips are placed supposed objections and false conclusions, were favourite pedagogical devices employed by teachers of the various philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. Earlier scholars assumed that the diatribe was a genre employed by itinerant popular Stoic-Cynic teachers and intended essentially for the rough and tumble of debate with opponents in the public arena. More recently this has been called into question (Stowers, “The Diatribe,” 71-84). Now there is a greater appreciation of the various forms the diatribe can take, and hence a greater reluctance to define it in terms of a rigid structure. What can be said is that usually the diatribe displays conversational, dialogical, and rhetorical features. Its original context was not the forum, however, but the schoolroom. Hence its purpose was primarily pedagogical and hortatory rather than polemical, and the examples and comparisons we find in diatribal literature are traditional and typical rather than necessarily “real.” This should make us cautious in reading the Letter of James as if every example cited reflects the actual situation of its readers. Not least, since many of the motifs we find in James (e.g., the control of the tongue [3:1-12]; the materialism of the rich in general [5:1-6] and the merchant class in particular [4:13-14]), including that of the importance of congruity between word and deed, were conventional subjects or topoi, frequently discussed by the moralists of the ancient world (Malherbe, 144-71). An Admonition against Partiality (2:1)

The topic of partiality is discussed in the OT within the context of justice and how that might best be obtained. If all are to stand equal before the Law, then there must be no unfair discrimination on the part of the judge, either for or against any party in the case: “You shall do no injustice in judgment; You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbour” (Lev 19:15; cf. Deut 1:17; 16:18-20). (For

196

Word and Deed

God as the supreme judge who is impartial and cannot be bribed see Deut 10:17; cf. Acts 10:34; Gal 2:6; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25.) It is possible that here James is deliberately alluding to this verse, since v. 8, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” is an explicit citation from the self-same chapter (Lev 19:18b) (L. T. Johnson, “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James,” 391-401). It is clear that Mosaic Law is not understood by James as antithetical to the gospel. Rather, the former conforms to Jesus’ own faith (“the faith of Christ,” v. 1), which is the law of the kingdom (cf. v. 5) of God (v. 8, “the royal law”). Thus Torah is accepted as part of Christian teaching. The phrase, “the Lord of glory” (v. 1, RSV; cf. 1 Cor 2:28), appended as it is at the end of the sentence (v. 1), is syntactically ambiguous. It is unclear as to what exactly in the sentence it qualifies. As it stands it can be translated in one of three ways (Ropes, 187-88; Dibelius, 124-25): (1) “(Our Lord Jesus Christ), the glory,” which would understand it to have a theophanic reference (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 9398)—i.e., Jesus is the manifestation of the presence of God (cf. John 1:14); (2) “(Jesus Christ), who now reigns in glory” (NEB), which would imply a reference to the resurrection and ascension; or (3) “Our glorious Lord (Jesus Christ).” (Ropes, 187-88; Dibelius, 124-25; Johnson, 220-21) Although all of these translations have their difficulties, the last suggestion, which takes the final genitive phrase adjectivally as qualifying the preceding nouns, “Lord, Jesus Christ,” is probably the best. Discrimination against the Poor and for the Rich (2:2-4)

The term synago¯ ge¯ (“assembly”) was more common as a designation of a Jewish rather than Christian group. The latter preferred the term ekkle¯sia (cf. 5:14). We cannot infer from its use here, however, that our letter was written at an early date to a church that had yet to break away from the Jewish synagogue (Adamson, 105). Even in the second century the term could still be used to describe the Christian church (Ign. Pol. 4.2; Herm. Mand. 11.9, 13, 14). It is not clear whether here we are presented with a picture of the church as acting (a) as a meeting for worship or (b) as an internal law court or “house of judgment” (Hebrew, be¯t-dîn) (so Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly,” 87-97; Martin, 57-58). In support of the latter, the discussion of

James 1:19b–2:26

197

partiality was usually within a legal context, and we know from Matt 18:1520 and 1 Cor 6:1-6 (where the term ekkle¯sia rather than synago¯ ge¯ is used) that the early Christian congregations did exercise judicial authority over their adherents. In which case both the rich and the poor man would have had to be members of the local Christian church in order to come under its jurisdiction. If such a scenario lies behind these verses, then neither party was au fait with the judicial process, since both had to be told what to do. Furthermore, as we have seen in 1:9-11 (cf. 5:1-6), for James “the man who is rich” (plousios) is usually a cipher for the unrighteous. In the light of which, is it because here the man is a Christian that he uses the circumlocution “with gold rings and fine clothes” rather than the pejorative term “rich” (so Davids, 108)? From the accusations in vv. 6-7, however, it would seem unlikely that our author has a member of the church in mind. In this vignette we are presented with two visitors to a Christian gathering, one rich and the other poor. The suggestion that the “fine clothing” of the former is the toga candida, which was the insignia of equestrian rank, and that therefore its wearer was a Roman politician, canvassing for support among the Christian assembly (Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 27), is intriguing but highly speculative. It illustrates the problem of trying to reconstruct a profile of the community to which this letter was written on the basis of the examples cited. Undoubtedly, like the parables of Jesus, these were scenes drawn from everyday life with which the audience would have been familiar. Such an example of social stratification would have hardly been new to them. In Matt 23:6 we meet the scribes and Pharisees who “love the place of honour at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues.” Here the best seats are allocated not even on the basis of claims to superior piety and learning, but on material wealth. Clearly some situation led James to articulate this warning against fawning on the rich. Yet, given the typical character of the scene here painted, it cannot be read as a description of what was actually taking place in the church to which James was writing. What we have is a hypothetical rather than a concrete case. Thus, even v. 4, with its accusation of the group making invidious “distinctions” between its members, is governed by the “if ” (v. 2) with which the example begins. The issue James is concerned to address is not that of disunity within the Christian fellowship brought about by the presence of the rich within its membership (contra Martin, 63), but more generally, the adoption of the world’s values, reflected in their preferential treatment of the rich visitor. The verb “to discriminate against”

198

Word and Deed

(diakrinesthai) is echoed in the second part of v. 4 by the verb “to judge” (krinein). This verse brings home the point James seeks to make: To show partiality is to exercise a false standard of judgment (= “with evil thoughts”), which can only lead to injustice. The Bases for the Admonition against Partiality (2:5-11)

Two reasons are given in support of the condemnation of unfair discrimination: (a) God exercises judgment in favour of the poor (2:5-7), and (b) it goes against the teaching of scripture (2:8-11). (2:5-7) God’s judgment in favour of the poor. What does James here mean by “the poor”? Given the strand of biblical tradition that associated poverty and piety, it is not always clear whether the principal referent is economic or religious. The book of Psalms can speak of “the poor and needy” in contexts in which physical deprivation is the most obvious meaning (Ps 9:18; 12:5-6). Yet elsewhere the psalmist can claim, “I am poor and needy” (Ps 70:5) in a context that suggests spiritual rather than physical need. As we have already observed (see note on 1:9-11), “the poor” had become an established designation of those who remained faithful in the face of the world’s oppression (cf. Ecclus 10:22-24; Pss. Sol. 5; 1 En. 108:7-15; 1QH 3:25). Recent work on the social composition of the early Christian movement has rightly directed our attention, not only to the economic, but also to the social status of the members of the various groups (Stambaugh and Balch, The Social World of the Early Christians, 107-37). Just as today, so in the ancient world the two factors were connected, but not wholly identified. Although poverty and wealth were important in determining social standing, they were not the only indicators. Thus it was possible to be socially despised without being economically destitute (cf. the tax collectors of the Gospels). This aspectual emphasis is brought out in v. 5, “poor to the world,” i.e., from the world’s point of view. (The RSV adopts the less well attested reading, “poor of the world.”) The group is so designated by James, not in order to draw attention to the economic poverty of its constituents, but to their low esteem in the eyes of the world, brought about as a consequence of their religious faith. In contrast to this is their standing in the eyes of God, before whom they are “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom of God.” For such a socially despised group to dishonour the materially poor (cf. Prov 4:21; 22:22; Ecclus 10:23) is rich indeed!

James 1:19b–2:26

199

The irony of such discrimination in favour of the rich is brought home in vv. 6-7 with three rhetorical questions, each expecting the answer, “Yes”: • Are not the rich your oppressors? (Here the addressees are included among “the poor” = the oppressed (cf. Isa 61:1; Wis 3:10) • Are not the rich those who litigate against you in the law courts? (Acts depicts litigious opposition to Christian preachers both from the wealthy Sadducean establishment [4:1-3] and the merchant class [16:19; 21:30]) • Are not the rich those who scoff at the name of Jesus, which you have adopted? (cf. 2 Macc 10:34-35 for this sense of “blaspheme”) (cf. 1 Pet 4:14, “reproached for the name of Christ”) Christians took “his name” (Acts 5:41; 3 John 7; Herm. Sim. 9.28, 5; Ign. Eph. 7:1), i.e., accepted the lordship of Christ at baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:48). (2:8-11) Scriptural Warrant against Partiality. To pervert justice in favour of the rich and at the expense of the poor is to infringe the law of Lev 19:18b: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” James is not suggesting that this is the only command binding upon Christians. Indeed, he goes on to cite the fifth and sixth of the ten commandments (Like codex B of LXX Deut 5:17-18, here adultery is cited before murder [so Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9] rather than the other way around [so Mark 10:19; Matt 19:18].) as equally part of the sovereign law (= “royal law,” v. 8) of the kingdom (cf. v. 5) of God. For our author, “the law of liberty” (1:25; 2:12) revealed in Christ does not absolve the Christian from the moral demands of the Law of Moses. For James, as for Jewish tradition, every command of God is important and to be obeyed (cf. Matt 5:18-19; 23:23; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.241; T. Ash. 2.5-10; 4 Macc 5:19-20). The argument, “To infringe one command is to infringe them all,” enunciated in v. 10, can also be found in rabbinic writings. Thus, “If he do all but omit one, he is guilty of all severally,” is a dictum attributed to rabbi Johanan (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 70B). The Midrash Bemidbar Rabban (9.15) on Num 5:14 claims that to commit adultery involves breaking not one but all ten commandments. In a similar vein, James claims that the command to love one’s neighbour, far from being but one among many, embodies the whole of God’s Law and hence contains within it the prohibition against partiality. We find in negative form a similar sentiment attributed to rabbi Hillel: “What you hate do not do to your neighbour. That is the essence of the Torah; the rest is commentary” (Shabbat 31a). In the Gospels we find it on the lips of Jesus in its positive, Levitical form (Mark 12:31 // Matt 22:39 // Luke 10:27. For love as the fulfillment of the Law’s demands see Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14).

200

Word and Deed

The context in which James here discusses the implications of the Law for Christian behaviour is wholly different from that which led Paul to write his Letter to the Galatians. There the apostle also appeals to the principle “to obey one is to obey all,” but, unlike James, in order to urge those who follow Christ no longer to regard themselves as bound by the Law. What led Paul to this obverse conclusion was very different from the situation that James is here addressing, however. In Galatians the subject is the necessity or otherwise of Gentile converts undergoing the initiation rite of circumcision before becoming members of the church. “I testify to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law” (Gal 5:3). James, on the other hand, is not addressing the issues of circumcision and food laws, but the ethical implications of the command to love one’s neighbour. It is notable that, even when James uses the language of “purity” in his injunction to “keep oneself unstained from the world” (1:27), he “ethicizes” it so that it no longer refers to Israel’s boundary markers of circumcision and clean/unclean foods which distinguished Israel from the Gentile world. In James it refers to acts of compassion for the weak and vulnerable who are exploited by the world. A Closing Admonition (2:12-13)

Couched as it is in the third person, the saying, “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy,” has a proverbial, gnomic ring to it. Nonetheless, it is no isolated saw with little or no connection to what has gone before (contra Dibelius, 147), since its theme of judgment lies at the heart of the juridical context of the meaning of “partiality.” Having called upon his readers to give a fair trial not only to the rich but also to the poor (cf. Zech 7:8-14), James concludes with a solemn reminder that they too must face a more ultimate judgment—at the bar of God’s “law of liberty” (cf. 1:25), which He revealed in Christ. The correlation between our exercise of mercy toward others and God’s mercy toward us is a well-established theme: “Have mercy in your inner being, my children, because whatever anyone does to his neighbour, the Lord will do to him” (T. Zeb. 5:3). In the NT we find it, for example, in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:14-15), the parable of the debtors (Matt 18:23-35), and the beatitude, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt 5:7). The concluding aphorism, “Yet mercy triumphs over judgment” (v. 13b), could refer to human acts of mercy. In which case, it means that they will constitute our defense before God (so Moo, 98). On this reading,

James 1:19b–2:26

201

James wholly parts company with Paul, since the latter regarded “works” as mere boasting before God (cf. Rom 4:2-4). The alternative is that at v. 13b “mercy” changes its subject from the human to the divine, in which case it refers to God’s mercy, which overrides His judgment and thereby saves us from condemnation (so Martin, 72). Faith and Works (2:14-26) This section falls into three closely related parts: faith apart from works cannot save (vv. 14-17), a dialogue with someone who objects to this proposition (vv. 18-25), and the proposition is confirmed (v. 26). It continues the theme of the importance, not only of saying but also of doing, which binds together the larger thought unit, 1:19b–2:26, and takes the form of: The proposition (v. 14) An illustration (vv. 15-16) The proposition repeated (v. 17) An opponent’s statement (v. 18a) The author’s response: faith alone cannot save (vv. 18b-20); faith and works are inseparable (vv. 21-25) The proposition confirmed (v. 26) Faith Alone Cannot Save (2:14-17)

(v. 14) Faith Without Works Cannot Save. “What does it profit?” (vv. 14, 16) forms an inclusion, although the proposition that lies behind the question is not confined to these verses, and is repeated in vv. 17, 20, and 26. Since v. 14 takes the form of a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer, the sentence functions more by way of a statement than a query. (vv. 15-16) An Illustration of Words Without Deeds. This is introduced by way of a comparison, rather than as an example, of faith without works. It is set within the community of faith. Hence it depicts “a sister or brother,” and recites the traditional shalom by way of farewell (cf. Judg 18:16; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42; 2 Sam 15:9; Jdt 8:35; Mark 5:34; Acts 16:36). This illustration ridicules any idea that expressions of goodwill alone are a sufficient response to those who are deprived of the basic human necessities of food and clothing.

202

Word and Deed

(v. 17) A Proposition Repeated. With a slight modification of wording, the thought of v. 14 is repeated in this sub-unit, which continues the theme of “Word and Deed.” “Faith by itself (kath’ heauton), if it has no works, is dead (nekra).” “By itself ” (cf. LXX Gen 30:40; 43:32; 2 Macc 13:13; Acts 28:16), rather than “in itself ” (Vulgate in semetipsa) or “of itself ” (Ropes, 208), is the better translation. That such faith is “dead” is picked up again at 2:26 in the analogy of a body which, without breath, also is dead (nekron). Dialogue with an Objector (2:18-25)

In typical dialogue style, an imaginary interlocutor, “someone,” is now addressed in the second person singular. Commentators are divided (see Ropes, 104-106; Dibelius, 154-58; Martin, 86-90) on two interrelated issues: What is the stance of the questioner, and how far his words extend. The modern reader needs to bear in mind that the earliest Greek manuscripts of the NT contain no punctuation marks which might act as a guide to where direct speech here begins and ends. One interpretation is to see the opponent as one who casts doubt upon the very existence of James’ faith, in which case he challenges James to demonstrate his faith apart from his works. This would extend the words of the opponent to v. 19, with James’ response—to the effect that faith and works cannot be separated—beginning at v. 20. If this were so, we would expect to find the presence of the emphatic pronouns “yours” and “mine” in v. 18a and a construction such as “on the one hand . . . on the other.” Yet here the emphasis is not so much upon the respective opponents, “you . . . I,” but upon “faith . . . works.” Therefore, it is preferable to read v. 18a as the statement of the opponent, and the rest as the response of James. What the interlocutor does in effect is to set up two different religious types; one concerned with faith and the other good works. (He makes no appeal to differing gifts of the Spirit within the community [cf. 1 Cor 12:4-11; Rom 12:6-8] by way of justification for this.) In his response, James refuses to accept any such bifurcation. (v. 18a) The Opponent’s Statement: “You have faith and I have works.” To ascribe faith rather than works to James is surprising only if we read this letter through the eyes of the Reformation debate and assume that its author wrote to uphold works over against faith. This is far from the case, however. The issue for James is not who has what, but whether the two can or should

James 1:19b–2:26

203

be separated. He thus takes exception to the very form of his opponent’s statement, which suggests that they can be. (vv. 18b-25) The Author’s Response. Here two major points are made: (a) Faith alone cannot save, and (b) faith and works are inseparable. Faith alone cannot save (vv. 18b-20). James’ refutation of the possibility that faith and works can be separated begins with an ironic demand: “Show me your faith apart from your works.” The implication is clear; it is an impossibility! Faith is not visible apart from its manifestation in deeds. Only the obverse is true. “You believe that God is one,” echoes the words of the shema, recited daily by the devout Jew: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord: and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:4). Its recitation was no mere intellectual commitment to monotheism. Greek philosophers from Xenophanes to Marcus Aurelius believed as much. Rather, it was a re-affirmation of the character of God, and a reminder of the nature of Israel’s covenant allegiance and the obligations toward others that it carried. (Cf. Mark 12:29-31 where Deut 6:4 is coupled with Lev 19:18.) There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that James is here dismissing the recitation of such a credo as mere formalism on the part of his imaginary opponent. “You do well” (v. 19a) is commendation, not irony (contra Johnson, The Letter of James, 24). The ironic note comes in what immediately follows (v. 19b) with the reference to demons. They, too, agree as to the character of the God of the covenant. Given that character, in their case, there is terror at the thought of the fate that awaits them. The verb “to shudder” (phrissein) only occurs here in the NT. It is to be found in hellenistic magic papyri, where it is used in the context of the confrontation between the demonic and the divine (Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, 31). Mark describes a similar reaction on the part of the demons upon recognizing Jesus, only he uses different verbs (Mark 1:26, “convulsed”; 5:7, “cried out”). Divine names were invoked in the performance of exorcisms in popular religion. There is nothing to suggest, however, (contra Jeremias, “Paul and James,” 370) that “God is one” is here an exorcist’s formula. Its principal context in James is the thought of divine judgment (cf. T. Ab. 16.3, where death “shudders” when called to account before God). For James, the ultimate fate of the demons is axiomatic; they will not be saved. Acknowledging the character of God, they also know this. Hence their terror!

204

Word and Deed

The RSV translation of v. 20, “Faith apart from works is barren,” does not convey the author’s pun on the word ergon = work, with which he once more reiterates his major point. That kind of faith, he argues, is in fact a(e)rgos = work-less (i.e., useless/ineffectual). Faith and works are inseparable (vv. 21-25): Two examples. What is ostensibly addressed to a particular interlocutor (vv. 20-23 are in the second person singular) is, in fact, intended for the wider community (hence the use of the second person plural from v. 24 onward). What follows well illustrates the broadly educative purpose of the diatribe form and the examples it employs. Its principal social setting was that of the classroom rather than the street corner, which suggests a catechetical rather than a polemical purpose. Biblical exemplars were popular in both Jewish and Christian teaching (cf. the lists of such in Ecclus 44-50; 1 Macc 1:51-60; 3 Macc 6:4-8; Heb 6:11; 1 Clem. 10–12). Among these Abraham was honoured, not only as father of the Jewish nation (Isa 51:2; 4 Macc 16:20; Matt 3:9; John 8:39; Mishnah, tractate Aboth 5.19, etc.), but also as “father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5)—i.e., the Gentiles (Rom 4:1, 12, 16; Gal 3:7, 18; 1 Clem. 3:12). He was therefore the archetypal convert/proselyte. (For this interpretation of Gen 12:1-5 by the Jewish sages see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 195.) Abraham was also held up as a paradigm of faith, i.e., of fidelity and obedience to God. Especially was this exemplified in his willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Gen 22:1-22). This was seen as the supreme test of his faith. “Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?” (1 Macc 2:52; cf. Ecclus 44:19-21, where Abraham is depicted as being rewarded with progeny and future prosperity because he kept the law, and remained faithful when put to the test). In the face of James’ interest in the topic of testing (1:2-19a), it is noteworthy that he does not use Abraham as an example of one who endured testing. From the martyrdom traditions that emerged out of the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE arose various reinterpretations of Genesis 22 in which the figure of Abraham recedes and that of Isaac comes to the fore. The story then gets taken up in terms of the testing of Isaac and his willingness to be a vicarious sacrificial victim, rather than Abraham’s preparedness to offer his son. (For the development of the aqedah = “binding” of Isaac see Alexander, “Aqedah,” 44-47). Clearly for James, Abraham remains the central character for his purpose, which is to demonstrate the inseparability of faith and works. In the case of Abraham, “You see that faith was active along with his works” (v. 22).

James 1:19b–2:26

205

In Jewish tradition, Abraham’s faith was never contrasted with his action in preparing Isaac for sacrifice. Indeed, the latter was not only regarded as “the greatest of Abraham’s works” (Philo, Abraham 167), but it also was thought to be the epitome of his faithfulness. Thus faith and works were integral rather than antithetical: “And it shall be that everyone who will be saved and will be able to escape on account of his works or on account of the faith by which he has believed will survive” (2 Esd = 4 Ezra 9:7, my italics). A similar stance is taken by James. The point he makes is not to claim the supremacy of the one over the other, but the inseparability of the two. Thus Abraham’s faith and trust in God’s promise of progeny (Gen 15:6) was enacted in his action when he attempted to sacrifice his son (Gen 22). The relationship between the two is expressed in chiastic form in v. 22: a a1

faith was active alone b with his works b1 and by works faith was completed.

(See Lodge, “James and Paul at the Crossroads? James 2.22,” 195-213, who maintains that this verse constitutes the heart of a larger chiastic pattern that extends from v. 20 to v. 24.) Although James confines himself to the incidents of Abraham’s faith in Gen 15 and deeds in Gen 22, he was no doubt aware that tradition stressed the patriarch’s lifelong fidelity and righteousness. Philo (Abraham 269) interprets “He believed God” (Gen 15:6) as a reference, not to one occasion only, but to his whole life, (cf. Jub. 18:16), and the aqedah came to be viewed as one—albeit the greatest—of ten trials that Abraham had to face in his life (Jub. 18:11; Philo, On Sobriety 56). He was held up as an example of a man, “perfect in all his deeds, and well pleasing in righteousness” (Jub. 23:10). Hence, “Friend of God” became a title of honour accorded him (see the Hebrew text of 2 Chron 20:7; Isa 41:8. The LXX uses the verb “loved” rather than the noun “friend”). The closest parallel to v. 23 is Jub. 19:9, “He was found faithful and he was recorded (cf. James 2:23, “reckoned”) a friend of the Lord in the heavenly tablets.” Both Jewish and Christian tradition used the story of Abraham’s entertaining three strange travellers in Gen 18 to claim hospitality as one of his principal virtues. (Philo, On Sobriety 56, links the title “friend of God” with this incident; cf. 1 Clem. 10:12.) It may be that the dismissal in v. 14, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without the essential accompanying hospitality, is intended as an echo and reminder of Gen 18:4-8, 16, which serves

206

Word and Deed

as a stark contrast to the words-without-deeds castigated by James (Ward, “The Works of Abraham: James 2:14-26,” 283-90). In this case the plural “works” in v. 22 includes not only the aqedah, but also Abraham’s care for the needy. This could account in part for the association of the name of Rahab (v. 25) with that of Abraham. In 1 Clem. 10:7 the two are coupled as exemplars of faith and hospitality. Various legends grew out of the biblical narrative of Rahab’s assistance of Jacob’s two spies (Josh 2:1-21; 6:25). According to Josephus, she was an innkeeper rather than a harlot. She subsequently married Joshua, converted to Judaism, and became a prophetess (Ant. 5.7, 12). Since Abraham and Rahab alike were regarded as proselytes whose works were integral with their faith, both are apt examples of James’ contention that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (v. 24). Thus, “in the same way, Rahab . . .” (v. 25). The language of justification, righteousness, faith, and works, together with the use of Gen 15:6 (cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) and the example of Abraham in this section, inevitably invites comparisons and contrasts with Paul’s letters to the Galatians (2–3) and the Romans (3–4). Clearly, James and Paul use Gen 15:6 to very different purposes. Paul links Abraham’s faith to God’s promise of future heirs and interprets his progeny to include Gentile converts to the Christian faith (Rom 4:13-25; Gal 3:6-8). The patriarch’s principal function for Paul in his debate over the terms whereby his Gentile converts could be admitted to the Christian church is twofold: (a) to demonstrate that God’s promise of salvation was intended for all people and not the Jewish nation alone (Gen 12:3; 18:8; cf. Gal 3:28-29; 4:21-31), and (b) as an illustration of the primacy for that salvation of faith over against adherence to the precepts of Mosaic Torah—i.e., “works.” Hence, Paul makes play of the fact that Abraham’s circumcision (Gen 17)—a “work” prescribed by the Law—followed rather than preceded his trust in God’s promises (Gen 15). It was his faith rather than his work, therefore, that was reckoned as “righteousness.” James, on the other hand, associates Abraham’s trust in God’s promise with the aqedah, to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a saving faith that is not expressed in deeds. Thus, the self-same text (Gen 15:6) is used by James to make a wholly different point, and, if the issue addressed is the same, to arrive at the opposite conclusion. The latter possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. New Testament authors do not always speak with one voice (in spite of subsequent theologians’ attempts to make them do so), not least because they were actively engaged in the process of understanding the implications of their faith in Jesus as the Christ. Inevitably, that could and did involve not only difference from, but also sometimes conflict with other

James 1:19b–2:26

207

Christian writers who were equally concerned with the pursuit of truth. The question is whether here is one such instance. The answer largely depends upon what is meant by the verb “to justify” (dikaioun) in vv. 21, 24-25, and the noun “righteousness” (dikaiosyne¯) in v. 23. This language (see Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, 17-127), rooted as it is in the OT view of God as the just judge before whom one must stand on the Day of the Lord, is both juridical and eschatological. To be justified in this context is to receive a favourable verdict from God. Judaism is well aware, however, that “no human being is righteous” (LXX dikaios) (Ps 143:2). Therefore, ultimately one can only throw oneself upon God’s mercy, since God alone can restore the broken covenantal relationship (cf. Isa 59:15-20). God is righteous (dikaios), not because he is an impartial, evenhanded judge who dispenses absolute justice, but because he does the right thing in keeping His part of the covenant, even when Israel does not keep its part (see LXX Gen 19:19; 20:13; 21:23, which translates God’s “loving-kindness” [Hebrew = hesed] as “righteousness” [= dikaiosyne¯] and “mercy” [= eleos]). Thus the language of justification is not only forensic, but also relational. “To be justified” can be virtually a synonym for “to be forgiven”: “My justification belongs to God, The perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart are in his hand; through his righteous acts shall my sin be blotted out” (1QH 11.3-5). One should not therefore be misled by Paul’s polemic against Judaizers in the churches of Galatia to classify the Judaism of his day as a religion of salvation by works alone. At its heart lay a strong doctrine of grace (see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism). Nonetheless, Judaism also insisted upon “works,” i.e., the radical submission to the Law’s requirements. Such “righteousness” (cf. 1:20) was essential if the covenantal relationship, initiated by divine grace, was to be maintained. The Jewish sages could debate the precise relationship between faith and works, but they never contemplated the possibility of the two as antithetical. Hence Abraham was regarded as the exemplar of faith and works (Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 3, 186-201), never as one over against the other. It is firmly within this tradition that James stands. Faith is not contrasted with but “active alongside . . . works” (v. 22). By “justified” our author means “shown to be” or “demonstrated as” (cf. Gen 44:16; Luke 7:29-35) possessing “righteousness,” i.e., having the character of one who is within the (new, cf. 1:25) covenant relationship (cf. Isa 43:9; 35:25; 50:8, Matt 12:37; Rom 2:6-11; 1 Cor 4:4-5; Phil 1:11). “This faith-completedby-works is righteousness and naturally reckoned as such” (Ziesler, 132),

208

Word and Deed

since in this tradition there is always an ethical dimension to religious belief. Here Judaism, James, and Matthew are wholly in accord: “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my father” (Matt 7:21). Paul, on the other hand, separates faith from works, and insists that “justification” has to do with the former: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom 3:28; cf. Gal 2:16). It is important to notice the following differences between Paul and James vis-à-vis faith and works. Firstly, Paul uses the verb “to justify” in its declaratory sense of God’s pronouncement of forgiveness or acquittal. James, on the other hand, uses it in a demonstrative sense (contra Moo, 109) to mean “vindicate.” They therefore use the verb in two quite different senses, although they may not represent contradictory positions. Secondly, the contexts in which the two authors use the language of justification are wholly different. Paul does so of works of the Law over against faith in Christ. His concern is to locate salvation exclusively in Christ rather than in the Law of Moses and to establish a common basis and need for the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike (E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 431-556). In James, however, there is no hint of the “Judaizing” debate which led Paul to depict faith and works as antithesis. Thirdly, “By faith alone” is not a phrase found in Paul’s letters. It is a slogan refuted by James (2:24). Paul was well aware that his Law-free gospel could be misunderstood as antinomianism—a claim that ethical norms have no part in the Christian life. He was anxious to refute any such inference (cf. Rom 3:8; 6:1): “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body” (1 Cor 5:10). Most of Paul’s letters therefore conclude with an annunciation of the ethical implications of what new life in Christ entails (e.g., Rom 12–14; Gal 5). Here also there need be no contention between James and Paul. In which case, any suggestion that the two New Testament authors are directly in debate with each other seems unlikely. James’ faith-with-works would be no new position, and therefore hardly one that would need either proposition or defense prior to the “Judaizing” controversy within the early church that arose as a result of Paul’s stance on the admission of his Gentile converts. True, James the brother of Jesus was associated with those conservatives in the Jerusalem church who initially opposed the admission of Gentiles to the church without their first undergoing circumcision (Gal 2:12; Acts 15:13-21). It is unlikely, however, that our author and this James were one and the same person (see Introduction). If this letter was intended as a refutation of Paul’s teaching of justification by faith, it is singularly inept,

James 1:19b–2:26

209

not least in failing to grasp that by justification Paul meant the act of divine grace, appropriated by faith, by which the believer’s allegiance is transferred from one lordship (that of the Law) to another (that of Christ). Paul was not thereby denying that that new life did not also issue in “works,” i.e., the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-24). Most probably, therefore, this section is to be seen as confronting a postPauline interpretation of the apostle’s Law-free gospel, one that could only arise once it had become divorced from its original context. “Justification by faith apart from works,” which in Paul’s letters is an affirmation of the suppliant status of all humanity—Jew and Gentile alike—before a gracious God, has now become “faith alone,” a severance of creed from conduct The Proposition Confirmed (2:26)

Via an analogy with the body’s need of breath (pneuma, RSV “spirit”), the inseparability of faith and works is once more confirmed. Obviously, life requires both. Similarly, “Faith apart from works is dead.” The sub-unit thus ends with the thesis with which it began (v. 14; cf. v. 17).

Words and Wisdom James (3:1–4:12)

The theme of speech (cf. 1:19, 6; 2:12) dominates this large thought unit. It begins (3:1-2) with the topic of the teacher and “what he says” and ends with a condemnation of defamation (4:11-12). It falls into two sub-units: (a) 3:112, the power of the tongue; and (b) 3:13–4:12, concerning contentiousness. The latter largely proceeds by way of reference to other vices traditionally linked with those of the tongue. Its structure is therefore more associative and less formal than 3:1-12. Power of the Tongue (3:1-12) The first sub-unit takes the following form: (1) An admonition and its basis (3:1-2a): Do not be hasty to become a teacher (v. 1a) because teachers will be judged by more exacting standards (vv. 1b- 2a). (2) A proposition (3:2b): The mature person is the one who controls his tongue. (3) A demonstration (3:3-5a) that the tongue is small yet has great power (4) The evil power of the tongue (3:5b-10a) (5) Concluding admonition (3:10b-12): The tongue should not be used to wicked purposes. An Admonition to Teachers (3:1-2a)

The conventional nature of this advice is signalled by “You know” (v. 1). The author includes himself (“we who teach”) among the group he is addressing. Teachers are listed alongside apostles and prophets in 1 Cor 12:28

212

Words and Wisdom

(cf. Acts 13:1), and evangelists and pastors in Eph 4:11. It is debatable, however, whether first-century Christianity regarded these functions as specific and clearly distinguishable “offices.” In 1 Tim 5:17 and Titus 1:9 elders are also teachers. In which case, “the elders of the church” in James 5:14 could be the same group as the teachers addressed here. The early church clearly regarded teaching as a specific gift and calling, but it was not cut off from other gifts. Hence teaching was part of the kerygmatic function of the apostle. The distinction made by The Didache (11.4-6; 13.1-2) between the apostle/prophet and the teacher is territorial rather than functional. The former’s remit was peripatetic and global, whereas the teacher’s was locally based. The teacher was regarded principally as the guardian and interpreter of tradition (cf. CD 13.7; 1QS 9:12-20). As such, in Jewish society he was highly regarded. The high status afforded the teacher, however, was in direct proportion to the weight of responsibility he carried to be faithful to the traditions with which he was entrusted. (A concern for the maintenance of true as opposed to false teaching is a feature of later NT writings. See 1 Tim 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Jude 7; 2 Pet 2:1.) Hence James’ warning, “We who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; and the longer text of Matt 23:14 make the same point about the scribes. Unlike the teachers in James however, the scribes in the Synoptic Gospels are condemned for their actions rather than their words.) A concern not only with the transmission of Israel’s religious teaching but also its practical application is an evident feature of Israel’s wisdom school. James, like the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas (despite the modest disclaimer in Epistle of Barnabas 1.8, “not as a teacher, but as one of you . . .”) and The Didache, can be seen as an heir of that great Jewish teaching tradition, bringing to it Christian insights that were also part of his inheritance. The statement “We all make mistakes” (v. 2a) was as much commonplace in the ancient world as it is today (Sophocles, Antigone 1023; Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 3.45.3; Job 4:17-19; Eccles 7:20; Philo, Unchangeable 75; Spec. Laws 1.53; etc. Cf. Rom 3:23; 1 John 1:8). Since this section is predominantly concerned not with teachers, but the sins of the tongue to which they are especially prone, the closest parallel is Ecclus 3:16b: “Who has never sinned with the tongue?” The aphorism thus serves as a means of transition from the topic of teachers to that of speech—the major theme of the unit.

James 3:1–4:12

213

Controlling the Tongue (3:2b)

The person who is spiritually “mature” (contra RSV “perfect”; cf. 1:4) is the one who is able to control his/her tongue, and thereby, control the whole person (soma¯ , RSV “body”). To understand soma¯ (= body) here in a Pauline sense, as a metaphor for the church whose teachers’ speech needs to be controlled, especially in worship (so Martin, 103-104), is unwarranted. The sentiments expressed are by way of generalizations (“many”; “we all”; “if anyone”) rather than tied to a specific context. Examples of the Tongue’s Power (3:3-5a)

The point of this part of the argument, summed up in v. 5a, “So the tongue is a little member and boasts great things,” is to demonstrate, via illustrations drawn from other areas of life, that what is small can have power well beyond its size. Thus the part can control the whole. To this end James cites the horse and bit (v. 3) and the rudder and ship (v. 4). There is nothing to suggest that these are intended as negative examples. These conventional metaphors are merely used descriptively in much the same way as Sophocles, “Spirited horses are broken by means of a small bit” (Antigone 477). (For the stock association of images of the helmsman/charioteer see Dibelius, 18590.) Similarly, the verb “to boast” (= auchein, found nowhere else in the NT or LXX) in v. 5a does not carry with it the negative connotations of arrogance or bragging (unlike 3:14; 4:16 where it does, though different Greek verbs are used), and should not be read in the light of Paul’s condemnation of the same (cf. Rom 1:30; 3:27; 11:18; 2 Cor 10:13). Here the tongue is wholly correct when it asserts (= “boasts”) that its power is great. The Tongue’s Evil Power (3:5b-10a)

The analogy between the power of the tongue and that of fire is used to make three points, the first two of which are negative, and the third more open-ended: (a) It affects the whole (vv. 5b-6); (b) it is untamable (vv. 7-8); and (c) it is the source of both good and evil (vv. 9-10a). From the positive images of the bit and the rudder as instruments of control, we now move to a negative example; that of an uncontrollable fire. Fire is, of course, a universal image. It was used as a metaphor for God’s anger (Ps 83:14; Isa 9:18; cf. Isa 30:27, “His tongue is like a devouring fire”).

214

Words and Wisdom

Here, however, it is not a reference to divine condemnation, but to the source of the tongue’s destructive force, which is hell, not heaven (see v. 6). We can find in Hellenistic writings instances where the all-consuming force of human passion is likened to the effects of fire. So Philo writes: “For nothing escapes desire (epithymia), and as I have said before, like a flame in the forest it spreads abroad and consumes and destroys everything” (Decalogue 173). (For fire as a favourite metaphor for the rule of the passions over reason, see Dibelius, 192.) The more obvious background to this passage, however, is Jewish wisdom tradition that specifically likened the negative effects of speech to that of fire (cf. Prov 6:27; 26:21; Pss. Sol. 12:2-3). Thus Ben Sira concludes his comments on slander (Ecclus 28:13-16) with injunctions about the use of the tongue: “It will not be the master of the godly and they will not be burned in the flame. Those who forsake the Lord will fall into its power; it will burn them and not be put out. . . . Beware lest you err with your tongue” (Ecclus 28:22-3, 26). (3:5b-6) It Affects the Whole. Like a forest fire (Elliott-Binns, “The Meaning of hule in James 3.5,” 48-50) ignited by a small flame, so the tongue affects the whole (vv. 5b-6). Via a clever play on words: “setting on fire (active) the cycle of life (trochon te¯s geneseo¯ s)”/“set on fire (passive) by Gehenna (geenes)” (v. 6), both the extent of the tongue’s power and the origin of its destructiveness are emphasized. The phrase “cycle of life” (RSV “cycle of nature”) is here used either as a reference to the chances and changes of life with its ups and downs (Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, 23), or refers to the whole span of human life in general, without any specific emphasis upon change. There is nothing to suggest that it carries with it the Orphic notion of the never-ending cycle of transmigrations from which the soul vainly seeks to be freed (cf. Plato, Timaeus 79b). The point is simply that the power of the tongue affects the whole body and extends throughout the whole period of human life. “Gehenna” (RSV “hell”) is the valley of Hinnom, the site SW of Jerusalem associated with pagan rites of human sacrifice by fire (2 Kgs 23:10; 2 Chron 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31; 32:35), which later came to be identified as the place where the wicked were tormented by fire (1 En. 26-27). By NT times it was an established image of divine judgment (Matt 5:22; 18:9; Mark 9:43). (For the earth as the abode of Azazel, the chief of the fallen angels, see the Apoc. Ab. 14.6-8. There the ungodly are burned by the fire of his mouth [Apoc. Ab. 31.6].)

James 3:1–4:12

215

Yet whereas in these sources Gehenna is associated with the fate of the wicked, here it refers not so much to the evil tongue’s fate as to its origins. As in 1:13-15, so here also James is at pains to stress that it is not God who is the source of wickedness but the world. Hence the tongue is categorized as “a world of wickedness” (RSV “an unrighteous world”), i.e., wholly opposed to the values of God (cf. 1:27; 2:5; 4:4; see L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 166-83). Clearly, speech is one human faculty that can be used to evil purpose. Thus “slander” is one of the defiling things, cited by Mark 7:14-23, that “come out of a man.” The list is by no means confined to the sins of the tongue, however, and there is nothing in either Jewish or early Christian tradition that would lead us to conclude that James, any more than Mark, identified speech as a special seat of evil. Ralph Marcus’s attempt to read this and other passages in James as a reference to the doctrine of the evil ye¯.ser (613-14) is unconvincing. Not least his appeal to Philo, “We have known human desire (epithymia) to make its way to the tongue and cause an infinity of troubles” (Spec. Laws 4.90) as confirmation of an association between speech and the evil ye¯.ser seems strained, since the passage goes on to explicate those “troubles” not in terms of an evil tongue, but as a lack of judgment in knowing when to speak and when to remain silent. In which case it is unlikely that James here seeks to lay responsibility for the sins of the tongue upon other than human shoulders. His main purpose is to affirm that God may not be held to blame. The Greek text of v. 6 raises a number of questions for the translator (Davids, 141-42). Firstly, how should the verse be punctuated? Some English translators (e.g., RSV, NRSV, NEB) place a full-stop after “fire,” whilst others (e.g., NASB, REB) extend the sentence further, although they disagree as to its extent. Secondly, should the verb kathiste¯mi (= make/appoint/place) be understood as passive, “is placed” (NRSV), or middle, “appoints itself/makes itself become”? The RSV “is” seeks to avoid the problem by remaining uncommitted. Thirdly, is the phrase “world of wickedness/wicked world” in apposition to “tongue” (RSV “The tongue is an unrighteous world”), or a predicate of the verb (“The tongue appoints itself/is appointed to be [see second point above] a world of wickedness among us”)? On grammatical grounds alone none of these suggestions can be ruled out. In which case, one can but support a translation that best fits the rest of the letter. On these grounds it is preferable to understand the verb as middle, since it is obviously so at 4:4. As in 1:13-15, therefore, the point made is that humanity rather than God is responsible for sin. The earlier chapter

216

Words and Wisdom

concerned sin in general, whereas here the topic is the sins of the tongue in particular. This interpretation holds good whether “wicked world” is taken as a predicate of the verb or, as is more likely, is in apposition to the word “tongue.” (3:7-8) The Tongue’s Untamable Nature. From the preceding images of the tongue’s control (the bit and the rudder), with the introduction of the motif of fire the thought now moves to its uncontrollable force. (Cf. Plutarch, On Garrulousness 10, where the word, leaving the harbour of the mouth, is likened to an unstoppable fire.) Biblical writers depict God as investing humankind with dominion and control (Gen 1:26; 2:29-20; Ps 8:6-8; Eccles 17:4; Jub. 3:1-2, 5-6) over the animal kingdom (traditionally classified as beast, bird, reptile and sea creature [Gen 1:26; 9:2; Deut 4:17; 1 Kgs 4:33]). Pagan hellenistic thought located such control in the faculty of reason (Antigone 342-44; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2.60.151; Seneca, On Benefits 2.29.4). As totally out of control, the tongue is thus here depicted as contrary to the ideal of what humanity should be according to both Jewish and pagan tradition. It is “a restless (akatastaton) evil, full of deadly poison.” (See 1:8 for akatastaton used of the instability of the double-minded. For slander as a “restless demon” [akatastaton daimonion] see Herm. Mand. 2, 3.) LXX Psalm 139[MT 140]:3 also likens the tongue to a poisonous snake. Hence of his enemies the psalmist writes: “They have sharpened their tongues as the tongue of a serpent; the poison of asps (Hebrew, vipers) is under their tongue” (partially cited in Rom 3:13). (3:9-10a) A Source of Good and Evil. The “we” style of address signals the author’s move from a wholly negative image of the tongue as fire to the exhortatory theme of the tongue as potentially creative as well as destructive. The ambiguous nature of fire with its power for both may well have suggested the theme of the tongue’s “duality” with which this sub-unit ends. James shifts the emphasis from the tongue as wholly evil to the tongue as also having the potential for good. He does not, however, pursue the image of fire in so doing. Although at first glance vv. 9-10a seem purely a descriptive statement of the mouth as the source of both blessing and cursing, already the admonition (vv. 10b-12) that it should be used wholly for the latter is prepared for by, “We curse men, who are made in the likeness of God” (v. 9), with its allusion to Gen 1:26. The earliest appeal to the imago dei as the basis for ethics occurs in Gen 9:2, “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (cf. Jervell, Imago Dei, 240, 295-96, who sees this lying behind the

James 3:1–4:12

217

prohibition against murder in James 2:11; 4:2). It is given a more universal application in 2 En. 44:1-2 (perhaps a late first century CE work; see Anderson, “2 [Slavonic Apocalypse of ] Enoch,” 91-100): The Lord with his own hands created mankind; in a facsimile of his own face, both small and great, the Lord created them. And whoever insults a person’s face, insults the face of a king, and treats the face of the Lord with repugnance. Although less developed than in 2 Enoch, clearly the self-same appeal to “being made in the image of God” is used here as the basis for behaviour towards a fellow human being. Hence the point of these verses is not merely to demonstrate the fact that both blessings and curses emanate from the same source and thus the duality of the tongue (cf. Ecclus 9:13; 28:12; Philo, Decalogue 93; T. Benj. 6.5), but the incongruity of this fact. “My brethren, it must not be so” (v. 10b). By “to curse” James clearly indicates something that is negative, not only for the recipient, but as antithetical to God’s intention for the use of speech. There was no prohibition in Judaism against cursing per se (except for cursing one’s parents; Dibelius, 203, n. 110). Thus Noah cursed Canaan (Gen 9:29), Jacob cursed the anger of Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:7), Deborah called down imprecations against Israel’s enemies (Judg 5:23), and the people cursed dishonest judges (Prov 24:24). In Deut 30:19 blessing and cursing are both activities of God: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” The apostle Paul can both exhort his fellow Christians, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (Rom 12:14; cf. Luke 6:28), and yet pronounce an anathema upon the unbeliever (1 Cor 16:22; cf. Rev 22:18-9). James, on the other hand, categorizes all cursing as evil. This is evident from the conclusion to the sub-unit. Concluding Admonition (3:10b-12)

Via a series of rhetorical questions, each expecting the answer “No,” the conclusion is drawn that the tongue should be put wholly to a singular, i.e., good use, rather than also being employed for another, i.e., wicked purpose. Drawing upon examples from the natural world, James emphasizes the incongruity of one and the same spring producing both fresh and bitter (RSV “brackish”) water, and the same vine producing both figs and olives.

218

Words and Wisdom

This is not what you find in an ordered world. (Contra Hadidian, 224-27, this cannot therefore refer to the springs of the Dead Sea area that produce both salt and fresh water, since that would run counter to the argument.) Such examples were commonplace, especially among Stoics, as illustrations of the order in nature. “We do not expect the vine to bear figs nor the olive grapes” (Plutarch, On the Tranquillity of the Soul 13; cf. Seneca Epistle, 87.25; Ecclus 27:6; Matt 7:16-7). Like the author of 2 Esd 5:9, for whom a spring that produces both salt and sweet water is a sign of cosmic disorder preceding the eschaton, so for James the tongue should not be the source of both good and evil. Human speech was intended for a wholly good use. Concerning Contentiousness (3:13–4:12) The next section falls into three parts: An indictment of the contentious (3:13–4:6) A call to repentance (4:7-10) On speaking ill of others (4:11-12) An Indictment of the Contentious (3:13–4:6)

“Humility” (praute¯s, 3:13) and “the humble” (tapeinos, 4:6) form an inclusio for the sub-unit. This virtue is in marked contrast to the fractiousness that James parades before us in its various guises. In this list “envy” (= ze¯los, RSV “jealousy”)—a favorite topos of hellenistic moral philosophers—is prominent (3:14, 16; 4:2). It may be (L. T. Johnson, “James 3:13-4:10, and the topos peri phthonou,” 327-37) that the emphasis upon its disruptive effects upon the life of the community (3:16), together with its association with hatred, tyranny, malice, ambition, and arrogance (4:6), and the assertion that it leads to violence (4:4) and war (4:1-2), indicate that this passage has been influenced by Greco-Roman moralists, who make the self-same points about envy. Although ze¯los can have the positive meaning of “zeal” (Ps 69:9; Isa 9:7), here it is used negatively to connote “envy” or “jealousy” (= phthonos; cf. 4:6 where phthonos is used negatively of human envy). Both terms occur in NT vice lists (ze¯los in Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 12:20, and phthonos in Rom 1:29; Phil 1:15; 1 Tim 6:4; 1 Pet 2:1; both found in Gal 5:20-21). For James, envy does not produce peace, which is the necessary hallmark of righteousness (3:18).

James 3:1–4:12

219

The indictment against the contentious takes the form of three rhetorical questions (3:13a; 4:1a; 4:4a), each followed by an exposition or amplification (3:13b-18; 4:1b-3; 4:4b-6) that constitutes the content of the admonition. (3:13a) “Who is wise and understanding among you?” Amplification of this question follows an abb1a1 pattern (Lodge, 205-206): a

a1

Who is wise and understanding among you? (v. 13) By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom b But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition . . . (v. 14) Do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not from above (ab) . . . (v. 15) b1 For where envy and selfish ambition exist . . . (v. 16) But the wisdom from above is first pure (ba) . . . (v. 17)

Here antithetical lists (cf. Gal 5:19-23; Col 3:5-17; 1 Pet 2:1-2) of vices (vv. 14-16) and virtues (v. 17) are used to characterize what is not (ab) and what is (ba) from above. There is nothing to suggest that the “wise and understanding” here are the teachers of 3:1. (In LXX Deut 1:3, 5 this phrase refers to Israel’s leaders. But in Deut 4:6 it is used of all Israel.) Even in the earlier chapter, the concern is not with teachers per se but with the use of speech. So here the author addresses the issue, not of wisdom among the community’s leadership in particular, but of its presence among the Christian congregation as a whole (cf. 1:5 for wisdom as God’s gift to all). A person’s entire mode of life should demonstrate that his actions are inspired by wisdom. “By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom” (3:13b), i.e., by demonstrating his possession of God’s gift of wisdom through the exercise of noncontentiousness toward others. As in 2:14-26, where the author maintains that faith without works is dead, so here he argues that wisdom, if not confirmed by a Christian lifestyle characterized by meekness, is a counterfeit or pseudo-wisdom (Mussner, 172). Both faith (2:18, “show me”) and wisdom (3:13, “let him show”) must be capable of practical demonstration. Neither can be merely theoretical. It is the practice of meekness or humility—more often thought of in the pagan world as a vice rather than a virtue (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 159-60)—which characterizes the wisdom of God. Just as the vices mentioned in vv. 14-16 were all associated by GrecoRoman ethicists with envy and its ensuing contentiousness, so the virtues

220

Words and Wisdom

listed in v. 17 are those that preclude fractiousness. In the case of “being peaceable” (eire¯nike¯) this is clear (although the word only occurs in the NT here and at Heb 12:11). “Gentle” (epieike¯s) conveys more specifically the notion of a noncombative and forbearing response to opposition (cf. 1 Cor 10:1; Phil 4:5). So the author of the Wisdom of Solomon (2:19) writes: “Let us test him with insult and torture that we may see how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance.” That the Christian should be “open to reason” (RSV) [= eupeithe¯s] does not mean that he or she should be gullible. Neither does the word carry the modern class-ridden overtones of Ralph Martin’s translation (25) “deferential.” It means openness to persuasion, which is the opposite of taking an entrenched, immovable position; a “willingness to yield” (NRSV). The assonance that is achieved by the repetition of the letter “e,” with which each of these virtues begins, concludes with eleos = act(s) of mercy. The same literary device is employed in the repetition of the letter “a” in the concluding virtues: “unwavering” (RSV “without uncertainty” [= adiakritos]. This is its only occurrence in the New Testament. In Ign. Magn. 15.1; Trall. 1.1 it is used positively to mean “harmonious” or “of one accord”) ; and, “without hypocrisy” (RSV “insincerity” [= anupokritos]; cf. Rom 12:9; 2 Cor 6:6; 1 Pet 1:22 where it is applied to love, and 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 1:5 where it is used of faith). Wisdom in a and a1 (3:13, 17) is thus associated with various virtues rather than with its more traditional specific association with knowledge in particular (Wis 7:7; cf. 1 Kgs 3:5-7). In 1:5 the readers are exhorted to ask God for wisdom. As we have seen, it is unlikely that “the perfect gift from above” in 1:17 is either wisdom or the virtues it bestows. It has been suggested, however, (Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James,” 24-38, followed by Davids, 52-56, and Hartin, 135) that James’ use of “wisdom” in these passages is analogous to other New Testament writers’ understanding of the Holy Spirit. Thus the apostle Paul attributes a not dissimilar list of virtues to the presence of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–6:8). Yet this very comparison, if anything, illustrates the difficulty that arises in making such a linguistically imprecise claim. One might as well say that “wisdom” in James is the same as “love” in other New Testament works, on the grounds that a similar list of virtues are associated with the latter in 1 Cor 13:4-6. It is true that in hellenistic Judaism “wisdom” and “spirit” were sometimes used synonymously (Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit, 19-26). Thus in the eulogy in praise of divine wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon 7:22–8:1, “spirit of wisdom” (7:7), “wisdom” (7:22, 24, 30) and “spirit” (7:22) are used interchangeably. (For wisdom in Jewish tradition and the New Testament’s use of it see Dunn, Christology,163-212.) This should not obscure the most

James 3:1–4:12

221

telling point against some of these analogies, namely that “spirit” occurs only twice in James: at 2:26, where it refers to breath leaving a human body (cf. Eccles 38:23; Wis 16:14), and at 4:5, which, as we shall see, probably refers to the human rather than the divine spirit. There are significant differences between the development of the “figure” of wisdom in pre-Christian Judaism and what we find in James. Not least, unlike Wis 7, in our letter wisdom is neither personified (cf. Prov. 8:22-31), nor spoken of as God’s agent in creation (cf. Prov 8:27-31; Wis 8:46, Philo, Q. G., 4.97) and ongoing sustainer of cosmic order (cf. Wis 8:1) (For the ascription of these functions by Philo to the logos see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 195-200.) Furthermore, unlike some other New Testament writings (e.g., John 1:1-18; 1 Cor 1:23-24; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-3), here we find no Christological appropriation of Jewish wisdom motifs. Thus, unlike that post-exilic strand in Jewish thought that uses “wisdom” as a synonym for God (especially in speaking of His dealings with the world), James reflects the earlier tradition that saw wisdom as a gift from God (cf. 1 Kgs 3), rather than God Himself. It is therefore “a form of expression for the sum-total of human, albeit God-given, virtues” (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 164, my italics). Wisdom in James is thus closer to Matthew’s “How much more will your father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him” (Matt 7:11), than Luke’s, “How much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him” (Luke 11:13). Since he is writing about divinely inspired virtue(s), it is improbable that “wisdom” is James’ designation for the Holy Spirit. The Qumran Covenanters associated the gift of wisdom and the virtues it would bestow upon the righteous with the end-time, which they believed would immediately precede the eschaton. Since they were convinced that they were already living in that period, they claimed wisdom both for their leader, the teacher of righteousness (1QH 12:11-13;14:25), and for themselves (1QS 4:2-6; cf. 1 En. 91-105). Hence they collectively designated their group as “the wise” (1QS 1:35). James’ teaching about the gift of wisdom/virtue to the faithful of the present age should similarly be read in the context of his eschatological beliefs. He, too, believed that his community was living in the end-time. Hence the theme of the imminence of the eschaton runs throughout the letter, functioning both as a warning and an encouragement to the community. In contrast to the sum-total of virtues that is wisdom in a and a1 stand the vices in b and b1 (vv. 14-16). Since the main topic here is contentiousness, envy (RSV “jealousy” = ze¯los) and fractiousness (RSV “selfish ambition” = eritheia ) are singled out. The latter noun is rare in Greek literature.

222

Words and Wisdom

Aristotle (Politics 5.3, 1303b) used it of the corruption employed by some to gain political office. In the New Testament it is used more generally to denote party strife (Rom 2:8; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Phil 1:17; 2:3). For James, “wisdom” that issues in fractiousness is nothing to boast about (v. 14)! Far from having its origins in God, it is “earthly” (as opposed to “heavenly,” cf. John 3:17; Phil 3:19), “unspiritual” (psychike¯), and “devilish,” i.e., like a demon (daimono¯ de¯s. This word is found in neither secular nor biblical Greek before James). “Unspiritual” is a polemical word used by Paul (1 Cor 2:1315) to designate those who claim for themselves the inspiration of the Spirit, but whom he castigates as those unable to receive the gospel. In later Valentinian Gnosticism (according to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.6.1-2) it designated the “middle” group of humanity who can potentially be saved, as opposed to “the spirituals” who already have, and the “bodily” who can never achieve salvation. In Jude 19 it is used as a general term of abuse for “false” teachers. James is even less specific than Jude, however. He uses it of those vices associated with the tongue, especially the contentiousness that can be fostered by “unwise” words in general, rather than false teaching in particular. The negative crescendo “earthly” –> “unspiritual” –> “devilish” in v. 15 emphasizes that such are “not from above.” This is reinforced in b1 (v. 16), where contentiousness is presented not only as the source of anarchy (RSV “disorder” = akatastasia; cf. 1:8; 3:8), but also wicked deeds of every kind. This general statement prepares the way for the contrast with wisdom “from above” in v. 17, and the emphasis upon the virtues of meekness, notably, “peace.” This is reiterated in v. 18. Martin Dibelius may be right in his suggestion that this verse originated as a selfcontained saying (214). As it stands here, however, it is by no means isolated. It functions both as a reinforcement and climactic conclusion to the subunit, and as a bridge to the second rhetorical question (4:1) and its development. The “fruit (contra RSV “harvest”) of righteousness” is best understood epexegetically, i.e., the fruit that is righteousness (Adamson, 156). In which case, in this first part of the sentence righteousness is what is sown, not (unlike Amos 6:12; 2 Cor 9:10; Phil 1:11; Heb 12:11) what is reaped. By “righteousness” James means those right acts demanded by God of His people (cf. 1:20). Such deeds are sown by the peaceable (“in peace”). The idea of harvest is introduced in the concluding phrase, where righteousness is not only “by” but also “for” (Dibelius, 215, followed by the NRSV) the peaceable (contra RSV “by those who make peace”). Thus it is both the seed and its crop. The point of this agricultural image is clear. It is used to aver

James 3:1–4:12

223

that the essential context for doing the will of God is peace rather than contention. (4:1a) “What causes wars . . . and fightings?” This second rhetorical question picks up the theme of peace (3:17-18) and contrasts it with physical violence. The answer given (4:2b-3) is that war is the outcome of humanity’s evil passions, which are “at war in your members.” The word “passions” (= e¯donai) forms an inclusio (vv. 1, 3). It is a referent, not to emotions in general, but to those that are explicitly sinful. This is evident from v. 2, where “you desire” (epithymeite, cf. 1:14.; in Titus 3:3, “passion” and “desire “ are synonymous terms) is paralleled with “you covet” (= zeloute). In vv. 2-3 we can see an abb1ca1c1 pattern: a

a1

You want something, but you do not get it; b You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want; b1 You fight and wage war, (and) you do not have c because you do not ask. You ask, and you do not receive c1 because you ask wrongly.

This punctuation and arrangement of clauses brings out the juxtaposition of positive and negative in each couplet (cf. AV, NIV). Although not explicit in the Greek text, the RSV, NEB, and NRSV translators properly emphasize the connection between killing and contentiousness by articulating the causal link between them: “You want something and you do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you fight and wage war.” Plato attributed war to human desires in general. “The body and its desires are the only cause of wars, factions, and battles” (Phaedrus 66c). A similar sentiment is expressed by Cicero: “Desires are the source of hatred, quarrelling, and strife” (On the Ends of Goods and Evils 1.44). Above all, the human passion of envy was regarded by pagan and Jewish authors alike (see Johnson, NTS 25, 327-47, who especially cites the T. Sim.) as the cause of war. This being so, there is no need to follow Erasmus (Dibelius, 217-18) and amend the text of v. 2 to read “You are envious” (phthoneite), rather than “You kill” (phoneite), since the connection between desire and warfare, although not immediately obvious to a twentieth-century reader, would have been conventional at the time in which James was writing. (a) “You do not have,” and (a1) “You cannot obtain,” depict desires that are frustrated. (b) “You kill and covet,” and (b1) “You fight and wage war,” describe violence as the outcome of the frustration of such evil desires. It is

224

Words and Wisdom

unlikely to be an allegation that members of the Christian community are literally murderers (contra Townsend, “James 4.1-4: A Warning against Zealotry?,” 211-13 and Martin, 144 who think this passage is directed against Christian supporters of the Zealot movement) or rioters (Reicke, 4546). This language is to be understood metaphorically. (For murder as a metaphor for the destructive by-product of a jealous tongue, see Eccl 28:1721; T. Gad 4; Did. 3:2; 1 Clem. 3:4–6:3.) Thus the NRSV translates “wars . . . and fightings” of v. 2 as “disputes and conflicts.” Whether understood literally or metaphorically, it is impossible from such a generalized statement to infer a specific occasion of “warfare” within the church to which this letter is written, and from this to move on to reconstruct the historical situation of its addressees. The negative, “You do not have” quickly moves from the topic of not getting one’s evil desires (and, as a result, waging war) to not having one’s petitions in prayer granted, “Because you do not ask.” In the pattern, c and c1 give two explanations as to why these prayers are not acceded to: “Because you do not ask” and “Because you ask wrongly.” The first explanation clearly refers to prayer rather than the frustration of evil desires. The lack of the latter’s fulfillment is hardly to be lamented! The point made here is the obvious one; you cannot expect to receive an answer to a request not made. The second reason for the failure to have one’s petitions granted, “because you ask wrongly (kakos = wickedly), is not a reflection upon method, but upon a prayer’s content and the motive that lies behind it. The meaning of “wrongly” in this context is made clear by the concluding clause, “to spend it on your own passions,” i.e., to satisfy one’s own greed. If that is the substance of our prayer to God, then our requests will not be met. In Christian tradition, Jesus’ assurance, “Ask and it will be given you” (Matt 7:7; Luke 11:9) is no guarantee of the granting of any and every petition (cf. 1 John 5:14 where prayer must be according to the will of God. Hermas insists upon the need for self-humility, expressed through fasting [Vision 3.10.6], and purity of heart [Mandate 9.4], for prayer to be efficacious). Thus, according to James, prayer, motivated by personal greed and envy, will find no positive response from God. (4:4a) “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” In this the third rhetorical question of the indictment we have one of our author’s favourite (see 1:13, 19; 2:5; 3:1; 5:11, 20) traditional (cf. Rom 6:16; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 1 Thess 3:3, etc.) paraenetic appeals, “Do you not know . . . ?” The ground for this appeal is equally general and unspecified.

James 3:1–4:12

225

James cites neither a Jesus logion nor any known “scripture” as warrant for his exhortation in v. 5. The nearest New Testament parallel to the sentiment of v. 4 is 1 John 2:25-27, which similarly contrasts two relationships; one with the world and the other with God. Yet even here there are differences. 1 John casts this relationship in terms of love and does not mention its obverse, hate. James, however, uses the model of friendship, against which he juxtaposes its opposite, enmity. James addresses his readers (v. 4a) as “adulteresses” (= moichalides). The RSV “unfaithful creatures,” while conveying its general sense, obscures the author’s use of the feminine noun and the interesting exegetical issues it raises. Surprisingly, the NRSV has chosen to “resolve” the problem by ignoring its avowed mandate to use inclusive language and here to subsume the feminine under the masculine generic “adulterers.” Early exegetes also had problems with the noun’s gender—albeit for different reasons. Hence some manuscripts add “and adulterers” (masculine). Taking this reference to adultery literally, the copyists could hardly believe that males were excluded from this indictment! Why then does James use the feminine “adulteresses”? Because traditionally Israel had been depicted as a woman, whose relationship to God was analogous to that of a marriage (Hos 1–3.; for the Church as the bride of Christ see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-24; Rev 19:7; 21:9), adultery was used metaphorically as an image of her apostasy (Hos 9:1; Ezek 16:15-16; cf. Matt 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38, “adulterous generation”). In James, however, the relationship of God and His people is not explored via marriage imagery but rather by way of an appeal to the model of friendship (cf. 2:23 for Abraham as God’s friend). Although by no means unknown in Jewish tradition (cf. Moses [Exod 33:1], and Levi [Jub. 30:20] as friends of God. According to Wis 7:14, 27, Wisdom confers this status upon those who will receive her.), friendship was a relationship highly prized among the Greeks (L. T. Johnson, “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God,” 173). James employs it to make the same point as other biblical writers do when they use the image of marriage, i.e., to stress that a relationship with God makes exclusive claims upon the adherent and therefore precludes relationships with other deities. This is expressed negatively via repetitious parallelism: Friendship with the world = enmity with God (v. 4a); Friend of the world = enemy of God (v. 4b).

226

Words and Wisdom

As in 1:27 and 2:5, here “the world” represents those values that are antithetical to God. The dualism conveyed by this language of opposites is ethical rather than physical, however. It is not the world as a material universe that, by definition, is opposed to God, but “the world” as a collective term for a particular ethos, which is contrary to His will. This indictment is backed up by “the writing” (he¯ graphe¯, RSV “the scripture”), translated by the RSV as, “He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us” (v. 5). This verse is a particularly difficult one, since it poses a number of problems for the interpreter. Chief among these are: • Is this a citation, and if so what is its source? • Is the subject of the verb “to yearn” (= epipothein) God, the Holy Spirit, or the human spirit? • How is pros phthonon to be translated? As: (a) “jealously” (God’s yearning); (b) (The writing says) “about envy”; (God’s yearning is) “set over against [human] envy”; or (c) “prone to envy”; or (d) (the human spirit)? The phrase “The writing says” suggests that James is citing a source known to his audience. We possess no ancient writing sufficiently close to this citation to make its identification possible, however. This is not the only such instance in New Testament writings. John 7:3-4 and 1 Cor 2:9 (cf. 1 Clem. 46:2) similarly cite an authoritative “writing,” the source of which is unknown to us. It is misleading to assume that by “writing” (graphe¯) James means what we label as scripture. At the time James was writing, what Christians came to call the Old Testament had yet to have a definitively closed canon, and some of the New Testament had not been written at all, let alone defined as “scripture.” Since the source of this citation cannot be traced, it could, therefore, refer to a written source, accepted as authoritative by the readers, but that has not survived. On the other hand, “writing” could be used more loosely to indicate established Christian tradition, whether written or oral (cf. 1 Clem. 23:3 whose citation of an untraced “writing” can equally be introduced as “the prophetic word” in the later 2 Clem. 11:2), known and accepted by the community James is addressing. As to the translation issues, these are interrelated to such an extent that the answer to one will necessarily determine the answer to the other. The pivotal issue is, who or what is the subject of the verb? There are two major alternatives, the first being God (so Mussner, 185) who yearns jealously (see epipothein in Phil 1:8; 1 Pet 2:2) for the devotion of His people (so RSV, NRSV, NASB; Davids, 162-55). Yet, whereas ze¯los (= zeal) can be either a

James 3:1–4:12

227

negative vice or a positive virtue, phthonos (the word used here) is almost invariably used pejoratively to mean envy or jealousy, and hence never applied to God (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 177-78). More likely, therefore, is the alternative that the subject is the spirit; not the Holy Spirit (contra Martin, 149), but the life-force implanted by God in humanity at creation (Gen 2:7; 6:3, 17; 17:15; Ps 104:29-30; Wis 12:1). Ralph Martin understands it as a reference to the yearning of God’s Spirit, which opposes envy in the human spirit. Yet, given that v. 6 contrasts (cf. “But”) the grace of God with the “Spirit,” which is the subject of v. 5, it clearly cannot be the Holy Spirit, which is signified in this preceding verse. Sophie Laws (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 174-80 and idem “Does the Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of James 1V. 5,” NTS 20 [1973], 210-15) is therefore right to take the human rather than the divine spirit as the subject of the verb “yearns.” She, however, understands the sentence as a rhetorical question, “Is this the proper manner of the soul’s desire?” implying the answer, “Surely not!” We find here an allusion to the theme, much beloved of the psalmists, of the human soul’s longing for God (Ps 41:5), His courts (Ps 83:3) and His judgment (Ps 118:20). The problem with this interpretation is not that our text reads “spirit” (pneuma), whereas the psalms read “soul” (psyche¯). These terms could be used synonymously of the human spirit (Isaacs The Concept of Spirit, 35-38). More telling against her suggestion is the fact that the question is not posed in the form which in Greek would expect the answer “No” (i.e., me¯). It is therefore improbable that by “spirit” James here means either the Holy Spirit or (contra Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James) the human spirit in its positive aspect. In which case this verse is an amplification of the theme, picked up from v. 2, of the destructive power of human envy, rather than that of God’s jealous relationship with His people. It is therefore better translated, “The (human) spirit which He (God) has made to dwell in us is one which feels passionate envy” (cf. AV; NEB). To attribute the human spirit with the negative vice of envy is not to suggest that God created human beings with two spirits, one good and the other evil. The spirit here should not, therefore, be understood dualistically or identified with the evil as opposed to the good inclination (ye¯.ser) that we find in later rabbinical thought (contra Marcus; cf. 1:14-15). For James it is one and the same divinely implanted (“which he made to dwell in us”; cf. 1:13-14) spirit that can bring forth evil as well as good fruit. We have been created free to choose between good and evil, virtue and vice. Judeo-Christian tradition can express this by way of different antitheses (see Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis,” 82-95): as

228

Words and Wisdom

two spirits—true/false (1QS 3:13-14; T. Reub. 2:1-2; Herm. Mand. 3.1-2), or long-suffering/ill-tempered (Herm. Mand. 5.1-2); as two angels— good/evil (Herm. Mand. 6.2-9); as two ways—light/darkness (1QS 3.17-19; Did. 1.1-3; Epistle of Barnabas 18.1-3); or as two inclinations—good (Testament of Benjamin 6) versus evil (T. Benj. 7; cf. Herm. Mand. 13.1.1-3). James, like Ben Sira (Ecclus 15:14), expresses this ethical dualism in such a way as to emphasize human responsibility for our God-given life (= spirit). It is humanity that has chosen to direct that “spirit” towards envy, thereby allying itself to the values of the world rather than those of God. In spite of this, (v. 6, “but”) God provides grace—i.e., forgiveness— which He makes available to the humble (cf. 1:9-10). This is confirmed by a citation from (LXX) Prov 3:34 (but reading, like 1 Pet 5:5-6 and 1 Clem. 30:2, “Lord” rather than “God”), which acts as a bridge to the following call to repentance. A Call to Repentance (4:7-10)

The implications (“therefore”) of Prov 3:34 are now drawn out. The injunctions, “Submit (hypotage¯te) yourselves before God” (v. 7) and “Humble yourselves before the Lord” (v. 10) form an inclusion. Submission is an established topic of early Christian teaching. It is usually associated with the need to obey human authorities (Luke 2:51; Rom 13;1; Eph 5:22; Tit 2:9; 1 Pet 2:13). Here, however, it is God to whom the believer is to submit (cf. LXX Ps 36[MT 37]:7). 1 Pet 5:5 similarly couples an injunction to submit to God with a citation from Prov 3:34. As in Ecclus 2:17, “Those who fear the Lord will prepare their hearts, and will humble themselves before him,” so here it is humility that characterizes the penitent. Perhaps the traditional association of envy with pride has prompted this injunction to humility. (For meekness contrasted with envy see 3:13-14.) In common with both Jewish (Job 22:19; Prov 3:34; Ezek 17:24) and Christian tradition (Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Pet 5:6), James is convinced of the ultimate reversal of the present respective fortunes of the humble and the proud (cf. 1:9-10). The imperatives of vv. 7b-9 are expressed in a series of three couplets, which form an ab a1b1 a2b2 pattern: a

Resist the devil . . . (v. 7a) b Draw near to God (v. 8a)

James 3:1–4:12

229

a1 Cleanse your hands you sinners b1 Purify your hearts . . . you double-minded (v. 8b) a2 Be wretched . . . b2 Let your laughter be turned to mourning . . . (v. 9) In a1 and b1, language that had its origins in the physical prerequisites for access to God in Israel’s cult, is given a moral application. (Cf. Isa 1:16; Jer 4:14; Ps 16:6, which understand “clean hands” metaphorically, and 1 Pet 1:27; 1 John 3:3; Epistle of Barnabas 5:1; 8:8, which similarly spiritualize the language of purification.) The stark contrast between God and the devil (v. 7) forms the climax of moral opposites previously expressed in terms of blessing/cursing (3:9-10), wisdom from above/below (3:15-17), and friend of the world/enemy of God (4:4). Yet James does not attribute the cause of sin to the devil (diabolos [the accuser] is the LXX’s translation of the Hebrew satan [the adversary]; cf. Job 1:6-12). Like the “world” in verse 4, the devil here represents all that is opposed to God. Nonetheless, James insists upon humanity’s responsibility for sin. It is our choice. If we choose to live righteously, the devil will be defeated (cf. T. Naph. 8.4: “If you achieve good . . . the devil will flee you”; T. Sim. 3.3; T. Dan 5.1). The “double-minded” (cf. 1:8) on the other hand are those who have not wholeheartedly chosen to be on the side of good rather than evil (cf. Ecclus 2:12: “The sinner who walks along two ways”). James calls upon such vacillators to make up their minds. In language reminiscent of that used by the prophet Amos to confront his generation with the imminence of the Day of the Lord (Amos 8:10: “I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your ways into lamentation”; cf. Prov 14:13; 1 Macc 9:41; Tobit 2:6), James urges the fence-sitters among his readership to put a stop to this particular “party,” before God stops it for them! His message is a call to repent while there is still time. Speaking Ill of Others (4:11-12)

This somewhat discursive treatment of various vices associated with the tongue and its potential for contentiousness in 3:13–4:12 ends with a more obvious return to the topic of speech, which unites the larger thought unit 3:1–4:12. “To speak ill (katalalein)” of others is singled out as an especially grave offense (cf. 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Pet 2:1 where it is associated with envy;

230

Words and Wisdom

2 Cor 12:20 with selfishness; Pss. Sol. 12:3 with strife; T. Gad 3.3 with pride. In Herm. Sim. 8.7.2 it is a manifestation of “double-mindedness”). This reprise of the topic of the sins of the tongue begun in 3:1-12, takes an abb1a1 form: a

a1

An admonition: “Do not speak ill (katalaleite) against one another” (v. 11a). Here there is a move from the address “adulteresses” (v. 4), “sinners,” and “double-minded” (v. 8) in the preceding indictment and call to repentance, to “brothers.” This signals that the admonition is directed to all members of the Christian community. b (v. 11b) and b1 (vv. 11c-12b) give two reasons in support of the admonition. Repeats the admonition (a) by way of a rhetorical question: “But who are you that can judge (krinon) your neighbour?” (v. 12)

Once this is appreciated, then it becomes clear that by “to speak ill of ” (katalalein) James means “to judge” (krinein). From the context it is evident that “judge” does not mean “to exercise judgment” or come to a conclusion or decision. That would imply a verdict at least potentially favourable. No such openness is meant here, however. By “judge” James means “condemn” (cf. John 3:17; 7:51; 16:11; 1 Cor 5:12a). Equally, in juridical contexts, “to speak ill of ” carries a negative connotation. It means to slander or falsely accuse someone. Both verbs therefore have their origins in the condemnation of false testimony in the interests of a fair trial for all (Lev 19:15-16). James here extends the application of this vocabulary beyond the boundaries of the law court, however. He widens it beyond perjury to include all condemnatory judgments and fault-finding, whatever the context (cf. Rom 2:1,3; Col 2:16). This becomes clear in the two reasons given in support of the admonition (v. 11b): (a) To act in such a way is to slander and condemn the law, and (b) to condemn is to usurp the function of God. (a) James is not here saying, “To slander is to break the law prohibiting slander.” That would be tautologous. He is not referring to a specific law against slander, but to the royal law; the love of neighbour (plesios) (Lev 19:18) to which he has earlier appealed (2:8). (Cf. T. Gad 4:1-2: “Beware, my children, of those who hate, because it leads to lawlessness against the Lord himself. Hatred does not want to hear repeated his command concerning love of neighbour, and thus it sins against God.”) A similar injunction against condemning others is found in other NT writings, although different reasons are given. Elsewhere the appeal is either to one’s

James 3:1–4:12

231

own faults and failings (Matt 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42; Rom 2:1) and/or to the fact that to condemn is to usurp the divine prerogative (Rom 14:4; 1 Cor 4:4-5). (b) It is one thing to be a “doer” (cf. 1:22, 25) of the law of love. That is demanded of the faithful. To condemn others, on the other hand, is not. That is the prerogative of God, alone the “one lawgiver and judge.” Whilst ancient Judaism attached the epithet “lawgiver” to Moses (see Philo, Moses 2.9; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.284-5; Ant. 1.19), it nonetheless always acknowledged that God was the supreme revealer of those laws. Similarly the ultimate verdict of life or death lies wholly in God’s hands (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6-7; 2 Kgs 5:7. Cf. Mekilta tractate Amaleh 1 on Exod 17:9: ‘Is it God alone that can kill and bring back to life again, as it is said, “The Lord kills and makes alive” [1 Sam 2:6]? ‘). Although this admonition against being condemnatory toward others is not confined to breaches of the law of slander, the juridical register of the language used is ever present and sounds the note of eschatological judgment that is to dominate from 4:13 to the end of the letter.

Living in View of the End-time James (4:13–5:20)

The concluding exhortations of this final unit are set firmly within the context of a belief that the return of Christ will coincide with God’s final and definitive assize. James’ message of the imminence of the parousia is thus, at one and the same time, one of imminence of divine judgment. The language escalates from an appeal to patience “until the coming of the Lord” (5:7), through the more urgent “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8), to the climactic “the Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9). For some, that day will be one of slaughter (5:5). Therefore, James exhorts his readers to remember that they are “living in (contra RSV not “for”) the last days” (5:3), i.e., in the time immediately preceding the return of Christ, and the judgment it will bring. The themes of parousia and judgment, together with an insistence upon the imminence of both, unite this section’s subunits, and account for the letter’s concluding verse. The Transitoriness of Life (4:13-17) Those commentators, anxious to read every exhortation in James as directed to specific groups within James’ church, see this section as addressed to Christian merchants (Davids, 71; Moo, 154, well-off business men; Martin, 162, with Sadducean connections). Yet, given the conventional character of the language, it is impossible to be specific. In true rhetorical fashion, the style is conversational: “Come now” (4:13; 5:1; cf. Xenophon, Apology 14; Epictetus, Dissertations 1.20.20, 25; 1.6.37; 3.1.37). Two contrasting positions are put in the form of direct speech: “You who say” (4:13) = the view of the opponents. “Instead of saying” (4:15) = the view of the author.

234

Living in View of the End-time

The Tradesmen’s Future Plans (4:13)

This is no condemnation of trade (cf. Cicero, On Duties 1.150-151, who includes merchants, manual labourers, tax-gatherers and usurers among those whom, unlike gentlemen farmers, he regards as pursuing “vulgar” professions) nor wealth per se (as in 5:1-6), but a rebuttal of the assumption that humanity, rather than God, is in control of life and its future destiny. Against this James reminds his readers of the transitoriness of life. Verse 14a is best read as two sentences: “You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life?” (so most ETs), rather than one: “You do not know what sort of life you will have tomorrow” (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece). This was a common theme in both Jewish (Wis 2:1-2; Ecclus 11:18-9; 2 Esd 4:24; 1 En. 97:8) and pagan literature: “No one knows what will happen the day after tomorrow, or even an hour after now, for trouble has no regard for mortals and the future is uncertain” (Ps.-Phoc. 116-7; cf. Seneca, Epistles 1014; On the Shortness of Life 1.1-4; 8.1-19). The nearest parallel to the thought of “You boast (kauchasthe) in your arrogance” (4:16a), with its castigation of those who would make their plans without reference to God, however, is Proverbs 27:1: “Do not boast (me¯ kaucho¯ ) about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring.” More importantly, the image of mist, vapor, or smoke (atmis) was an established one, not only used to depict the transitoriness of life in general, but also to describe the final fate of God’s enemies. Thus they are likened to the mist that disappears with daybreak (Hos 13:3) or the smoke that disperses in the face of a wind (Wis 5:14) or is otherwise driven away (Ps 68:2; cf. 1QM 15.10 for this metaphor’s application to the fate of the wicked on the last day). The next section addresses a contrast to this. Reliance upon God (4:15-17)

The pious aside, “If the Lord (i.e., God) wills,” is not to be found in the OT or contemporary Jewish sources. It seems to have come into Christianity (e.g., Acts 18:21; 1 Cor 4:19; 16:17; Heb 6:3; 1 Pet 3:17; Ign. Eph. 20:1) from the Greco-Roman world (Plato, Phaedo 80D; Minucius Felix, Octavius 18.11; Corpus Hermeticum, Fragment 11A, 1-2; etc.), where it “played a ‘touch-wood’ role in popular superstition” (Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 192). The same cannot be said of the way James employs it. As the rest of the unit shows, James invests the phrase with more meaning than that of a conventional pious platitude. He uses it to remind his readers

James 4:13–5:20

235

of the impending judgment, whose outcome—whether life or death—is indeed in the hands of God. The phrase thus takes on eschatological overtones missing in its original pagan setting. “[Therefore] whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (v. 17). This may have originated as a general precept concerning sins of omission (cf. Job 31:16-18). If the change from the second person plural in the preceding verses to the third person singular here suggests that James is citing an established proverb or maxim, its source in unknown to us. As it stands, it is introduced by “Therefore” (oun) (omitted by the RSV translators) and functions as a summation of or conclusion to what has gone before. Whatever the origins of this saying, it is not used by James of sins of omission in general, but of one in particular—the failure to recognize our total dependence upon God for life itself. James confronts the arrogant self-sufficiency (“boasting,” v. 16) of those who plan their future as if it were in their control (v. 13). An Indictment of the Rich (5:1-6) Whereas 4:13-17 was directed to merchants, here the indictment is against rich landowners (cf. vv. 4-5). James says nothing good about the rich as a group (see 1:9-11; 2:1-13; cf. Matt 19:23). Here they are equated with the irredeemably wicked (cf. Prov 10:15-16; 14:20; 1 En. 94-105). Therefore, this passage is no call for their repentance, but a prophetic proclamation of impending judgment upon them. The indictment takes the form of: A call to mourning at the prospect of their own undoubted fate (5:1-3b) Reasons for this indictment (5:3c-6) A Call to Mourning (5:1-3b)

Here the cries and tears are not those of the humble penitent, but the distress of the wicked in the face of their imminent condemnation (cf. Isa 13:6; 15:3; Amos 8:3). This echoes the motif of the woes of the rich at the reversal of their fortunes at the eschaton, which we also find in Luke 6:24-25: “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation, Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger” (cf. 1 En. 94:9-11; 97:8-10). The perfect tense of the verbs (“have rotted,” “have been moth-eaten,” “have rusted”) in vv. 2-3a, easily gives way to the future tense (“will be evidence against you,” “will eat”) in v. 3b, expressing the prophetic anticipation of

236

Living in View of the End-time

things to come (Dibelius, 236). These verses should not be read, therefore, as a description of the state of the world market at the time in which James was writing, but as proleptic prophecy of what will ultimately happen to all material wealth. In verses 2-3a James uses images of rot, being moth-eaten (cf. Isa 51:8 where the fate of the enemies of the righteous is likened to a garment being eaten by moths), and rust—all conventional metaphors for decay. (Cf. Matt 6:19-20: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven . . . .”). In James the last image, rust, unlike the first two, is not principally employed to convey the idea of the transience of material possessions (if that were so, the choice of gold and silver as examples would be singularly inept since they are metals that do not rust), but to point to the destruction of their owners (“and will eat your flesh like fire,” v. 3b. For fire as a metaphor for divine judgment see Isa 30:27 [LXX]; Ps 21:9; Ezek 15:7; Jdt 16:17; Matt 25:41; 2 Pet 3:7; Jude 32; Rev 20:9, etc.). It is the very riches they have hoarded that will provide evidence for the conviction of the wealthy (= “their rust will be evidence against you”). (Cf. Ecclus 29:10: “Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost.”) Reasons for the Indictment (5:3c-6)

Three reasons are now given as to why the rich are to be condemned: (a) They have have ignored the fact that they are now living in the time immediately prior to the eschaton; (b) their victims have testified against them; and (c) they have oppressed the righteous. (5:3c, 5) Ignoring that They Are Living in the Last Days. “You have stored up wealth even in (contra RSV “for”) the last days (en eschatais hemerais, v. 3c)” (my italics). This indictment is repeated in v. 5: “You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter (en hemera sphages).” The latter phrase echoes Jer 12:3 (LXX), “Purify them for the day of their slaughter,” an imprecation that the wicked who prosper in the present might reap their ultimate reward! In Jewish tradition (cf. 1 En. 90:4) “a day of slaughter” became synonymous with God’s final judgment of the wicked. James indicts the rich for failing to appreciate not only the imminent parousia of Christ (5:18; cf. Heb 9:28; 12:26), but

James 4:13–5:20

237

also that they were living in the last days that immediately precede the judgment it will bring (cf. Acts 2:17; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2; 1 John 3:18; Jude 18). (5:4) Condemned by the Testimony of their Victims. Here the allegation is either that they “withheld” (aphystere¯menos) or that they “defrauded” (apestere¯menos) the wages of their agricultural labourers. Both readings have good Greek manuscript support. If “withheld” is accepted as the preferred reading, then this echoes the legislation of Lev 19:13, which forbids a daylabourer’s wages being withheld overnight by the employer (cf. T. Job 12:4). “Defrauded” or “robbed,” on the other hand, is the more likely reading, since the verse seems to allude to the more general stricture of Deut 24:1415, which forbids oppression of the labourer, “Lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be sin in you.” Ben Sira likens the robbing of the worker to the shedding of blood (Ecclus 34:22). Just as Abel’s blood cried out for vindication (Gen 4:10; 1 En. 22:5-7), so the cries of the defrauded harvesters reach the ears of God, “the Lord of hosts” (sabaoth, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew seba’ot = armies). (For God as the commander of Israel’s armies see 1 Sam 17:45. Ps 103:21 depicts God as the leader of heaven’s hosts.) This verse takes the established Jewish belief that God hears the cry of the righteous, especially the martyrs (cf. 1 En. 47:1: “In these days, the prayers of the righteous ascended to heaven, and the blood of the righteous from the earth before the Lord of spirits”), and applies it to the exploited laborers in their appeal to God for justice. (5:6) Oppressing the Righteous. This is the culmination of James’ indictment. Behind it lies not only the castigation of the rich for perverting the course of justice in the interests of their own gain, and thereby “condemning” the poor to poverty, which we find in the prophetic corpus (Amos 2:6; 5:12; Mic 2:2, 6-9), but also an understanding, similar to that of Israel’s wisdom tradition, which interprets such oppression as a test of faith: Let us oppress the righteous poor man . . . because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions . . . Let us test him with insult and torture, that we might find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for according to what he says, he will be protected. (Wis 2:10, 12, 19, 20) This harkens back to the theme of trial in 1:2-12.

238

Living in View of the End-time

The last phrase of the indictment, “he does not resist you” (v. 6b), is ambiguous in the Greek text. It can be taken in one of three ways: (a) as a new sentence, in which case the subject of the verb “resist” may or may not be “the righteous person”; (b) as a statement, “He does not resist you”; or (c) as a question, “Does he not resist you?”—implying, “Yes, he does!” (Davids, 180). Clearly, if it is a statement, God is unlikely to be the subject, since He opposes the wicked. In which case it is the righteous person, or Christ as the exemplary righteous one, who refuses to rail against the oppressor (cf. Isa 53:5-7; Matt 5:39; Rom 12:19; Herm. Mand. 8:10). Alternatively, if we understand verse 6b as a question, then the subject is either God (Schökel, “James 5.6 and 4.6,” 73-76), the exalted Christ, who prosecutes the wicked in the heavenly court (Feuillet, “Le Sens du Mot Parousia dans l’ évangile de Matthieu,” 272-80), or the righteous person, whose voice refuses to be stifled. Given its context, whether a statement or a question, the referent is more likely to be the righteous/poor, whose forbearance is put to the test. Exhortations in View of the Imminent Return of the Lord (5:7-11) Although “Lord” is used in this letter as a title for God (3:9; 5:4), here it refers to Christ. The word parousia is never applied to God in the LXX, although it is so used in intertestamental Jewish writings (e.g., T. Jud. 22:2; T. Levi 8:11; 2 Bar. 55:6; see Cantinat, 232.) In secular Greek it can mean either the “presence” of a person, as opposed to his/her absence (Sophocles, Electra 948; cf. 2 Cor 10:10 where Paul uses it of himself ), or the “arrival” or visit especially of a royal or official personage (Tebtunis Papyri 48.14). Although in Christian tradition the word can be applied to the incarnation, i.e., the “first” coming (Ign. Phld. 9.2), it is more often reserved for the “second” coming of Christ (see Justin, Dialogue 49.8, who speaks of the two parousiai), i.e., Jesus’ original coming and his return when he will judge the wicked (Matt 24:37, 39; 2 Thess 2:8) and deliver the faithful (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). What links this sub-unit with what has gone before is the theme of the imminence of the parousia. In the preceding sections (4:13–5:6) the addressees are the unbelieving, self-sufficient rich. For them, the return of the Lord constitutes a threat, which, according to James, they have not taken seriously. Here he turns from them to address the faithful “brethren” (vv. 7, 9). In their case a belief in the imminence of the Lord’s return is a cause for hope, which in turn should have implications (cf. “Therefore,” v. 7) for the

James 4:13–5:20

239

present. It provides both a motivation for perseverance and the basis for an exhortation to patience. Verses 7-11 thus form a direct address to the faithful that consists of exhortations (vv. 7-9) and examples of the virtues which are being enjoined (vv. 10-11). Exhortations (5:7-9)

The faithful “brethren” are admonished to be patient like the farmer, to remain steadfast, and to avoid grumbling against one another. (5:7-8a) “Be Patient . . .” Here the emphasis is upon expectant waiting. Unlike 2 Peter (3:3, 9), it does not seem to be addressed to those who, in the face of the delayed parousia, deny that it will ever come. Nor (unlike Mark 13:28-37; 1 Thess 5:1) is there any indication that the recipients of this particular letter were preoccupied with the exact time of the Lord’s return. James is content with the affirmation, “It is near” (v. 8. Elsewhere in the New Testament the self-same affirmation is made of “the kingdom of God” [Mark 1:15 // Matt 4:17; Luke 21:31]; “the day” [Rom 13:12; Heb 10:25]; “the Lord” [Phil 4:5]; “the time” [Rev 1:3; 22:16]; and “the end of all things” [1 Pet 4:7].). As in the case of the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:2629), so here the farmer does not doubt that the rains will come to ensure the harvest. In Palestine and Syria, seventy-five per cent of the rainfall occurs between December and February. Yet it is the early rains of October/November and the late rains of April/May which are the most crucial; the former, since they coincide with the sowing period, and the latter, since they come at a vital stage in the crop’s development. Ralph Martin (187, 191) sees these verses as addressed to the situation of Palestine in the 60s, specifically to oppose those members of the Zealot movement who had embarked upon a campaign of violence and murder against the rich (see Josephus, J.W. 2.264f ). James’ exhortation to them is to desist from violence and await the imminent judgment of God, which will deal with all such oppressors. The general and conventional character of the example of the patient farmer used here by James, however, should caution us against reading this passage against any such specific historical background. Neither here nor in 1:2-12 is there any suggestion that the recipients of this letter were being persecuted. Hence, unlike 1 Peter (4:12-14), the theme of the imminence of the parousia is not overtly linked to persecution,

240

Living in View of the End-time

which was thought to presage the end-time (see Mark 13:9-13 –> 13:29; Luke 21:12-19 –> 21:31). (5:8a) “Be Resolute/Steadfast.” Here, the verb (ste¯rizein) translated by the RSV as “establish [your hearts]” and in the NRSV as “strengthen [your hearts]” means to resolve firmly or to adhere to something. The reason why the believer should remain steadfast is given in the second half of the verse: “Because the Lord is near”; i.e., the parousia is imminent (cf. 1 Thess 3:13). (5:9) “Do Not Grumble . . .” Here, the verb (stenazein) means to groan or sigh and is normally used to describe one’s response to adverse circumstances. Here we have to groan “against one another.” It is best understood in the sense of “Do not blame each other” (when things are difficult). (See Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 700). Once more, the imminence of God’s final judgment is the reason given for this exhortation. “That you may not be judged” has clear resonances with Matt 7:1, “Judge not that you may not be judged.” Clearly the injunction to “Judge not” also lies behind 4:11-12. Yet unlike this earlier passage, here what is prohibited is mutual blaming, not condemnatory fault-finding. What is common to 4:11-12 and 5:9 therefore is not the particular exhortation, but the self-same reason given for obedience, namely the judgment of God. The affirmation, “There is one judge” in 4:12 has now taken on a climactic urgency: “The judge is standing at the door” (5.9; cf. Matt 24:23). Christ at his return is thus depicted as exercising judgment on God’s behalf (cf. 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 3:10. In John [5:22, 30] this is anticipated in the earthly ministry of Jesus.). Positive Examples (5:10-11)

Just as both Jewish (e.g., Ecclus 44–50) and Christian (Heb 11; 1 Clem. 419) authors used role models drawn from the past as exemplars of religious virtue, so here we have a depiction of the prophets as models of patience and Job as an example of steadfastness. (5:10-11a) The Prophets. “Suffering and patience” is better understood as a hendiadys and thus indicates not two virtues but one, namely, patience in the face of adversity. The particular word for “suffering” (kakopathia) only occurs here in the New Testament. In the Septuagint (Mal 1:13; cf. 2 Macc 2:26-27) it conveys a sense of hardship or difficulty in general. Israel’s

James 4:13–5:20

241

prophets came to epitomize those who endured the particular hardship of rejection and persecution. This is evident in The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, a Jewish work of the fourth century CE that contains traditions that probably go back to the second century BCE (see Knibb, “The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 143-76). Part of the oldest strand of the book (1:1–3:12; 5:1-6) recounts the legend of the prophet Isaiah’s martyrdom at the hands of Manasseh. The New Testament’s depiction of the prophets as exemplars of the persecuted (Matt 5:12; 23:2-39; Luke 11:49; Mark 12:1-9; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15; cf. Justin, Dialogue 16), has no doubt been coloured by a Christian understanding of the rejection of Jesus as the rejection of him as the prophet par excellence. In the stories of the Maccabean martyrs the vocabulary of “endurance” (hypomone¯), applied as it is to the priest Eleazar and his sons in their defiance of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 6:18–7:4), carries with it overtones of heroic fortitude. Hence, those who exhibit this virtue in the face of persecution and martyrdom are those who are blessed by God (4 Macc 1:10; 7:22; cf. Matt 5:10). In James, however, there is nothing to suggest that his audience was facing martyrdom. He uses the language of “endurance” to indicate patience in the face of any and every adversity, which should be the hallmark of faith in the parousia. (5:11b) Job. As an example of one who had to face adversity, it is easy to see why James chose Job. It is less easy to understand, at least from the Job of the canonical book of that name, how he exemplifies one who refrained from grumbling (see 5;9), however. True, the Job of the prologue (Job 1:1–2:10) and epilogue (Job 42:10-16) is uncomplaining and steadfastly refuses to curse God for his misfortune. But the intervening dialogues between Job and his friends, which constitute the bulk of the book, could be described as one long complaint to God by Job! To understand the place of Job in Jewish and Christian tradition, it is important to remember that stories circulated about him both prior to and after our canonical book. In Ezekiel 14:14, 20 (along with Noah and Daniel) his name is a byword for righteousness. Many scholars think that the author of the book of Job drew upon earlier folktale traditions and made them the setting for his particular interpretation of the story. Undoubtedly, James appeals to the resigned, steadfast Job of the prologue and epilogue rather than the rebellious figure of the dialogues. Here he is at one with contemporary Jewish and Christian presentations of Job that downplay the latter and extol him as a man who exhibited the virtue of steadfastness in the face of adversity. As a Gentile “Everyman,”

242

Living in View of the End-time

he was an exemplar for both communities of faith. In later rabbinical writings Job’s virtues were confined to his pretrial years. “There was no more righteous Gentile than Job, yet he came only with reproaches” (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2.4). In the first and second centuries CE, however, he is presented as a positive rather than a negative exemplar (in 1 Clem. 17:3; 26:3). He admits his sin and hopes for resurrection. Thus, in the Testament of Job (first century BCE to first century CE ; see Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 829-68), like Abraham he is portrayed as a liberal host and an iconoclast of idolatry. In fact, the roles of Job and his friends are interchanged, so that it is they rather than he who lament his bitter fate (T. Job 38:2), and Job’s complaint is put onto the lips of his wife, Sitis (T. Job 1:24, 25, 39). Above all, like James, the T. Job (1:2; 4:5-6; 27:3-10; 39:11-13) commends Job for his “endurance” (hypomone¯). In the case of Job, James directs his readers not only to the virtue of steadfastness, but also to its vindication in the outcome of the story, which has a happy ending. The NRSV, RSV, and JB translate to telos kuriou as “the purpose of the Lord.” By “Lord,” James almost certainly means God (so Herm. Sim. 5.7.4). Rather than “purpose,” however, telos is better understood here as “outcome” (see T. Benj. 4:1; T. Ash. 6:4; 4 Macc 12:3), directing the reader to the “end” of the story of Job, where God exercises compassion and mercy in restoring (cf. Exod 34:6; Ps 103:8; 111:4) his lost fortunes (Job 42:10-17). Augustine (Epistle 140.1026) took “end” to mean the death (cf. Wis 3:19) of Christ, thereby making this verse a reference to the twin testimonies of Job and Jesus. In so doing he avoided the problem of why (unlike 1 Pet 2:21; cf. Heb 12:2 where Jesus completes the list of the heroes of faith) it is Job and not Jesus who is held out to a Christian audience as the example of steadfastness in the face of adversity. Yet, as Sophie Laws (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 218) points out, in James, “What we have evidence for is not a rejection of the example of Jesus, but a use of the example of Job; and that in itself is perfectly understandable.” At the least it should remind us that in early Christianity Job was seen as part of a tradition that was worthy of citation in its own right. Concluding Exhortations (5:12-20) The final subunit contains prohibitions or exhortations followed by reasons or promises. It may be structured as follows:

James 4:13–5:20

243

• The prohibition of oaths (v. 12ab) + the reason for such a prohibition (v. 12c) • Exhortation to prayer addressed to individuals (vv. 13-14) + promise of salvation (v. 15) • Exhortations addressed to the group (vv. 16-20) to confession and prayer (v. 16a) + promises that prayer will be effective (vv. 16b-18) and sinners will be saved (vv. 19-20) Not all hellenistic letters ended with greetings and/or benedictions. Some just came to an abrupt end (see Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John,” 125). Others closed with a health wish sometimes introduced by “above all” (pro panton) (see Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography, 114). Here there is no overt health wish. Although “above all” can signal the most important in a series (cf. 1 Pet 4:8; see Baker, “‘Above all Else’: Contexts of the Call for Verbal Integrity in James 5:12,” 57-71 who claims that it introduces the last in a series of negative admonitions concerning speech, begun at 4:11-12), here it is more probably used by way of emphasis to introduce the author’s concluding remarks (cf. “finally” [loipon] in 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 3:1). In hellenistic letters it can also precede a concluding oath formula (see Exler, 127-32). Yet far from incorporating any such, James specifically proscribes all oath-taking. Prohibition of Oaths (5:12)

Although v. 12 links with what has gone before, notably in the self-same reason given for the prohibition—to avoid God’s condemnation (cf. 5:9)— here we have a self-standing injunction specifically prohibiting the taking of oaths in particular, rather than (as Vouga, L’Épître de Saint Jacques, 138 suggests) a reprise of the general theme of the misuse of the tongue, taken up from 3:3-10. Telling the truth was widely regarded as a sacred duty in the ancient world, as can be seen not only in Christian but early Egyptian, Babylonian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman writings (see Baker, 59). Similarly widespread was the practice of invoking the deity to testify to the veracity of one’s speech (see Dibelius, 248-51). Such oaths were to be taken with the utmost seriousness, however, since, as Philo pointed out: “An oath is an appeal to God as a witness on matters in dispute, and to call Him as witness to a lie is the height of profanity” (Decalogue 86).

244

Living in View of the End-time

The deity’s name was invoked where there was no independent witness to vouch for the truth of the speaker (Exod 22:10-11) or when making a pledge or vow, when God was called upon as guarantor that its terms would be fulfilled (Exod 30:2). (In rabbinic literature a distinction came to be made between oaths and vows, and the two dealt with respectively in the Mishnah’s tractates Sˇebu’ot and Nedarim). In Israel’s tradition that Deity was the one Lord God, by whose name alone was it permissible to swear (Deut 6:13; cf. Jer 12:16). Since swearing falsely, i.e., to commit perjury, was thought to incur the penalty of God’s curse (Num 5:19-22), it is small wonder that in this tradition we find warnings against taking oaths lightly (Deut 5:11; cf. Jer 5:2; 7:9; Hos 4:2; Zech 5:3-5; Mal 3:5). By the first century CE the use of the divine name was forbidden (CD 15:1-2; 1QS 6.27), although lesser substitutes were acceptable (Philo, Spec. Laws 2.2-5; cf. Matt 23:16-22 where Jesus insists that this should not make the vow any less binding). The mistrust of the excessive use of oaths (cf. Ecclus 23:9-11) led some to recommend their avoidance wherever possible. Thus Philo advises: To swear not at all is the best course and most profitable to life, well suited to a rational nature which has been taught to speak the truth so well on each occasion that the words are regarded as oaths; to swear truly is only, as people say, a “second-best voyage,” for the mere fact of swearing casts suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man. (Decalogue 84) A similar sentiment is expressed by the Stoic writer, Epictetus (CE 55–135): “Avoid an oath altogether if you can, and if not, then as much as possible in the circumstances” (Manual 33.5). All oath-taking was frowned upon among some pagan and Jewish groups. According to the third century CE writer Diogenes Laertius (Lives of the Philosophers 8.2203), Pythagoras forbade oaths. First-century support for this may be found in Josephus, who likened the Essenes to Pythagoreans (Jewish Antiquities 15.371) and claimed that neither did they take oaths (Jewish War 2.135; cf. Philo, Every Good Man Is Free 84). The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, show that the Qumran Covenanters could not have maintained an absolute ban in all circumstances, since their members were obliged to take an oath of allegiance upon joining the community (1QS 2.1-18; 5.8-11; CD 16.1-9; cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.139, 142 for the solemn oath of allegiance taken by the Essenes). Equally there seems to have been diversity vis-à-vis oath-taking among early Christians. Thus, on the one hand the apostle Paul is not averse to

James 4:13–5:20

245

calling upon God to witness the veracity of his words (Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Thess 2:5, 10; Phil 1:8; cf. Gal 1:20)—and thereby in effect employing an oath formula—whereas Matt 5:34-37, like Jas 5:12, forbids all oaths. In the Gospel this is cited as a logion of Jesus. Strikingly, in James it is attributed to no authority other than that of the author of the letter. The following similarities and differences between James’ teaching concerning oath-taking and that found in the Sermon on the Mount are observable: James 5:12 Prohibition of all oaths “Do not swear . . . with any . . . oath”

Matthew 5:34-37 Prohibition of all oaths “Do not swear at all”

Examples by heaven by earth

Examples by heaven by earth by Jerusalem by your head

Theological rationale

Theological rationale to swear by these = to swear by God

Injunction Be absolutely truthful. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” (cf. Justin, Apology 16.5)

Injunction Use plain speaking. “Say simply, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’.”

Threat of God’s condemnation of untruthfulness

Condemnation of saying anything more

The similarities suggest that an original Jesus logion may well lie behind this prohibition. There are differences, however, that are best explained not by a dependence of one author upon the other, but by their independent use of traditional material. Thus, whereas in Matthew (5:34, 36) the prohibition is in the aorist tense, “Do not begin to . . .,” in James it is in the present, “Do

246

Living in View of the End-time

not continue to . . . .” The Gospel is more expansive; it includes more examples and provides a theological rationale for the injunction. Although there are Jewish sources (e.g., Mekilta, tractate Yitro [Bahodesh] . 5 [66b]; 2 En. 49:1-2) that show in some circles the duplicated, emphatic “Yes-yes” or “No-no” was used virtually as an oath formula, it is unlikely (contra Dibelius, 249-51) that Matthew depicts Jesus as recommending the adoption of this particular substitute rather than prohibiting oaths altogether. Whatever differences there are between the two versions of this Jesus logion, therefore, Matthew and James are agreed on the central point: one’s word should not require any oath to vouch for its truthfulness. Individuals Exhorted to Prayer (5:13-14)

Nowhere is the pastoral orientation of James more evident than in this concluding section. Whether individually (vv. 13-14) or collectively (vv. 1620), the recipients, as a community of faith, are addressed en famille. The mode of address to individuals takes the rhetorical form of a question, “Is any one among you . . . ?” followed by the imperative, “Let him . . . .” The verb “suffer” (kakopathein) gives no clue as to the particular circumstances of the recipients of the letter, since it can be used of any kind of adversity or hardship (cf. 5:10 where it is used of the experience of the prophets). Three modes of prayer are enjoined: (1) petition in the face of adversity (2) praise in times of happiness (For the association of prayer with singing see 1 Cor 14:15; Col 3:16-17; Eph 5:19-20) (3) intercession for the sick offered by “the elders” In the Gospels, “elders” (presbyteroi) are the lay leaders of the Jewish synagogues. Similarly, at Qumran the term designates the community’s nonpriestly leadership (1QSa 1.23-25; 2.16). Luke (in Acts 11:30; 15:2; 16:4) appropriates the term for the Christian leaders of the Jerusalem church and those churches founded by Paul (14:23; 20:17), although it is not a word normally used in this way by Paul in his letters. Quite evidently there was no one title used for leaders in the Christian communities of the first century. Hence Acts 20:28 has Paul address the “elders” of Miletus also as “overseers” (episkopoi; cf. Phil 1:1). Similarly in the Deutero-Pauline letters Christian leaders can be addressed either as “overseers” (1 Tim 3:1) or “elders” (1 Tim 5:17; Tit 1:5; cf. 1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1).

James 4:13–5:20

247

In enjoining “the elders” to pray for the sick, James by no means restricts such acts of intercession to those who hold a special office in the church. The injunction to “pray over him” may refer to the laying on of hands (cf. Mark 16:18 for laying hands on the sick). Anointing with oil, sometimes mixed with wine (Isa 1:6; Ant. 17.172; J.W. 1.657; cf. Luke 10:34), was a common medicinal practice in the ancient world (see Schlier, “Aleipho,” 229-32) and sometimes associated with exorcism (Mark 6:13; see Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, 112). There is nothing here, however, to suggest that “the elders” are healers or exorcists. Therefore, their use of oil in anointing the sick is more likely to be as a symbol of divine blessing rather than as a medicinal practice. In biblical tradition oil, used to anoint the head and the body, was associated with prosperity and joy—signs of God’s blessing (Eccles 9:8; Ps 23:5; 45:7; 92:10; 133:2; Isa 61:3; Prov 27:9; cf. Matt 26:6-13 // Luke 7:36-50; John 13:1-15). Douglas Moo (179-81) appeals to the practice of anointing priests (Ex 40:15; Ant. 6.165, 167) to claim that James’ message here is that the sick are similarly “set apart” for God’s special favor. This seems unlikely, since nowhere else does the letter show any interest in the priestly or cultic. Anointing with oil, therefore, is better understood as a symbol of God’s mercy, not to a priestly caste in particular (even understood as the priesthood of all believers), but to all who are in distress, in this case especially the sick. Unlike the medieval church’s practice of extreme unction, here healing rather than the preparation for death is to the fore, and “the anointing is with the promise of life, not an anticipation of one’s preparing for death” (Martin, 202). This should be done “in the name of the Lord,” i.e., by releasing the power evoked by the name of Jesus (so Mussner, 220-21; cf. Luke 10:17; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10; 9:34). A Promise of Salvation (5:15)

To this exhortation James adds a promise: the sick will be saved by intercessory prayer offered to God in faith. Although the verb “to save” (so¯ zein) is usually used in this letter of God’s final, eschatological judgment (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:20) and we can find evidence elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Rom 14:2; 1 Cor 8:11-12) for the use of “to be sick” [asthenein] in a spiritual rather than a physical sense, here it seems to refer to restoration to physical wellbeing (see Mark 5:23, 28-34; 10:52; John 11:12). A person suffering will be thus literally “raised up” from his/her sickbed (see Mark 1:31; 2:9-12; 9:2-7; Matt 9:5-7; Acts 3:7). Which is not to say that for James the physical and the

248

Living in View of the End-time

spiritual are separate entities. Hence he immediately follows a promise of restoration to physical health with an assurance of the forgiveness of sins. He does not, however, explore the connection between the two, either to affirm (cf. Deut 28:58-62; 2 Kgs 20:2; Job 1:18; Ecclus 3:26-27; 1 Cor 11:30-32; Mishnah tractate Shabbat 2.6) or to deny (cf. Job 9:13-21; 13:13-14; 21:426; John 9:1-3; see Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 4, 525-27) that there necessarily is one. The Group Exhorted to Confession and Prayer (5:16a)

The link between sin and illness, forgiveness and salvation is continued from the preceding verse. Now, however, it is not only the elders who are encouraged to intercede on behalf of the sick; the whole group is to constitute a community of mutual prayer. Thus they are all exhorted to confess their sins to one another (For the public confession of sins see Mark 1:5; Matt 3:6; Acts 19:18; 1 John 1:9; 1 Clem. 51.3; 52.1; Did. 4.14; 14.1; Epistle of Barnabas 19.12; Herm. Vis. 1.1.3; 31.5-6; Sim. 9.23.4) and to pray for one another. Two Promises (5:16b-20)

James concludes, not with an epistolary greeting or benediction, but with two promises used by way of encouragement for the community to continue to pray: that prayer will be effective and that sinners will be saved. (5:16b-18) Effectiveness of Prayer. A belief in the powerful efficacy of the prayers of the righteous is strong in Jewish tradition. Thus Abraham (Gen 18:25ff; 20:17), Enoch (1 En. 13:4-6), Moses (Ex 32:11-14, 31-37; cf. Assumption of Moses 11:14, 17; 12:6), prophets such as Amos (Amos 7:2-3, 5-6) and Jeremiah (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:2), and the Maccabean martyrs (2 Macc 7:37f ) are all depicted as those whose prayers were heard by God. Similarly, James (5:17) appeals to the example of Elijah in an allusion to the accounts of his success first in praying for drought (1 Kgs 17:1; cf. Ecclus 48:3) and then for rain (1 Kgs 18:42-46). (Hence the later rabbis came to call Elijah, “the key of rain” [see Strack and Billerbeck, vol. 4, 769].) Far from being overawed by such exploits, the Christian should take encouragement from them. After all, Elijah too “was a human being like us “ (NRSV). To be righteous is not to be sinless or perfect.

James 4:13–5:20

249

(5:19-20) Sinners Will Be Saved. The final promise concerns those who have abandoned their original life of Christian discipleship. Their fate is not irrevocably sealed; they may be brought back into the community of faith. The final phrase, “will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins,” is somewhat ambiguous. The recipient of salvation and forgiveness could be either the reclaimer (so Cantinat, 262; Adamson, 202-204)— presumably as a reward for his/her endeavors—or both the reclaimer and the sinner, the former who thereby has his/her sins forgiven and the latter as the one who is saved by such a reclamation (so Ropes, 315-16; Dibelius, 258-60; Mussner, 253; Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 240-41). The problem with this is that the two phrases would more naturally be taken together with the one common predicate. More likely, therefore, is a third option that sees here a promise of salvation and forgiveness even for the apostate if she or he returns to the church (so Davids, 201; Moo, 190). Even the sin of apostasy can be “covered,” or forgiven (For the “covering” of sins see Ps 32:1; 85:2; Dan 4:24; Ecclus 5:6; Tobit 4:10; Rom 4:7), and thereby the penalty of eternal death (James 1:15; cf. Deut 30:19; Job 8:13; Ps 1:6; Prov 2:18; 12:28; 14:12; 15:10; 2 Esd = 4 Ezra 7:48; 2 Bar. 85:13) averted. A version of Proverbs 10:12 (MT, “Love cancels all offenses”; LXX, “Friendship [philia] covers all who do not love strife,” quoted as “Love covers a multitude of sins” in 1 Pet 4:8; 1 Clem. 49.5; 2 Clem. 16.4), seems to lie behind the letter’s final words. In later Christian writing this came to be considered a dominical saying (see Clem. of Alexandria, Tutor 3.91.3). Although not overtly stated, the implication is that a sinner’s reclamation is the result of prayer. No specific sin is mentioned. Rather, “the sinner” is the one who “wanders from the truth” (cf. LXX Isa 9:15; Jer 23:17; Ezek 33:10; 34:4 where this describes the idolater), i.e., one who has abandoned the Christian community. Unlike the Qumran Covenanters who cursed any member who subsequently left the group (1QS 2.13-14), or the author of 1 John (5:16) who places those who commit “mortal” sin beyond the pale of intercessory prayer, or the Letter to the Hebrews (6:4-6; 10:26), which gives the apostate no second chance (see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 93-97), James concludes with a promise, held out by way of encouragement even to the apostate, that restoration is possible; the wanderer who is led back into the Christian fold can be assured of God’s forgiveness and salvation.

Works Cited

Adams, J. C. “Exegesis of Heb 6:1ff.” NTS 13 (1967): 378-85. Adamson, J. B. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976. Alexander, P. S. “Aqedah.” In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden. London: SCM Press, 1990: 44-47. ______. “Midrash.” In Coggins and Houlden, 452-59. Anderson, F. I. “2 [Slavonic Apocalypse of ] Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 91-100. London: DLT, 1983. Attridge, H. W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. ______. “Heard Because of His Reverence (Heb 5.7).” JBL 98 (1979): 9093. Aune, D. E. Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ______. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1988. Bailey, J. L., and L. D.Van der Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament. SPCK: London, 1992. Baker, W. R. “‘Above all Else’: Contexts of the Call for Verbal Integrity in James 5:12.” JSNT 54 (1994): 57-71. Bakker, A. “Was Christ an Angel?” ZNW 32 (1993): 255-65. Best, E. 1 Peter. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971. Brown, R. E. “Does the NT Call Jesus God?” TS 26 (1965): 545-73.

252

Works Cited

______, and J. P. Meier. Antioch and Rome. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NLC. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1965. Buchanan, G. W. To the Hebrews. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1972. Cantinat, J. Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. Carroll, K. L. “The Place of James in the Early Church.” BJRL 44 (1961): 49-67. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vols. 1-2. London: DLT, 1983. Chester, A., and R. P. Martin. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Cody, A. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. Analecta Biblica 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press, 1990. Cohn-Sherbok, D. “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis.” SJT 35 (1982). Cullman, O. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1963. D’Angelo, M. R. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBLDS. Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Davids, P. H. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. IGNTC. Exeter: Paternoster Press/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. De Jonge, M., and A. S. van der Woude. “11Q Melchizedek and the NT.” NTS 12 (1965/6): 301-326. De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. London: DLT, 1961. Dibelius, M. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making: An Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM Press, 1980. Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993. ______. “Just Like Melchizedek.” The Biblical Translator 28 (1977): 236-39.

Works Cited

253

Elliott, John H. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Elliott, J. K. “When Jesus Was Apart from God: An Examination of Heb 2.9.” ExpT 83 (1972): 339-41. Elliot-Binns, L.E. “The Meaning of hule in James 3.5.” NTS 2 (1956). Exler, F. X. J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1925. Feuillet, A. “Le Sens du Mot Parousia dans l’ évangile de Matthieu.” In The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Essays in Honour of C. H. Dodd), edited by D. Daube and W. D. Davies, 272-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Filson, F. F. ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. SBT 4. London: SCM, 1967. Francis, F. O. “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John.” ZNW 61 (1970): 110-26. Fuller, R. H. The Foundation of New Testament Christology. London: Lutterworth, 1965. Hadidian, D. Y. “Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James.” ExpT 63 (1952): 224-28. Hanson, A. T. The Living Utterance of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993. Hartin, P. J. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTS 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLNTS 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. Hengel, M. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. London: SCM Press, 1976. ______. “The Letter of James as anti-Pauline Polemic.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, edited by G.F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans/Tubingen: Mohr, 1987, 248-78. Héring, J. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970. Higgins, A. J. B. “The Priestly Messiah.” NTS 13 (1966/67): 211-29. Hopkins, R. Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Exposition, 1969.

254

Works Cited

Horbury, W. “The Aaronic Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JSNT 19 (1983): 43-71. Horton, F. L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century AD and the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1977. Hull, J. M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. SBT 28. London: SCM, 1974. Hurst, L. D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background and Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge University, 1990. Hurst, L. D. “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. vii.5 and ix.23f?” JTS 34 (1983): 156-68. Isaacs, M. E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament. Heythrop Monographs 1. London: Heythrop College, 1976. ______. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTS 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ______. “Hebrews.” In Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context: Essays in Honour of Morna D. Hooker, edited by J. Barclay and J. Sweet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ______. “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” HeyJ 38 (1997): 5162. ______. “Hebrews 13:9-16 Revisited.” NTS 43 (1997): 262-84. Jeremias, J. “Paul and James.” ExpT 66 (1954/55): 368-71. Jervell, J. Imago Dei. Gen 1.26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen. Gottingen: Vandenbroeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Jewett, R. Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1975. Johnson, M. D. “Life of Adam and Eve.” In Charlesworth, vol. 2, 249-95. Johnson, L. T. “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James.” JBL (1982): 391-401. ______. “James 3:13–4:10, and the topos peri phthonou.” NTS 25 (1983): 327-47.

Works Cited

255

______. “Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James.” In Discipleship in the New Testament, edited by F. F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985: 166-83. ______. The Letter of James. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Käseman, E. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In Charlesworth, vol. 2, 777-81. Kirk, J. A. “The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis.” NTS 16 (1969): 24-38. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Knibb, M. A. “The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.” In Charlesworth, vol. 2, 143-76. Knox, W. L. “The Divine Hero Christology of the NT.” HTR 41 (1948). Koester, H. “Hypostasis.” In Kittel and Friedrich, vol. 3 (1972). ______. “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13:9-14,” HTR 55 (1962): 299315. Kümmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. 2d ed, n. 37. London: SCM Press, 1975. Lane, W. L. Hebrews. Vols. 1-2. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1991. Laws, S. “The Doctrinal Basis for Ethics in James.” Studia Evangelica (1973). Vol. 7, 299-305. ______. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. BNTC. Oxford: A and C Black, 1980. ______. “Does the Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of James v.5.” NTS 20 (1973): 210-15. Lodge, J. G. “James and Paul at the Crossroads? James 2.22.” Biblica 62 (1981): 195-213. Longenecker, R. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans/Exeter: Paternoster, 1975. Malherbe, A. J. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Source Book. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

256

Works Cited

Manson, T. W. “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” BJRL 32 (1949–1950): 1-17. ______. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951. Marcus, J. “The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James.” CBQ 44 (1982): 606-621. Martin, R. P. James. WBC 48. Waco TX: Word Books, 1988. Mayor, J. B. The Epistle of James. London: MacMillan, 1913. Meeks, W. A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Michel, O. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Meyer Kommentar 13. Göttingen, Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 1966. Milgrom, J. “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly `Picture of Dorian Gray’.” RB 83 (1976): 390-99. Moffatt, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commenatary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1924. Moo, D. J. James. TNTC. Leicester: IVP/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Mowinckel, S. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. Mussner, F. Der Jakobusbrief. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Nairne, A. The Epistle of Priesthood. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1915. Nestle, E., and K. Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th edition. UBS, 7thed. NASB. Stutgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstal, 1993. Neusner, J. Early Rabbinic Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Neyrey, J. H. “I said ‘You Are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and John 10.” JBL 108 (1989): 647-63. Nicholson, E. W. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the OT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. London: SCM/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Pearson, B. A. Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Peterson, D. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: University Press, 1982.

Works Cited

257

Pfitzner, V. C. Paul and the Agon Motif : Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. SBT 15. London: SCM, 1955. Reicke, B. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Ropes, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1916. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: DLT, 1977. Sanders, J. T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. Cambridge: University Press, 1971. Schlier, H. “Aleipho.” In Kittel and Friedrich, vol.1, 229-32 (1964). Schökel, L. A. “James 5.6 and 4.6, ” Bib 54 (1973): 73-76. Scholer, J. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood In the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTS 49. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Seitz, O. J. F. “Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” NTS 6 (1959): 82-95. Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, and 2 Peter. New Century Bible. London: Nelson, 1967. Soden, H. von. “Adelphos.” In Kittel and Friedrich, vol. 1, 144-46. Spicq, C. L’Épître aux Hébreux. Vols. 1-2. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953. Spittler, R. P. “Testament of Job.” In Charlesworth, vol. 1, 829-68. Stambaugh, J., and D. Balch. The Social World of the Early Christians. London: SPCK, 1986. Stowers, S. K. “The Diatribe.” In Aune, 71-84. Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zur Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 4 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1928. Swetnam, J. “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bib 70 (1989): 79-95. Synge, F. C. Hebrews and the Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1959. Talbert, C. H. Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the NewTestament and its Milieu. Zacchaeus Studies. Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991.

258

Works Cited

Thompson, J. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982. ______. “‘Outside the Camp’: A Study of Heb 13.9-14.” CBQ 40 (1979): 53-63. Townsend, M. “James 4.1-4: A Warning against Zealotry?” ExpT 82 (1976). Turner, N. “The Style of the Epistle of James.” In J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4, 114-20. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1976. Urbach, E. E. The Sages: The World and Wisdom of the Rabbis of the Talmud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Vanhoye, A. “L’oikoumene dans l’ Épître aux Hébreux.” Bib 45 (1964). ______. La Structure littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux. Bruges/Paris: Declee de Brouwer, 1976. Vermes, G. Qumran in Perspective. London: SCM, 1977. Von Harnack, A. “Zwei alte dogmatische Korrekturren im Hebräerbrief.” In Studien zur Geschichte des NT und des alten Kirche. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931, 245-47. Von Rad, G. Deuteromony. London: SCM Press, 1966. Von Soden, H. “Adelphos.” In Kittel and Friedrich, vol. 1, 144-46. Vouga, F. L’Épître de Saint Jacques. CNT. Vol. 13a. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984. Ward, R. B. “The Works of Abraham: James 2:14-26.” HTR (1968): 28390. ______. “Partiality in the Assembly.” HTR 62 (1969): 87-97. White, J. L. “Ancient Greek Letters.” In Aune, 85-105. Williamson, R. “The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews.” ExpT 95 (1983): 4-8. ______. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ______. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: University Press, 1989. ______. “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” NTS 21 (1975): 300-312. Windisch, H. Die katholischen Briefe. Edited by H. Preisker. Tubingen: Mohr, 1951.

Works Cited

259

Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In Charlesworth, vol. 2, 35-142. Zerwick, M. and M. Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Vol. 2. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1969. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.